Alcohol and drugs
Death
Enlightenment

The first two are easy. — T Clark

The first two are the most difficult. To be enlightened takes a while, but if you have endured the hardships of sister morphine (or her tougher brother, alcohol) enlightenment comes easy.

Avoiding attachment without trying not to try to avoid it is the hardest part. Please don't imagine I know how to do it. — T Clark

Why doubly negating? "Without trying not to try to avoid". Which means "trying to avoid". So you wrote:

"Avoiding attachment while trying to avoid it is the hardest part"

Not sure I understand. Avoiding while trying to avoid? Avoiding while trying to avoid avoiding? Seems being filled with desire. An admirable attitude! :smile:

As for nirvana, do you suppose one of 'em options is via dolorosa (the problem is the solution — Agent Smith

Intelligence - Bang your head on the table - Bang, ow! Boy that hurt. I won't do that again.

Wisdom - Bang your head on the table - Bang, ow! Boy that hurt. Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow!.... Bang. Hey... wait a minute!

but looks like I'm not getting out of the mess I'm in anytime soon. I hope, I :grin: and bear it! — Agent Smith

It'll cum yoway, brother Agent! I know. I've been there too. It comes naturally. To some soon to others sooner...And when it has arrived, you will play your way through life like the people gods once did in the eternal heavens. You will give them a remarkable performance, like you you are already doing here! In the memorable words of T Clark: keep on banging wisely. :joke:

Now we can define secularism as
denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis
or in some cases
not overtly or specifically religious — Paulm12

You most probably refer to the term "secular". Otherwise, "secularism" is far from that. It is the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.

It's like mixing the term "physical" with "physicalism", "spiritual" and "spiritualism", etc.

I thought you might have some idea how to, you know, find the way out of the maze of suffering/agony/angst/pain. I would like that very much, but looks like I'm not getting out of the mess I'm in anytime soon. I hope, I :grin: and bear it — Agent Smith

I would loudly and proudly shout for help and expect it. Why suffer in silence unnecessarily when there is help available and if there is none then I would be camping nearby my local and national politicians and I would be asking them, everyday, why there is no adequate help available. Even if the best I can hope for is to die right next to them and with the knowledge of the local press then I would consider that a victory.
Maybe an individual cannot stop what's happening to them but they can perhaps help stop it from happening to others.

:gasp:

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. — T Clark

Just one foolish, Christian, opinion, defending his opinion from another foolish opinion. No more, no less. Times haven't changed since.

No I’m saying I feel like I’ve been indoctrinated into this idea of the separation of church and state being a “good” thing because I live in the US. And maybe it is. But it is hard to separate the "secular" from the "religious" in any case.

Separation of church and state is intended primarily to protect religion from government influence rather than the other way around. One obvious way that could happen is that government will restrict religious practice.

This is a very good point, and I do agree. This is precisely why churches aren't taxed, etc. Also great quote from St. Augustine, I had forgotten about that (he can sometimes be hard to understand because the writing is over 1500 years old, but that quote is pretty clear).

Surprisingly, to me at least, many Christians also believe that churches' involvement in politics leads to a corruption of faith

This has been my experience too. I think Christians often take these sayings as evidence that church and state can (and maybe should) be separated, especially after the protestant reformation

Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's

and

My kingdom is not of this world

From one popular Christian website, on the separation of Church and State:

Those who wish to combine church and state usually do so thinking that Christianity can help stamp out evil, if the church is in charge. But history shows that the melding of church and state gives rise to corruption, totalitarianism, and oppression. Christians can and should be involved in the political process, just as anyone else.

You most probably refer to the term "secular". Otherwise, "secularism" is far from that. It is the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.

Hmmm you may be right, and I didn't think about the distinction between these two terms. Although my original post did use the word "secular," not "secularism." A quick google search brought up the following definitions. For "secular:"

denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis

or

not overtly or specifically religious

while "secularism" is defined as

indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations

.
Secularism may claim to be untied from religion, but I still find it hard to see how anything can be free from religious influence. To me, it would be like saying some movement is "free" from philosophical or philosophical consideration.

I haven't heard of anything like that? Was it in the US? Australia? — T Clark

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/01/santa-monica-nativity-scene-atheist

there are many other examples (although admittedly, the Santa Monica example was not as simple as a shop-window display.)

there are many other examples (although admittedly, the Santa Monica example was not as simple as a shop-window display.) — Wayfarer

That's what confused me. I don't think you'll find anywhere in the US where people are not allowed to show religious symbols on privately-owned property. The story you linked to was about an incident in a publicly owned park. The second amendment has been interpreted to forbid government at all levels from involvement in religious displays. I'm ambivalent about that.

According to Pew, 70% of Americans are Christian, 6% are other faiths (Judaism 2% , Islam 1%), and 22% are no affiliation. I would guess that most of the 22% unaffiliated were raised as Christians and are more or less comfortable with Christian symbols. Part of me wants to tell non-Christians, of which I am one - "You live in a Christian nation, just suck it up." On the other hand, I believe the separation is important.

I certainly get the point of the 'secular state', if the alternative is officially-mandated belief. The point of the secular state is to provide a framework within which you can practice any religion or none, but there's a vocal minority who will always take that to mean that none is better than any.

The point of the secular state is to provide a framework within which you can practice any religion or none — Wayfarer

Then why is that called secular? Isn't it mandated that science is thought in schools? Isn't it mandated religion should be kept out of school?

I certainly get the point of the 'secular state', if the alternative is officially-mandated belief. The point of the secular state is to provide a framework within which you can practice any religion or none, but there's a vocal minority who will always take that to mean that none is better than any. — Wayfarer

As I noted, I am personally ambivalent. It's no surprise the country is too.

Originally, 'secular' referred to an order of time, and then to a calendar. The 'secular order' was maintained for the purposes of mundane (worldly) affairs - keeping the trains running on time, you might say. It was distinguished from the liturgical calendar which maintained the holidays (holy days) and their associated religious observances.

The point of the secular state is to provide a framework within which you can practice any religion or none, but there's a vocal minority who will always take that to mean that none is better than any. — Wayfarer

I agree with the first part of this. Can you expand on what you meant by 'none is better than any' and an example?

Ever encountered the 'freedom from religion foundation'? https://ffrf.org/ First line of their charter: 'The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.'

Oh I see. I have sympathy for that outfit. Sorry.

Not sure why they call themselves freethinkers. Why should believe in gods limit your freedom of thought?

If I lived in the US, I might also, considering the obnoxious nature of a lot of American civil religion, specifically Conservative evangelicalism.

BUT, that said, if the alternative to religious philosophy is nihilism or materialism, then I'll always pick the former.

if the alternative to religious philosophy is nihilism or materialism, then I'll always pick the former. — Wayfarer

It may be the only alternative for some people. It is certainly not the only alternative for everyone.

BUT, that said, if the alternative to religious philosophy is nihilism or materialism — Wayfarer

You prefer nothing above material? Why? Materialism just says we are beautiful collections of matter particles. With smiling faces, arms, legs, a brain to think, etc. What's wrong with that?

I’m saying I feel like I’ve been indoctrinated into this idea of the separation of church and state being a “good” thing because I live in the US. And maybe it is. But it is hard to separate the "secular" from the "religious" in any case. — Paulm12

How is it hard? Can you give an example?

The separation of church and state is a good thing if you believe that citizens should have religious freedom, if for no better reasons.

The separation of church and state is a good thing if you believe that citizens should have religious freedom, if for no better reasons. — praxis

Shouldn't any worldview or culture and state be separated.?

Is the movement in Australia towards becoming a republic not quite significant now? — universeness

Not significant enough...

One noticeable difference is that US Presidents, bare minimum, play at believing in god whilst in the UK a Prime Minister is mostly mocked/ridiculed for outward/semi-vocal religious faith (eg. Tony Blair). — I like sushi

Too true. The US system of political power relies on taking a position in relation to ‘God’ as a reference point, even if it’s false. The UK political power system relies on the absolute neutrality of ‘God’ - if the Prime Minister takes a personal position in relation to ‘God’, then that position cannot invoke the power of the Prime Minister.

And in Australia it’s perceived almost as a sign of corruption. If a politician takes a position in relation to ‘God’ then they effectively give whatever power they represent to something/someone else - whatever we deem this notion of ‘God’ to be.

That’s how I see it, anyway.

Separation of church and state is intended primarily to protect religion from government influence rather than the other way around. One obvious way that could happen is that government will restrict religious practice. Surprisingly, to me at least, many Christians also believe that churches' involvement in politics leads to a corruption of faith. — T Clark

That’s an interpretation - in the US particularly, it depends on your position in relation to religion. Realistically, the intention is to protect BOTH. The church IS (at least potentially) a political entity - like in the UK, it retains its power by remaining politically neutral. To take a side is to halve its influence. And vice versa, any system of government maximises its power by remaining religiously neutral. In the US, that amounts to an overt deference to ‘God’, regardless of personal position. In the UK, it’s more of a ‘he that shall not be named’ pervasiveness. In Australia, its a case of private vs public.

Shouldn't any worldview or culture and state be separated.? — Hillary

No, simply because ideology is required to hold a state together.

No, simply because ideology is required to hold a state together. — praxis

If the ideology is that all worldviews and ways of life deserve a fair chance, yes.

Intelligence - Bang your head on the table - Bang, ow! Boy that hurt. I won't do that again.

Wisdom - Bang your head on the table - Bang, ow! Boy that hurt. Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow! Bang, ow!.... Bang. Hey... wait a minute! — T Clark

:snicker:

What a mindjob, eh?

I would loudly and proudly shout for help and expect it. Why suffer in silence unnecessarily when there is help available and if there is none then I would be camping nearby my local and national politicians and I would be asking them, everyday, why there is no adequate help available. Even if the best I can hope for is to die right next to them and with the knowledge of the local press then I would consider that a victory.
Maybe an individual cannot stop what's happening to them but they can perhaps help stop it from happening to others. — universeness

:up:

Is the movement in Australia towards becoming a republic not quite significant now? — universeness

No. Australians seem pretty apathetic and we largely lost interest in the republic idea some years back.

And in Australia it’s perceived almost as a sign of corruption. If a politician takes a position in relation to ‘God’ then they effectively give whatever power they represent to something/someone else - whatever we deem this notion of ‘God’ to be. — Possibility

Don't know about that. Most Australians seem embarrassed by public discussions of god or religion and we are largely secular. God was rarely mentioned in culture when I grew up and only now has a flicker of interest because of the culture wars and the fact that we've caught some of America's shallow Evangelical style beliefs. But this seems to be mainly a form of capitalism rebranded with a cross.