Vivek Ramaswamy doesn't know what Secularism means - Politics Discussion

[–] stickman38 (3439) a year ago

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secularism

reply

[–] [deleted] a year ago

[deleted]

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

cambridge "the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country."

OXford academic "Separation of religious institutions from state institutions "

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) a year ago

Actually it sounds like CENK doesn't know what it is. Vivek seemed to be right on the money.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

What do you think secularism means?

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) a year ago

I think the important part is that Cenk and lefties like him are hostile to traditional America and anti-religious freedom while vivek and republicans are FOR both.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

I think the important part is understanding what secularism means.

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) a year ago

No one cares about stupid semantic arguments. When you see someone doing that, that is because a leftie is unhappy about something but can't be honest about his reasons for being unhappy.

Republicans support religious freedom. Democrats support the anti-Christian bigotry and oppression.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

You are responding to a post about a semantic argument.

reply

[–] Rorikon (18378) a year ago

This whole conversation was like someone whose educated trying to talk with a redneck.

https://youtu.be/6dMOfwUP0F0?t=551

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) a year ago

Correct. And my point is such argumetns are a distraction from real issues.

For a long time liberals pretended they were for various freedoms or rights, such as freedom of religion.

Now we see that what they want is actually to use lies and rhetorical games to justify anti-religious bigotry and censorship.

Vivek specifically and republcans in general believe in religious freedom. That includes the right of religious people and groups to engage in the political process and to have their voices and interests heard and represented.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

But then he says things like he doesn't believe in secularism. He is either appealing to people who don't know what that means or he doesn't know what it means.

I don't know anything about him other that what I've heard from him in the debates. I suspect he is signaling to dumb people in a crafty way. Saying something that sounds good to the evangelicals (they think it means he wants religion in government) but it gives him cover. I'm just saying that because of his overall slimy demeanor

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) a year ago

What do you mean, "religion in government"?

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

Wanting laws based on religious scripture.

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) a year ago

oH, Like "Thou shall not commit murder"?

Ok. Yes, Vivek and republicans are for that. NO doubt. I am for that, to be clear. I also want laws against theft, ie THOUU SHALL NOT STEAL.

I think that is very reasonable.. Dems oppose it. So....

Clear choice for the voters.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4896) a year ago

I thought you were being reasonable and discussing something honestly. My mistake.

reply

[–] Corbell (10999) a year ago

There was some snark there I admit, but just a bit.

More seriously, my point is religious people and groups have the right to advocate for laws that represent their beliefs, just like non-religious people do, even if their beliefs are RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

It is actually a form of oppression to prevent them from having the same right to the political process as anyone else.

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) a year ago

He had the right idea; he didn't have to go searching internet scriptures to provide him with whatever answer the leftoid was expecting to hear.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

no he didnt. he doesnt understand the basic definition. can losers like you ever admit your side made a mistake? it has nothing to do with "internet scriptures". its about the well known meaning of a word. you are so dumb.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3439) a year ago

It's a cheap shot at Vivek. He might have misinterpreted the definition but I still think he would be a good president. At least he appears to be serious about getting out of wars which the war machine deep state won't like that.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3439) a year ago

And he is certainly smarter than Trump. lol...

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) a year ago

Smart enough to constantly use MAGA talking points from Trump.

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

Cenk is also wrong. Secularism denotes a separation between church and state, which has nothing to do with freedom of religion. You can have a secular nation that forbids all religion, no religions, or only allows one religion or certain religions.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

please stop

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) a year ago

More internet scriptures.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

What is it you think is the only valid way of determining what the commonly accepted definition is for something? What is the difference between an accurate page that is truthful about a topic, and "internet scripture", in your mind?

Wikipedia is the largest online encyclopedia that, whilst it can have varying levels of inaccuracy, does require citations for its content.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

yes its from the internet... stop drinking bleach. theres plenty of sources. if i listed a book instead you'd just scream "leftist academic wrote that!"

this isnt even up for discussion thats what secularism is. but you are so beta you have to simp for your politicians and deny reality to defend your side.

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) a year ago

No one here has asked you to educate them with internet scriptures or propaganda in order for you to prove anything.

You are demonstrating how insecure you are about using common sense, deductive reasoning, and any independent critical thinking which you clearly lack.

Others know how to use the internet, and you are making a fool of yourself by whatever it is you think or believe that you are trying to prove.

this isnt even up for discussion thats what secularism is. but you are so beta you have to simp for your politicians and deny reality to defend your side.

