Generic names for days and months

Post Reply New Topic

Er.... yes. You did say that before I responded. Sorry for not referencing you.

You are even worse than Hezbullah here, you want to change the whole world according to your f**** beliefs, you want to remove the evolution from your education system , you want to remove space science , you want to rewrite the geological discoveries according to some f*****g myths.....and now you want to change the nomination of days and months because of their "heretic" origins.

BUT guess what?...none of these things will be removed or changed , so do the world a big favor , go pick a gun and shoot your empty skull.

But before doing that , I give this present for you : gift

Yes, I have read it. While the non-establishment clause does not contain the words 'separation of church and state', complying with that part of the Constitution has the inevitable effect of creating a de facto separation between church and state. There is no official religion, and government has no business interfering with the doctrinal affairs of churches or individuals.

The Constitution does not specify that there should be a separation of Chess Federation and State, yet there is. The Chess Federations have their meets and make their rules with essentially no interference from the government. Of course, chess is just a game. If the stakes were higher, you can bet the zealots would get involved, and there would be need to define a separation.

Well, I think the issue that is being brought up is religious neutrality, even though the government is not attempting to interfere with the practice of religion, can it really be considered religiously neutral? If it is religiously neutral then it(or the sum of its actions) must be morally neutral. Because the last part is impossible, it must be biased towards certain conclusions, which can be taken as no real separation of church and state but rather the promotion of certain doctrines over others. I disagree with mudboy on the point of this being atheism, as I think that the real issue is that the founders wanted to maintain liberalism for future generations. I mean, I think that the central issue is defining religion, the relationship of morality to religion and action, and other things, but I don't see the point as invalid.

People keep trying to eliminate religion from existing in or around the government. If they succeed, the official religion will be atheism by default. When the state says someone must take down a religious display, it is preventing the free exercise of a religion and is promoting atheism as a state religion. There is room for tolerance of most religions. The government needs to be kept from being a theocracy, but most people need religion as a moral compass. Religion needs to be practiced and accepted at home, at work, in public, and in government, otherwise the moral compasses of the general public will continue to disappear. People should not try to erase the effects of Judeo-Christianity from the history of the US, or the old gods from the calendar.

Disagree. Civil law can recognize that murder is wrong, that fraud should be punished, or that honestly negotiated contracts are binding. These laws occur across the world; while people tend to embed them in what ever religious framework they have, they do not depend on religion to have validity.



You have a right to wave around your fist, but that right ends well short of my face. Your right to decorate property for whatever religious holiday you celebrate ends with your property line. You remind me of the graffiti artists that think they have a right to decorate the highway overpasses. Put it on your own canvas, or in your own church yard, and I will call it art. Push it onto government space that I help pay for, and I consider it an unwelcome intrusion.

Atheism will become the default religion? Nonsense. Are you saying that you and millions of other Christians will stop celebrating Christmas if you cant take over the town square to put up your decorations?? And if you get to use the town square and court house to advertise your religion, what is to stop every other group out there from demanding that idols to Thor and Ganesh be erected on the public square every time their calendar turns a page?? No thanks. I drive by 5 Christian Churches, a Hindu temple and an Islamic Mosque every day on my way to work, and wish them the best. But I don't want them in a competition to show who can put up the fanciest decorations in the town square for more holidays than any of the other groups.

I don't think the clerk that takes my application for a vehicle registration should be pushing their religion on me, OR telling religious people that they are wrong. Its called secularism (and respect for all vehicle owners), not atheism. It is the idea that government doesn't get involved in religious matters or promoting religion. People in churches, synagogues, mosques, and sweat lodges are quite capable of believing what they believe, even when government doesn't pat them on the back and congratulate them or grant them use of government resources like space. This secularism is something that people in the west want the people in predominantly muslim countries to adopt, even while they have a hard time with it themselves.

Not necessarily true, moral authorities are given power to break honestly negotiated contracts and frequently have committed acts that we would consider murder(in fact, killing can sort of historically be a grey area as things we consider murder now weren't so, and etc). I would say that this entire issue is an issue of frameworks, and essentially I am presupposing the religion to enforce the morality, and you are presupposing the morality and then the religion. My point comes existentially from seeing a being's morality as a reflection of beliefs, and yours probably more evolutionarily as creatures had codes of conduct before they started any form of worship.

THANK YOU!! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !! !

Damnet I mean you got it right on the nose
sometimes I think this guy wants to start a fight.
I like that picture there, man I'd buy you dinner if I could lol

he obviously wish to start a holy crusade against the war.

I guess
his kind are the reason many chirstians are looked down upon
I mean I don't meet to many who are upset with the names of days and months
always a bad apple in the batch and they never shut up...
lets just hope these words will make him stop making these idiotic threads

I believe that was actually tried in France after the French Revolution (renaming months and days as well as starting a new year count) but it did not last very long and the French went back to using the old calendar. Possibly because the high ideas of the the Revolution--Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood--quickly disintegrated into a period of terror, and when this ended, the French people did not want any reminders of this time.

Or because the greater part of the French populace really couldn't have given a damn, because the whole affair didn't change the fact that crops needed harvesting, mud is mud, and the taxman always cometh, whether he collect in the name of the King, Parliament, or the Revolutionary whoevers?

This concept smacks of the same bizarre PC mindset that means modern british warships have dull, uninspiring names like "Ocean", no-one is allowed to sing "Baa Baa Black Sheep" or "How Much Is That Doggie In the Window"... that piggy banks and golliwogs are considered evil, and god forbid you have a place named after a famous battle you won hundreds of years ago.... Its meddling with things that work, and are a proven system, and for what? bull. Nothing except the expense of retooling every calendar, retraining everyone, and sending the whole nation into Chaos because people arent sure if Wednesday is now Dibbleday or Froodday or whatever.

Pagans came first, and the Christians plagiarized holidays, ceremonies, even the story about Jeebus.

If we change it to Christian names, religion will just be latching onto society even more. We're not all Christians, you know.

LePetitPrince said it perfectly

see Iamnotaparrakeet doesn't care what you are-he seems to think we need to be christian

Quiz: define generic.

And I'm not talking to iamnotaparakeet.

You might not like his motives, but kindly stick to the arguments pro/con.

Denying the etymology of words is denying history; denying history is denying progress.

Do you really want to erase history books and eliminate anthropological education?