Originally Posted by bulldogg

And there we have it, just as my grandpa told me when I was a kid - "If you ever want to lose a friend just strike up a conversation about money, politics or religion."

Smart Grandpa but he probably didn't have a computer.

Originally Posted by bulldogg

I think the point of contention is the definition of a secular vs religious society. I would argue the former is one which is not a theocracy or one whose laws are a direct derivation from a religious source. Whereas the latter is one in which the citizens are governed by a system of laws and a government which is under direct influence or guidance from a religious source.

I think you're confusing society with Government. I consider a secular society to be one which is worldly rather than spiritual. One in which religion would have no meaning in everyday life. Most ministers would call it a heathen society but you and I know that's not true.

Ok, I see your definition. I view a government as being a defining characteristic of a society especially one that is democratically elected no matter how specious the system is in actual practice. I think it represents a microcosm of the group as a whole as it is chosen to represent them and also people choose the government they have either through action and sacrifice (to gain a democracy) or through their compliance and inaction (autocratic forms allowed to exist). I would argue that in the end I hold the people accountable one way or another and hence their government is an accurate representation of their society.

And no, you're right, he did not have a computer, he was much smarter than I.

Off Topic but for the record: "Responsability before God and humans" is mentioned in the German Constitution.

The USA is a Judeao-Christian society governed by a secular government.

A non-secular government, i.e. a theocracy, cannot exist as a democracy. By definition, a theocracy is governed by the clerics of a particular religious group or order, and cannot be democratic simply because democracy is antithetical to theocracy.

India is primarily a Hindu society, but it's governent is secular as well. There are only a small handful of non-secular governments in the world, and they exist primarily in Buddhist and Muslim countries.

Originally Posted by localgrizzly

India is primarily a Hindu society, but it's governent is secular as well. There are only a small handful of non-secular governments in the world, and they exist primarily in BUDDHIST and Muslim countries.

I'm glad you mentioned the word I misquoted in capital letters: Many westernes want to "Free Tibet" and support the Dalai Lama who propages a message of compassion, love and all sorts of good **** Mod edit: . But...what would become of Tibet if China granted it independance? Would the Dalai Lama not come back and claim his seat as ruler of Tibet? Would Tibet be any more "free" than it is now?

Wow Mohmar, I've read many of your posts with amused interest. But comparing the Dalai Lama with Deng Xiao Ping or his henchmen..... well, I don't know whether to laugh or question your sensibility!?

As much as it pains me, he actually does have a point if you were to assume that a modern Tibet under the Dalai Lama were to follow the course of its history before assimilation and annexation by the PRC. It was a fuedal system with slavery and despotism under the previous traditional leaders. I am NOT saying I support PRC's actions or treatment of Tibetans. I think under either system these really pleasant, yet simple, folk get screwed. They are in much the same plight as the Kurds but owing to the peaceful ways of the Buddha they follow they do not participate in or advocate resistance to their rulers no matter who they are.

Originally Posted by Ted

Wow Mohmar, I've read many of your posts with amused interest. But comparing the Dalai Lama with Deng Xiao Ping or his henchmen..... well, I don't know whether to laugh or question your sensibility!?

I'm not saying Chinese rule is a lot less despotic (Frankly, I can't tell), I just wanted to tell people that celebrities and others supporting the Dalai Lama may be a little bit misguided when it comes to questioning (or rather, not questioning) his motives.

Well, we will never know what his true motives or intentions are. But the misguidedness... sure that will happen! I reckon Richard Gere has somewhat of a over-romanticised image of the whole affair. But I give the Dalai Lama a bit more credit then that of a slave holding despot.

Well, I have a simple answer.

The United States of America was founded as a nation with it's rule, laws, and customs derived from those of Christan Religon. Part of America's founding is that the State shall not create a State Religon like what England did. And that the citizens of the United States of America have the legal right to practice their religon in peace and not fear those from being ostersize by their fellow citizens.

Is America a secular soceity?

No, America is a Christan Nation with a value and oath to protect those that are not Christan.