A perfectly projected description of how leftists like you think and react.👏

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

"da internet is mean to me cause it has facts that trigger me!!!"

you are an idiot.. where have i ever simped for a politican on here once? name it little beta?

you do know most people think you, kowalski and Keelai are this sites biggest losers right?

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) a year ago

Stop been such a little pussy and go back to using your main account, Canuck.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

everyone knows you are this sites biggest pussy even more so than Keelai.

the E and P words, evidence and proof are the scariest things to you. it makes you tremble and piss your pants when you have to actually support your mentally ill rants

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

you are like this sites little retarded hunchback everyone cant stand. you sit there howling incoherently and no one really wants to look at you. we just make fun of you and dont take you seriously.

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) a year ago

we just make fun of you and dont take you seriously.

hahaha🤣, dumbass, you are taking me seriously enough that you continue responding to me and with multiple replies.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

i cant make fun of you and respond? you are the dancing monkey, the town idiot. we make fun of you for pleasure. then you run away. its the best

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) a year ago

>No one here has asked you to educate them with internet scriptures or propaganda in order for you to prove anything.

I've seen you provide sources from the internet (although not lately). What makes your sources somehow not "internet scripture" or "propaganda"?

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

Over 20 "secular" countries listed in your link have implemented religious restrictions.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FT_21.11.10_bannedReligiousGroups_map.png

You're sounding like a cult moron.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

i wont do your work for you but list after. lets take the first North american one

the Bahamas. while Obeah is officially illegal, the US report found "There were no reports of significant societal actions affecting religious freedom"

https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/BAHAMAS-2018-INTERNATIONAL-RELIGIOUS-FREEDOM-REPORT.pdf

But again im not here to defend the Bahamas or any particular nations secularism, imperfect secularism or lack there of. im here stating words have usages, and thats what a secularism means. because the Bahamas is not completely secular lets just say, doesnt mean secularism does not exist exist and does not have a definition or meaning? are you dumb?

im in a "cult" because words have definitions? and thats the definition of secular? which Vivek had no understanding of? try again. but dont faceplant this time.

its like claiming "freedom of the press means the right of newspapers, magazines, etc., to report news without being controlled by the government.". and you saying "yaaa but russia doesnt have freedom of the press so freedom of the press doesnt mean is the right of newspapers, magazines, etc., to report news without being controlled by the government."

as the kids say "cool story bro". this doesnt change what freedom of the press means.

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

The Bahamas is secular, says so in your own link. It's literally... the definition of secular. Lol.

secular
1 of 2
adjective
sec·u·lar ˈse-kyə-lər

1
a
: of or relating to the worldly or temporal
secular concerns
b
: not overtly or specifically religious
secular music
c
: not ecclesiastical or clerical
secular courts
secular landowners
2
: not bound by monastic vows or rules
specifically : of, relating to, or forming clergy not belonging to a religious order or congregation
a secular priest

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

The Bahamas is secular, says so in your own link. It's literally... the definition of secular. Lol.

so what are you arguing then clown boy.

wow you cherry picked one places definition :0. and ignored others. as well as the commonly understood "secular nation" or "secular state" which is the topic of Vivek and Cenk. its clear Vivek doesn't understand waht this means in the context which is embarassing.

did you forget when i said not to faceplant?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.

Secularism is most commonly thought of as the separation of religion from civil affairs and the state and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere.[1]

earlier you said

Cenk is also wrong. Secularism denotes a separation between church and state, which has nothing to do with freedom of religion. You can have a secular nation that forbids all religion, no religions, or only allows one religion or certain religions.

no you cant have a "secular nation" that only allows one religion. that would be favouring a religion over others. that is not secular, that is a religious nation, the opposite of secularism. the idea of secularism is that you dont favor or disfavour any religion and keep it seperate from the state.

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

Yeah, exactly the definition I gave in the beginning. I rest my case. xD

Here, I'll explain it.

"Secularism is the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion."
Many religious people would say inalienable rights come from a god, therefore the constitution is founded on religious principles.

"Secularism is most commonly thought of as the separation of religion from civil affairs and the state and may be broadened to a similar position seeking to remove or to minimize the role of religion in any public sphere.[1]"
Vivek likely doesn't want to remove or minimize the role of religion in the public sphere.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

Vivek said he is against secularims. then in this video says Cenk calls him out on it and Vivek says what he is for and Cenk says "thats secularism". Vivek didnt even know what secularism is.

so again WHAT ARE YOU ARGUING.

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

Counter-point: YOU don't know what secularism is.

We haven't gotten around to arguing yet, because we're still not agreeing on a definition. It's hard to argue ideas when you're stuck arguing on word choice. If you want to argue what secularism means TO YOU, I think you've already done fine with that, but you haven't demonstrated "Vivek didn't know what secularism is". All you've done is tried to play "hide-the-ball" with his position.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

you just said you agree with my post of the definition of secularism. Which is the same ive be arguing since my initial reply. now i dont know what it is?

You - "Yeah, exactly the definition I gave in the beginning. I rest my case. xD (in relation to me posting the definition i agree with)"

15 mins later

You - "because we're still not agreeing on a definition"

Which one is it?

you are flailing now because you just wanted to argue and be a contrarian and dont even remember why you posted. You claimed that "Theres 20 countries on your list that arent even secular!" then when i addressed on you said "yaa thats secular". then you completely dropped that argument. you are just arguing to argue

The video demonstrates that. ill reiterate because you are trying to dodge

"Vivek (previously) said he is against secularism. then in this video says Cenk calls him out on it and Vivek says what he is for and Cenk says "thats secularism". Vivek didnt even know what secularism is."

you are just trying to argue and dont even remember why. Your life less empty now you get your crumbs of attention?

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

"you just said you agree with my post of the definition of secularism."
you can't read

"You claimed that 'Theres 20 countries on your list that arent even secular!'"
you can't read

come back when you learn what words mean.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

i posted your quotes but nice attempt! so again what's your argument about my initial premise? stop dodging? stop just trying to get my attention and be a contrarian

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

Fine, I'm accepting your premise, "secularism = freedom of religion", now what do you want to argue about? Oh, right, that Vivek doesn't know what secularism is!! Well, now I can't accept your fucking premise, can I dumbass?

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

Oh, right, that Vivek doesn't know what secularism is!

yes that was my post... you are acting like its shocking and unreasonable i would focus on that.

goodbye you failed hard here

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

I already explained like 5 times how you didn't know what secularism is, and you still think it's freedom of religion. Ok then, keep "owning the conservs".

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

apparently all the definitions ive provided and subscribe to are wrong. because, you cherry picked one. good job!i dont need to own you your own typing does that itself. you got attention though your life is abit less lonely.

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

Well, one of your definitions included a list of over 20 secular states without freedom of religion, so at this point I'm just wondering how you can be this retarded. It has to be narcissism.

reply

[–] ShadowHunter (814) a year ago

retard strikes again!

i asked you about your "20 nations" and so i brought up the first, the bahamas. you completely abandoned that and didnt elaborate further. not my fault. theres also such things as degrees. things are rarely "perfect". we have an archetypical model for example capitalism or communism. But none really meet them 100%. so we compare it to the archetypical model and see how closely it aligns to it. welcome to political science 101.

also if wikis list is wrong but the definition ive given right, it doesnt matter. which is my argument about Vivek not understanding the definition. wipe that drool from your chin.

reply

[–] CarterBlunt (1412) a year ago

Abandoned? I said it's secular, you fucking hillbilly wanker.

"things are rarely "perfect". we have an archetypical model for example capitalism or communism. But none really meet them 100%."
So, what you're saying is a country can be secular without having freedom of religion. Why are we arguing?

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) a year ago

I said it's secular, you fucking hillbilly wanker.

What else do you expect when they have to rely on internet scriptures for everything?

reply

[–] Keelai (36123) a year ago

He's as dumb as a wall. He is literally promoting Secularism.

reply

[–] tvfan (14545) a year ago

Says the biggest propagandist on MC.

reply

[–] Keelai (36123) a year ago

You're trolling, again.

reply

[–] stickman38 (3439) a year ago

I have to be honest, this is a very trivial thing to debate. Vivek interpreted the word slightly differently than Cenk, neither one of them are necessarily wrong. Now, I do think Cenk is a dickwad. And sure, Vivek says some pretty crazy stuff but I am serious when I say this, he's a decent guy and smarter than most. He's more in touch with today's America than every republican on that debate stage from a few weeks ago.

In my view, it's a race between Vivek and Ron DeSantis at this point, of course, that is if Trump is not in prison soon.

And how cool would it be to have someone named "RamaSwamy" in the oval office! lol...

reply