• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Secularism and atheism has no place in the public sector, only spirituality

Ovid said:
What made you think I was asking your permission.
Click to expand...

You don't seem to know how forums work. You post something, people respond. He responded and was actually correct. You need to figure that out.
 
Manc Skipper said:
It puts your postings into Italian fascist context, if it were needed.
Click to expand...

Ever notice how the more people claim to have superior knowledge the more ignorant they actually are?
 
Ovid said:
Your nonsense is a wonderful example of how modern America is going the way of Rome, and trying to revise history to suit its deviant self-interests.
Click to expand...

I am not the one trying (and failing miserably) to revise history.
Your dreams of a theocracy will never materialize.
 
Ovid said:
This is actually the correct interpretation of the 1st Amendment,
Click to expand...
Please share how you arrived at that interpretation. There is nothing in the amendment that suggests that, especially when we consider Article VI of the Constitution.

which was intended to actively favor spirtual belief systems which acknowledge the realities of natural law and moral objectivism over degenerate and secularistic ideologies which foster moral nihilism or relativism.
Click to expand...
I am not aware of anything that supports your claim for that intent.

The stipulaton regarding establishing a religion merely meant that one specific sect (e.x. Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist) could not be favored over others; however all belief systems which acknowledge these objective truths could and should actively be favored over secularistic or atheistic belief systems which deny the objective truths of natural law.
Click to expand...
There is just no way to infer that from the 1st amendment.
 
Ovid said:
By definition, Satanism is not spirituality.
Click to expand...

But, of course, it actually is spirituality, as you yourself have admitted.
The LeVayan Church of Satan is an atheist organization which is more philosophically similar to Nietzsche or Epicurus than actual "Satanism" in the "Omen" sense.
Click to expand...

The Church of Satan doesn't represent all of Satanism. You should really try and know what you're talking about before talking.
The theistic satanist cults that allegedly exist might qualify as something of an "anti-spirituality", but of course would not fit the bill described above, as they would know acknowlege the supremacy of natural law, but rather try to destroy it with 'anti-art' and 'anti-aesthetics'.
Click to expand...

But, as you've already admitted, Satanism is spirituality, by definition.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
But, of course, it actually is spirituality, as you yourself have admitted.

The Church of Satan doesn't represent all of Satanism. You should really try and know what you're talking about before talking.

But, as you've already admitted, Satanism is spirituality, by definition.
Click to expand...
No, assuming it was an "theistic" Satanic cult it would qualify as "anti-spirituality", much as the "anti-art" movement or degenerate art movement would not qualify as art which would be worthy of social acceptance.

So no, Satanism of any variety deserves no 1st Amendment protection, and should be relegated to a cult and lose its protected religious status, as should other anti-spiritual cults such as Wicca. Only monotheistic faiths which acknowledge the supremacy of one universal truth deserve any 1st Amendment rights.
 
Ovid said:
No, assuming it was an "theistic" Satanic cult it would qualify as "anti-spirituality", much as the "anti-art" movement or degenerate art movement would not qualify as art which would be worthy of social acceptance.
Click to expand...

No, by your own admission and definition, it would be spiritual.

Ironic that you have to be educated about what your own claims actually mean and how they apply.
 
Quag said:
No the founding fathers were not members of whatever evil cult you are part of. As to beliefs being incompatible with Americas intent that would be you with your evil ideas of a theocracy.
Click to expand...
Yawn...
 
Ovid said:
Yawn...
Click to expand...

Yes you make a claim you cannot back up and then try to brush off when someone points out your BS is just that BS
 
Quag said:
Yes you make a claim you cannot back up and then try to brush off when someone points out your BS is just that BS
Click to expand...
Yawn again..
 
Ovid said:
No, assuming it was an "theistic" Satanic cult it would qualify as "anti-spirituality", much as the "anti-art" movement or degenerate art movement would not qualify as art which would be worthy of social acceptance.

So no, Satanism of any variety deserves no 1st Amendment protection, and should be relegated to a cult and lose its protected religious status, as should other anti-spiritual cults such as Wicca. Only monotheistic faiths which acknowledge the supremacy of one universal truth deserve any 1st Amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Who decides what one universal truth is followed?
 
