Re: Sacred tangent (was Re: just checking...)

Isnt this all moot anyway since the constitution was written to specifically
eliminate state religion and a theocracy.

Nothing about the sacred constitution means this is a religion.  Mike is
right, this is really nit picking for the sake of it.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2011 4:00 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Sacred tangent (was Re: just checking...)

On Sat, 15 Jan 2011, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>>> I'd argue the other countries' religion/nationalism mix is worse as 
>>> others have national religions.
>>
>> Except most of those other countries are turning increasingly secular 
>> and nobody even *cares* about the national religions there any more.
>
> Mostly true for Europe, but I could see that changing.
>
> Then you have other parts of the world like India, the Middle East, 
> Africa. Or are we only talking about First World countries?

Hmmm, when you said "national religion" I may have thought "state church", 
which of course would narrow my focus to Christianity (i.e. churches). 
But, sure, if you're looking at, say, a Muslim theocracy like Iran, then 
that's definitely worse.  (Does India *have* an official religion, BTW? 
I know the British separated India from Pakistan and Bangladesh along 
religious lines, purely as a matter of demographics -- majority Hindus 
over here and majority Muslims over there -- but was Hinduism ever made 
the *official* religion of the Indian democracy?)

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot