Our attitude concerning mockery of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon

[phlogistician]

Syncretism is an example of a secular religious society.

Oxymoron alert!

"Secularity (adjective form secular) is the state of being separate from religion"

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular)

And you link does not demonstrate your point. Wikipedia, back at ya.

 

[iceaura]

Syncretism is an example of a secular religious society.

And snow is dry water.

This is silly. Secular is a perfectly good word with a meaning, and its meaning incorporates non-religious. A non-religious religious society is a confusion, not a useful description.

Good luck with your brand of "secular" multiculturalism.

? That would be what, pray tell ?

 

[S.A.M.]

And snow is dry water.

This is silly. Secular is a perfectly good word with a meaning, and its meaning incorporates non-religious. A non-religious religious society is a confusion, not a useful description.

A syncretic religious society is not a nonreligious society.

But it is secular in that all religions even if contradictory/disparate are reconciled.

From experiences with eastern tradition, it is the most viable form of society

? That would be what, pray tell ?

Still work in progress.:shrug:

However I would say that FSM, IPU and hypnotoad are not it.

 

[iceaura]

But it is secular in that all religions even if contradictory/disparate are reconciled.

That attribute has nothing to do with its being secular. That would depend on how the reconciliation was accomplished.

? That would be what, pray tell ? ”

Still work in progress

So are they all. Even the "syncretic" attempts in India may yet reconcile fundie Islam with some other religion as equal entities under one government without taking the step the US took, and banning the institutions of religion from the governance of the State. But it's got a ways to go, and it's been a while.

From experiences with eastern tradition, it is the most viable form of society

From observations of eastern societies, it is viable to the extent it is not seriously attempted on any scale greater than a city, and squalid to a greater extent than is associated with "viable" in my own tradition.

 

[phlogistician]

A syncretic religious society is not a nonreligious society.

But it is secular in that all religions even if contradictory/disparate are reconciled.

What, one load of religious bullshit negates another load of religious bullshit?

No, it's just a big heap of contradictory religious bullshit. You don't even need to get 'syncretic' to have contradictions, Sam, just look at any religion, and you'll find a discrepancy between scripture and action.

 

[S.A.M.]

That attribute has nothing to do with its being secular. That would depend on how the reconciliation was accomplished.
So are they all. Even the "syncretic" attempts in India may yet reconcile fundie Islam with some other religion as equal entities under one government without taking the step the US took, and banning the institutions of religion from the governance of the State. But it's got a ways to go, and it's been a while.

From observations of eastern societies, it is viable to the extent it is not seriously attempted on any scale greater than a city, and squalid to a greater extent than is associated with "viable" in my own tradition.

Where do you get that notion? Historically its been present throughout the country in India. And if you look at Japanese Shinto Buddhism, Chinese Buddhism and ancestor worship and Indian religious movements like Bhakti and the cult of the Thuggees, you can hardly miss it.

What, one load of religious bullshit negates another load of religious bullshit?

No, it's just a big heap of contradictory religious bullshit. You don't even need to get 'syncretic' to have contradictions, Sam, just look at any religion, and you'll find a discrepancy between scripture and action.

There are also agnostic and atheist movements in these, though for some reason they never last very long. Probably the followers are too offensive for civilised society

 

[phlogistician]

There are also agnostic and atheist movements in these, though for some reason they never last very long. Probably the followers are too offensive for civilised society

Agnostics and atheists that compromise and adopt another's religious practices?

I think you need to back that one up. Without the jibes.

 

[S.A.M.]

Agnostics and atheists that compromise and adopt another's religious practices?

Thats actually pretty common look at the White House.

I think you need to back that one up

Religious philosophies embracing atheism.

Atheistic schools are found in Hinduism, which is otherwise a very theistic religion. The thoroughly materialistic and anti-religious philosophical Cārvāka School that originated in India around 6th century BCE is probably the most explicitly atheistic school of philosophy in India. This branch of Indian philosophy is classified as a heterodox system and is not considered part of the six orthodox schools of Hinduism, but it is noteworthy as evidence of a materialistic movement within Hinduism.[60] Chatterjee and Datta explain that our understanding of Cārvāka philosophy is fragmentary, based largely on criticism of the ideas by other schools, and that it is not a living tradition:

"Though materialism in some form or other has always been present in India, and occasional references are found in the Vedas, the Buddhistic literature, the Epics, as well as in the later philosophical works we do not find any systematic work on materialism, nor any organized school of followers as the other philosophical schools possess. But almost every work of the other schools states, for reputation, the materialistic views. Our knowledge of Indian materialism is chiefly based on these."[61]

Other Indian philosophies generally regarded as atheistic include Classical Samkhya and Purva Mimamsa. The rejection of a personal creator God is also seen in Jainism and Buddhism in India.[62]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#Early_Indic_religion

Without the jibes.

Thats a laugh, coming from you.

 

[phlogistician]

Thats actually pretty common look at the White House.

The article said that evangelicals were being taken for a ride, but it disn't say it was by atheists. Even then, using someone's religion is not adopting, or acquiescing, so again, your point is not made.

Religious philosophies embracing atheism.

So you have a messed up bunch of Hindus. That's a religion that's messed up, not a bunch of atheists, so again, you have not proved your point. I already said that you do not need syncretism to provide contradiction, and your link proves my point; that it can be found inside a single religion.

Thats a laugh, coming from you.

At least I'm honest. Which is something that cannot be said for you. You tell lies, and twist words. If I get testy with people like you, it's because liars deserve it.

 

[S.A.M.]

The article said that evangelicals were being taken for a ride, but it disn't say it was by atheists. Even then, using someone's religion is not adopting, or acquiescing, so again, your point is not made.

By people professing to be Christians. Most likely atheists.

So you have a messed up bunch of Hindus. That's a religion that's messed up, not a bunch of atheists, so again, you have not proved your point. I already said that you do not need syncretism to provide contradiction, and your link proves my point; that it can be found inside a single religion.

How very white man colonial of you to dismiss 5000 years of philosophical thought. You do know that Hinduism was not considered a single religion until a lazy British colonial historian decided to write about it without stepping foot in India. Possibly he had thoughts similar to yours.

At least I'm honest. Which is something that cannot be said for you. You tell lies, and twist words. If I get testy with people like you, it's because liars deserve it.

Very honest of you indeed

 

[(Q)]

At least I'm honest. Which is something that cannot be said for you. You tell lies, and twist words. If I get testy with people like you, it's because liars deserve it.

From the get-go, sam and I engaged due to those very reasons. Sam was defended, but as time went on and more people began realizing the same thing, the defenses all but disappeared. Many of those same defenders are now fierce opponents.

Lying is never worth it. Is there no doctrine in Islam to teach you that, sam?

 

[S.A.M.]

From the get-go, sam and I engaged due to those very reasons. Sam was defended, but as time went on and more people began realizing the same thing, the defenses all but disappeared. Many of those same defenders are now fierce opponents.

Lying is never worth it. Is there no doctrine in Islam to teach you that, sam?

I back up everything I say, unlike you or the oh so honest phlogistician.

 

[(Q)]

I back up everything I say, unlike you or the oh so honest phlogistician.

Sam, I'm rather sick and tired of your lies and am not going to follow you down another one of your rat holes.

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, I'm rather sick and tired of your lies and am not going to follow you down another one of your rat holes.

Suffering from the results of your early indoctrination under Soviet anti-religious propaganda, I presume.

 

[phlogistician]

I back up everything I say, unlike you or the oh so honest phlogistician.

I challenge you on that, show me where I have fallen short, or resign the debate.

 

[S.A.M.]

I challenge you on that, show me where I have fallen short, or resign the debate.

You just dismissed a 5000 year old continuous culture as "a messed up bunch of Hindoos".

If that is not an indication of your boundless ignorance I don't know what is.

 

[phlogistician]

By people professing to be Christians. Most likely atheists.

