Secular folks should worry.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

You want church and state to be intertwined.

- Doc

This demonstrates that you haven’t been listening to what I’ve said. In one ear and out the other. If it even made it in in the first place.

Church is not synonymous with morality. Ask Res Ipsa.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

As for me, if you continue to posted bigoted nonsense, I will continue to label it as such.

And you will be grossly mistaken in your assessment. I expect you will only continue your efforts to slander me as an individual who cannot be trusted.

My life experience and actions towards my fellow human beings would act as testimony to counter your false accusations.

Unfortunately I am not able to hold that up for observation in a venue such as this where false caricatures can literally carry the day.

You should be ashamed sir.

Regards,
MG

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

the RVO of DARVO explains quite explicitly mg's recent thread participation strategy. Hmm....

Oh, he’s hardcore D’ing right now. As if he can gaslight people who track what he says better than he does ...

- Doc

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

As for me, if you continue to posted bigoted nonsense, I will continue to label it as such.

And you will be grossly mistaken in your assessment. I expect you will only continue your efforts to slander me as an individual who cannot be trusted.

My life experience and actions towards my fellow human beings would act as testimony to counter your false accusations.

Unfortunately I am not able to hold that up for observation in a venue such as this where false caricatures can literally carry the day.

You should be ashamed sir.

Regards,
MG

Add the A now.

- Doc

[honorentheos]

You started an OP that states Gen Z is irreligious which is a threat to civil society…

Well, not quite. Close, but not quite. The thrust of the IDEA that I’m proposing is that the TRENDS that we’ve observed over a long period of time now…with GenZ being a focal point of conversation and concern…are worrisome for many. Yes, religionists in particular. Granted. The Deseret News article pointed out that all people should be concerned including those that are secularists of one stripe or another.

A question was then asked either directly or indirectly by me. Is civil society, where all ideas and opinions are freely expressed without ridicule and/or cancellation of one kind or another, at risk? I then proposed that we are seeing that gradually becoming a ‘thing’. That concerns me. It ought to, in my opinion, concern everyone. Left and right of the political and religious spectrum.

Here in the discussion is where I asked we define civil society in order to confirm what was being put at risk was in fact something we collective agreed was of concern to everyone? Or are we using civil society in this instance as a stand in for religious practices? Are the differences in how younger generations donate money just different? Is their volunteer time just targeted to different causes?

The data and article were also called into question. The survey methodology is not available, nor are the questions asked, so we don't really know how to judge the claims presented. Other sources were proposed that contradicted your OP sources which you seemed rather dismissive towards as they didn't align with your political preferences. That needs repeated. The approach you choose isn't to evaluate and present cause for question. It's to dismiss contradictory sources and evidence out of hand.

So in order to consider the idea you espouse, I remain very interested in your definition of civil society.

[MG 2.0]

Your invocation of "Secularism" is simply as way of trying to justify yourself and others that your bigotry is okay.

I suppose we ought to take a moment and look at the dictionary definition of bigotry.

*stubborn or intolerant adherence to one's opinions or prejudices

If there is anyone that is demonstrating intolerance towards another’s beliefs while at the same time also demonstrating little or no understanding of the ‘other’, that would be you, sir. Your stubborn adherence to what appears to be an issue with the word ‘secular’ and its application is mind boggling. Your blind knuckleheadness and stubborn behavior in creating a caricature of another person whom you don’t even know but have reason to disparage is readily evident.

At least to one poster.

And as I’ve said, I’m sure you have your reasons.

Civility not being one of them. That is, in my estimation/opinion anyway.

I’m sorry that you have felt the need to get all worked up in regards to making a HUGE issue over definitions and applications. I’ve even tried my best to adjust to your concerns, but to little or no avail.

I’m willing to and have already demonstrated that I am willing to accept your general categorical definition of secularist as being one who has an absence of belief in God.

Why is this not good enough for you?

I’d like to make some kind of amends that will meet your satisfaction but you’re making it very difficult.

Regards,
MaG

[MG 2.0]

Can you point out the other ‘straws’ in this thread where I said something to malkie that would have warranted his making ‘hay’ over something I said to him? You’ve got to have a lot of straw to make hay.

Regards,
MG

Nope. Malkie's words themselves are pretty clear. If they want to point out other examples, they are free to do.

I figured as much.

Regards,
MG

[MG 2.0]

What MG 2.0 suggests is in no way a compromise.

I think it could be considered as such. But I’m willing to agree to disagree.

Regards,
MG

[honorentheos]

MG,

You claim to believe in the seperation of church from state. That would make you a secularist.

[MG 2.0]

the RVO of DARVO explains quite explicitly mg's recent thread participation strategy. Hmm....

Don’t know what that is. I’ve never seen those acronyms before. And I’m not going to bother looking them up.

I have no ‘strategy’. My word, can’t you tell?

You, on the other hand, I have little doubt do.

Regards,
MG