Ovid said:
The fundamental laws of the universe.
Click to expand...

You don't actually mean that. You talk about gay people being degenerates, as well as atheists. Your "fundamental laws of the universe" include a huge amount of religious bigotry intertwined.
 
ajn678 said:
You don't actually mean that. You talk about gay people being degenerates, as well as atheists. Your "fundamental laws of the universe" include a huge amount of religious bigotry intertwined.
Click to expand...
Religion and the fundamental laws of the universe, are of course interlinked logically and philosophically.
 
Ovid said:
Religion and the fundamental laws of the universe, are of course interlinked logically and philosophically.
Click to expand...

Religion is a man made invention, there is nothing natural about it. Also how is gay sex against nature?
 
Ovid said:
Religion and the fundamental laws of the universe, are of course interlinked logically and philosophically.
Click to expand...

Please feel free to prove that claim
 
ajn678 said:
Religion is an man made invention, there is nothing natural about it.
Click to expand...
In actuality, man is a religion-made invention.

The only thing man can be made into is an atheist, he is born a spiritualist.

Also how is gay sex against nature?
Click to expand...
It is inspired by deviance.
 
Ovid said:
In actuality, man is a religion-made invention.

The only thing man can be made into is an atheist, he is born a spiritualist.


It is inspired by deviance.
Click to expand...

There's really no point in discussing this with someone so devoid of intelligence, however I am bored tonight.

How is man a religion-made invention. Also, how is a human born a spiritualist? A human's belief system as a child is based on what they were taught. Why is gay sex deviant?
 
ajn678 said:
There's really no point in discussing this with someone so devoid of intelligence, however I am bored tonight.

How is man a religion-made invention. Also, how is a human born a spiritualist? A human's belief system as a child is based on what they were taught.
Click to expand...
This myth of course, is as old as Tabula Rasa, and just as nonsensical as it was many years ago.

A man's belief system is simply based on whether he follows the universal truth of logic, or the external teachings of man irregardless of whether they conform to logic or not, like a sheep unwilling to question anything even if it sends him to ruin.

But of course, the universal laws of logic and natural order are knowable to all, with or without teaching, and preferably without.

Why is gay sex deviant?
Click to expand...
Why is pedophilia deviant?
 
Ovid said:
This myth of course, is as old as Tabula Rasa, and just as nonsensical as it was many years ago.

A man's belief system is simply based on whether he follows the universal truth of logic, or the external teachings of man irregardless of whether they conform to logic or not, like a sheep unwilling to question anything even if it sends him to ruin.

But of course, the universal laws of logic and natural order are knowable to all, with or without teaching, and preferably without.


Why is pedophilia deviant?
Click to expand...

The problem is that logic has nothing to do with religion. In fact it is the antithesis of religion. Pedophilia is deviant because it is illegal to have sex with kids.
 
Ovid said:
In actuality, man is a religion-made invention.

The only thing man can be made into is an atheist, he is born a spiritualist.
Click to expand...

Feel free to try and prove this claim


It is inspired by deviance.
Click to expand...
You are free to try and prove this one as well.
Of course unless you can do they are just unsupported and irrelevant claims
 
Ovid said:
This is actually the correct interpretation of the 1st Amendment, which was intended to actively favor spirtual belief systems which acknowledge the realities of natural law and moral objectivism over degenerate and secularistic ideologies which foster moral nihilism or relativism.

The stipulaton regarding establishing a religion merely meant that one specific sect (e.x. Catholic, Protestant, Buddhist) could not be favored over others; however all belief systems which acknowledge these objective truths could and should actively be favored over secularistic or atheistic belief systems which deny the objective truths of natural law.

So I would say that atheism and secularistic ideologies should be actively removed from any and all public sectors, and that spiritual ideologies should be directly promoted in the public sector with or without taxpayer dollars, regardless of who wants it or not, per the 1st Amendment as properly intended by the founders. Likewise secularistic ideology is not protected under the 1st Amendment, and should actively be removed from the public sphere whenever possible; this would likely help steer our nation's course in the right direction and provide a philosophical bastion against secular moral degeneracy.
Click to expand...

Oh cool lets start with Satanism or Islam, that should teach those damn degenerate's.
 
Ovid said:
Not at all, I simply want it the way the Founders and the Constitution originally intended, and examining them in their context, it definitely seems to me that they would have been adamantly against secular ideologies like humanism, or any incompatible with the notion of "natural law".
And this of course wouldn't allow for Christianity specifically to be the sole religion, any religion compatible with that notion of natural law, such as Buddhism would be permitted.

The truth forebears of anything resembling sharia law are humanists and secularists trying to infiltrate our nation's institutions. Which is why we should stop coddling them, and flat out actively remove them from the public sector, and restore spiritual elements within public schools, such as prayer.
Essentially a reversal of what we see today; except it would be the kid brining the Dawkins book to class told to put it in the locker out of public viewing, not the kid bringing the Bible, or even the Koran - I can be inclusive, even Islam has more redeeming value than secular degeneracy.
Click to expand...
All your posts in this string are strident nonsense.

'Sharia Law is secular and humanist'! What!
It's not only religiously IslamIC, it's IslamIST.
It is NOT secular or humanist, it's doctrinaire, Scriptural, and definitely not "humanist.'
OFF the wall.

As far as the topic in general, the Supreme Court has ruled that Non-religion/Non-belief is a protected Class, just as any religion is.
The founders didn't imagine that science would prove Genesis largely Wrong...
just as they never imagined Slaves were human for the purpose of the Constitution.
Today's Ben Franklin would probably more resemble Atheist Thomas Edison.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
All your posts in this string are strident nonsense.

Sharia Law is secular and humanist! What!
It's not only religiously IslamIC, it's IslamIST.
It is NOT secular or humanist, it's doctrinaire, Scriptural, and definitely not "humanist.'
OFF the wall.

As far as the topic in general, the Supreme Court has ruled that Non-religion/non-belief is a protected Class just as any religion is.
The founders didn't imagine that science would prove Genesis largely Wrong...
just as they never imagined Slaves were human for the purpose of the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Science didn't prove Genesis wrong, it just affirmed it.

As evolution of course, resembles the creative acts of humans. Much as a computer has evolved over eras from simple calculators, into technologies of increasing complexity such as super computers.

Which of course very much resembles the creative process of evolution, with all life beginning as a simple form, evolving over eras into increasingly more complex forms.

Hence evolution does more to prove creation than disprove it, despite atheists deviant attempts to warp it, and create a degenerate secular religion using 'evolution' as a creation myth for their depraved beliefs, rather than as science and proof of a creative act, which it logically is.
 
Ovid said:
Science didn't prove Genesis wrong, it just affirmed it.

As evolution of course, resembles the creative acts of humans. Much as a computer has evolved over eras from simple calculators, into technologies of increasing complexity such as super computers.

Which of course very much resembles the creative process of evolution, with all life beginning as a simple form, evolving over eras into increasingly more complex forms.

Hence evolution does more to prove creation than disprove it, despite atheists deviant attempts to warp it, and create a degenerate secular religion using 'evolution' as a creation myth for their depraved beliefs, rather than as science and proof of a creative act, which it logically is.
Click to expand...
It did prove Genesis wrong, even if interpreted liberally with things like 'days'. Even the order of creation is demonstrably Wrong.

42% of Americans believe [Religiously] man was created in his present form in the last 10,000 Years.
That is INCONSISTENT with evolution.
In U.S., 42% Believe Creationist View of Human Origins | Gallup
(Roughly, Young Earth Creationism)
YEC and variants have been shown Wrong by a Dozen Sciences.
These Nutbags, according to you, should be protected, while sane people eliminated from the Constitution.
Only 7% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences/NAS believe in god.
Let's strip them of their Constitutional rights, and promote Westboro Baptist!

You WHIFFED on your OFF the wall Sharia claim.
You WHIFFED on Constitutional Intent.
You undoubtedly Don't agree with [real] evolution you claim is godly.

When someone appears with 'Goddledeegook', there's Always a Premise Error... or four.
Yours is especially Off, because you not only demand spirituality, you further and arbitrarily/Wrongly try and pick and choose by making the Bizarro claim that Sharia is Secular/Humanist!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom