Sometimes one gets the impression that the term 'secular' is not used as a definition of a state that keeps separate politics from religion but like a shroud to hide a hypocritical anti-religious sentiment tout court that has nothing to do with being secular. We must be clear, the lay person can be religious. From the verb religious tie. A lot of people think they know what religion is and yet knows nothing about anything about religion, he thinks it's just a Pappardella written in ancient books, a bunch of bales absurd for weak minds, however something very simple it does not deserve the name of culture. Lay is not the purgatory that separates the hell of the slave paradise of freedom of religion from atheist mind. Lay, like any religious person can not do without morals and ethics, it is a kind of superman to solve effortlessly ethical and moral implications of which policy is made in all its manifestations. Lay means that they acknowledge the need to separate the spiritual from the secular power, not to eliminate one in favor of another. The nice thing is that they then lay assault, which often boast of being faithful followers of science, are making their beliefs purely religious extremists not only ideological but also religious, like when you declare enemies of Christianity and at the same time define money as the dung of the devil and evil no matter how rich, some claim that there is nothing rational or scientific, as well as the stoning adulterers or, say, to exorcise the house from evil spirits. Reasoning are absurd like, are drug free then I want a secular, holiday my grandma's uterus to become a father kill my sister and my mother is terminally ill because she wanted to groom my dog \u200b\u200band hire a child for the weekend. There is no moral limit in layman? This is not to be secular, is to be idiot. Being secular does not prevent anyone to be idiot, idiots to do reasoning. Being a layman like armor and driving convictions for sentencing of the opposition, accusing them of acting as religious leaders. Being a lay person to be authorized to destroy the institutions and the idea of \u200b\u200blife that occurs and protects each individual institution. Being a layman as contempt for the rules in a world where morality is always relative product of self-deception and falsehood, worthy only of being wiped out by stating the individual's freedom to act against morality in the name of a shared moral and entirely subjective self. The man at the center, everything else in the toilet. The thinkers who have given content to the concept of secularism tear their hair in the grave to see what kind of a prick in his hand is over the baton of secularism. What the secular assault would do better to understand is that religion is a set of rules, beliefs, liturgies formalized in a set of assumptions and unprovable theories. Religion is first and foremost the most profound expression, atavism, natural, of self-human. The wonder of knowing themselves, to know the world as something else, to know that there is something outside of the knowable. The essence of religion is implied in the very act of living, not an intellectual choice on whether or not to believe in something. From here to say that the layman must always think and do the opposite of what he thinks and does a religious person goes there, it's idiotic. But that is precisely what happens, who rages against religion without even knowing what he's talking about is the shield of being secular as if it were enough to explain his blind ideological militancy. It's a fanatical idealist infoiati secular ideology of the party with a religious fundamentalist extremist. It is even painful
observe the weak position when dealing with secular themes, like most political arguments are ethical and moral. Rather than yield in terms of self absolution, not to risk a failure in terms of alteration of consciousness, are willing to declare any rational behavior is the result of logic, even when the use of logic leads to insignificant effects and contrary to those desired. It happens often, very often, that reason is not capable of providing solutions to the so-called dilemmas, not necessarily moral. Euthanasia is one of those cases. Assisted suicide can still meet the favor of reason in its ethical and moral connotations, no authorized the murder, crosses a legal boundary that no layman could honestly ignore. The same applies to dilemmas arising from the multiple implications of artificial insemination and a whole range of issues that raise major questions both theoretical and practical. Finally there is the total secular struck, incapable of realizing that there is no social pact which could dispense with religious foundation in gathering and evaluating the sum of the moral claims more widespread in the population has been formed over centuries and centuries of cultural development. Lay electrocuted total is the most dangerous of all, is convinced that a representative of a human species than with the task of liberating the rest of humanity from the yoke of what feels credulity popular instrument of oppression of the masses, a tool for keeping slaves minds and bodies of the people. Lay electrocuted total is funny but its destructive charge can be a drama if he could greatly influence the policy and the Government of a State. Dilemmas in no more sense than another option which the layman can grasp, right or wrong are expressions of moral considerations but not irrational or unreasonable. There is no rationality in the legal choices that disregard moral and ethical considerations of a religious. There is a layman who can live a life free of its religious component. If you do not understand this one ends up becoming a specific type of religious person, the believer of a church called secular political party, with its liturgies, its sacred texts, its holy wars. There's nothing more scary than a layman who knows nothing of its obvious and perverse religious exaltation when he tries in every way to convince you otherwise. The strangest thing is the need to have an enemy and a war to fight, this simple and obvious factor demonstrates the irrational nature of the lay bogus than any analysis of the possible reasons that unite the secular assault on a religious fundamentalist terrorist. You really get the impression they were facing but a fool or a madman, for sure someone is caught in a severe state of confusion. When a self-styled secular starts to become violent and angry, verbally if not physically, to be able to convert to his religion by force policy not know whether to laugh or cringe.
0 comments:
Post a Comment