Most likely atheists? In the USA, where a scant percentage confess to being such? Please, this is bordering on an atheist conspiracy! I know the goals of the original Illuminati were to destroy the catholic church, but what you are proposing is ludicrous!

How very white man colonial of you to dismiss 5000 years of philosophical thought. You do know that Hinduism was not considered a single religion until a lazy British colonial historian decided to write about it without stepping foot in India. Possibly he had thoughts similar to yours.

You used the term 'Hinduism' not me! Hoisted by your own petard, Sam! It's also clear you are racist and anti-atheist Sam, a nice big bag of bigotry you have going on. I didn't think Sciforums tolerated racists, so be careful what you say in future.


]

 

[phlogistician]

You just dismissed a 5000 year old continuous culture as "a messed up bunch of Hindoos".

If that is not an indication of your boundless ignorance I don't know what is.

You were trying to prove some point and failed. I pointed out that the contradiction in your post proved my point not yours. I didn't spell it 'Hindoos' either, so again you are being dishonest. Oh, and it's not me making a claim that needs to be backed up, I'm calling foul on what you claim to be proof of your assertions, so again you are being dishonest.

Really Sam, your behaviour is disgraceful.

 

[Arsalan]

This is not true. The definition of "secular" is:Secularity and secularism have nothing to do with the totality of justice, and have everything to do with religion not being a supreme force. A secular government is one whose laws are not institutionalized religious laws. Secularization means lessening the role of religion in public and private life, not simply changing the dominant religion.

--The Moderator of Linguistics

That does not in any way contradict what I said earlier about the essence of secularist government.

The very essence of secularism is that absolute justice must be practised regardless of the differences of faith and religion and colour and creed and group.

This, in essence, is the true definition of secularism. And this is exactly what the Holy Qur'an admonishes us to do in matters of state, how things should be done and how the state should be run.

When you dispense your responsibility as a government, you must dispense those responsibilities with absolute justice in mind. Now, when absolute justice is established as the central theme of a government, how could Islamic law be imposed upon non Muslim? Because it would be against justice. And so many contradictions would arise.

In the East, most people accept this. Unfortunately, the Western definition of secularism has been tarred by the brush of hatred for religion because of the actions of religious leaders. Secularism does not mean that religion can never have anything to do with it, ever. It simply means that everyone in a country will be dealt with regardless of their religion. The notion that religion and secularism are 2 totally opposite institutions which cannot in any way have anything to do with each other arose because of the ruling class of Europe at that time, which was mainly the Pope and other Christian leaders. People had enough of them. And the type of government brought to the rest of Europe by the people fleeing persecution when Islamic Spain was destroyed, was the exact same type of government which the Muslims were using at that time.

That is how Islam influenced the secularization of Europe. It is funny that most Easterners and Muslims in particular dont see a conflict between Islam and democracy and secularism. It is always people who lean towards the evolution of secularism in Christian Europe who are vehement that religion can never have anything whatsoever to do with it.

 

[S.A.M.]

Most likely atheists? In the USA, where a scant percentage confess to being such? Please, this is bordering on an atheist conspiracy! I know the goals of the original Illuminati were to destroy the catholic church, but what you are proposing is ludicrous!

You used the term 'Hinduism' not me! Hoisted by your own petard, Sam! It's also clear you are racist and anti-atheist Sam, a nice big bag of bigotry you have going on. I didn't think Sciforums tolerated racists, so be careful what you say in future.
]

You were trying to prove some point and failed. I pointed out that the contradiction in your post proved my point not yours. I didn't spell it 'Hindoos' either, so again you are being dishonest. Oh, and it's not me making a claim that needs to be backed up, I'm calling foul on what you claim to be proof of your assertions, so again you are being dishonest.

Really Sam, your behaviour is disgraceful.

I made the point but you missed it because according to you Hinduism is a religion not a set of philosophies, several of which contradict each other. Hence the allusion to boundless ignorance.

In this internet age to call the Carvaka philosophy as a bunch of messed up Hindus shows your anti-theism not my bigotry.