separation of church and state

[JW Frogen]

Did anyone else have as much trouble as cynic understanding the original post? .

Oh be assured, Cynik never read your post.

He just quoted for his own connivance.

He does not have time to read.

[cynik]

I understood the words, freediver. Indeed, I am willing to hear more from you on the topic, if you are willing to clarify your terms. Particularly the idea of "raw power", as opposed to the power to make legislation. That is, of itself, a deeply fascinating and legitimate topic for debate.

But my point in critiquing your prose is to make evident that your terminology is not sufficient to expose the subject matter in its full entirety. You need to make more sense. You need, with respect, to increase your working vocabulary such that you ensure that what you say makes better sense. I suggest using smaller words, and using word you fully understand. There is no shame in writing to your limits, and often fictional prose is the best way to do this.

I do it myself, oftentimes. If I am theorising on a new idea, I will often describe exactly where I was, and what i saw, when the idea came to me. This allows me to convey not just the idea, but the environment and and context that gave rise to the idea. This serves the purpose of allowing the reader to follow the sentiment more accurately, and when ideas are fresh this is an indispensible aid.

By including the detail of what we see, what we react to in the material world, we flesh out ideas with a common context, and by doing so take an audience with us into hazy territory. By contrast, definite statements and logical arguments must be utterly sound or they are instantly rendered false, and generally nonsensical.

Good prose is not an achievement in intellectual ability as much as it is an admission of humility, freediver.

But write as you wish. If what you say is sound, others will follow the beat of your drum. If it is not, and you do not try to reach out and explain the context of your feelings, you will be left behind.

[freediver]

Did you understand the message? Was that all just an exercise to 'teach' me how to write better, by pretending you misunderstood?

[cynik]

It was not an exercise to teach you anything. I questioned the bold assertions you made concerning the evolution of the law because they struck me as highly spurious. My subsequent comments on the techniques of disguising limited understanding was an admission of my own limitations as a thinker, and an attempt to show humility in that field.

Regarding what I "understand" from your "message", I would have to say that I do not agree that your ideas are coherent. That means I claim to understand the prose in the grammatical sense, but that I further claim the ideas it sets forth lack foundation in reality and law.

[freediver]

Hopefully now that I have clarified some of your misunderstandings, you will be able to explain why it lacks a 'foundation in reality'.

[cynik]

It lacks a foundation in reality because you are largely ignorant of the subject matter.

Look, you're upset. Go have a cry, you big poof.

I never said you were stupid, I just pointed out your writing is trying too hard.

As for clarification, this is not clarity;

"Note that the church and religion is not the same thing. The church is an institution (in this context at least). That is what is separated from the state, not the people's religious beliefs, or otherwise. You cannot separate religion from politics."

These are hugely definite and bold statements, freediver. They are also poorly set out. They invite ridicule by presuming to lecture from great height. Consider you could say more or less the same things as follows:

"I do not mean to suggest that the church, as a organized economic body with assets, is the same as the religious sentiment experienced by the devout. It is my contention that it was the economic activities of the church that were separated from the economics of the state, not that religious feeling was exorcised from political debate on the floor of the houses of parliament. One cannot hope to remove religious feeling from the individuals that make up the parliament, though policy and law proposed by members of parliament may indeed by curtailed if it seeks to promote any church as an economic force in the community."

Now you may think that this is what you have said, or even that this is what you tried to say. I submit that, if you are so deluded, this is arrogance. Hence my advice to stick to what you know how to say.

[freediver]

it was the economic activities of the church that were separated from the economics of the state

I am more concerned with criminal law rather than economic issues.

not that religious feeling was exorcised from political debate on the floor of the houses of parliament

Or from the motivations of individual voters.

[cynik]

It was AN EXAMPLE, you screaming tard. It was based on what you had said, not what I thought. the point was that bold statements can be re-phrased in such a way as to avoid falling into holes.

[freediver]

It was based on what you had said, not what I thought.

It was based on what you thought I said. Hence the clarification. I'm sure you understand me a bit better now. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

[cynik]

OK, I got one:

When you got your social science degree from Latham tech, did you also take a subject called "Constitutional law for Retards"?

Second question:

You are shrink.