Terrorists are still around...

[Chico]

In the examples you decided to cite Chico, yet again you quote non democratic regimes. And then blame the faults of such undemocratic regimes not on the fact they're undemocratic; but on their secular traits.

Is this to say that communism and dictatorships are fine with you, provided their governance has a strong taint of religion about them ?

kerching - you have hit the nail on the head - democracies embrace Christian principles. Where there is a true democracy the Spectre of Christianity rears its beautiful head. Think about which came first, Christianity or True Democracy? Can one go without the other .........you tell me.

[sasguru]

Last I heard India is a non-Christian democracy as is Japan, South Korea and a few others.

Some of these are a tad more democratic than the US. Remember how Bush was "elected" in the first place?

[Chico]

Last I heard India is a non-Christian democracy as is Japan, South Korea and a few others.

Look again sir ... question I pose to you ... do any of these democracies strive to keep religion or Christianity out of the Govt - nope. Who set up the democracies in those countries? Answer the Christian West. Thank you for making my point.

[sasguru]

In practice the separation of church and state is widely practiced in all democracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_state

[BobTheCrate]

Christian democracies have been hugely more willing to step back from politics, certainly political governance.

It is Christianity's willingness to step back from politics, that has enabled those democracies to perform so much better for their peoples.

I have no difficulty with or particular criticism of Christian principles that have been overwhelmingly responsible for the culture I live in.

I'm just pleased the Christian Church happily accepts it cannot & should not author or co-author legislation. I suspect that is something unfortunately, you would like to change.

[Chico]

sasguru

From same article ...

Some political philosophies, such as Marxism generally hold the belief that any religious influence in a state or society is a negative thing. In nations that have officially embraced such beliefs, such as the former Eastern European Communist Bloc countries, the religious institution was made subject to the secular state, in the public interest. Freedom to worship was subject to licensure and other restrictions, and the doctrine of the church was monitored to assure conformity to secular law, and inoffensiveness to the official public philosophy. In the Western democracies, it is generally agreed that it is generally agreed that such a policy is not conducive to freedom of religion.

So essentially what you are saying is that you are a Marxist...

[sasguru]

No. To find out what's wrong with your argument, please look here.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm

For your homework, please tell me what logical fallacy you have just used?

[BobTheCrate]

So essentially what you are saying is that you are a Marxist...

What a ridiculously stupid conclusion to draw.

Marxist regimes outlaw robbery and murder. Because you too Chico presumably agree with such outlaws, doesn't that make you a Marxist according your logic above ?

I am not advocating preventing people from practising their religion.

I am advocating keeping religion out of politics. That should not be a difficult distinction to understand.

[Chico]

Oh dear - where is the section for when... "sasguru loses the argument once again and resorts to cut and paste in a desperate attempt to salvage his credibility and dignity"....?

[sasguru]

Furthermore the origins of democracy predate Christianity and are generally ascribed to the ancient Greeks. The Western roots of democracy are due to the appropriation of Greek ideas.