Hungarian PM Victor Orban says Europe must return to its Christian roots. What about Canada?

[Nationalist]

17 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Europe was “together” for centuries??

This is so revisionist that it’s laughable.  
 

 

No it's not. For better or worse, Christianity gave all Europeans (commoners) a common set of values. 

[TreeBeard]

7 minutes ago, suds said:

Exactly. There are different brands of secularism. They don't fall under the political category.

Secularism is not fascistic.  You’re simply twisting the meaning of it to suit your narrative.  
 

“Secularism bad cuz Stalin was secular”.  Might be the dumbest take I’ve ever read.

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

No it's not. For better or worse, Christianity gave all Europeans (commoners) a common set of values. 

Might be the second dumbest take of revisionism I’ve read!  😂 

Saying the British Isles shared a common set of values over the centuries is asinine.  

[Nationalist]

7 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Might be the second dumbest take of revisionism I’ve read!  😂 

Saying the British Isles shared a common set of values over the centuries is asinine.  

Really?

Tell me...are there cricifixes throughout Great Britain?

[TreeBeard]

1 minute ago, Nationalist said:

Really?

Tell me...are there cricifixes throughout Great Britain?

Tell me…. did they fight over religion, land, etc. throughout Great Britain for centuries? 

[suds]

2 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Secularism is not fascistic.  You’re simply twisting the meaning of it to suit your narrative.  
 

“Secularism bad cuz Stalin was secular”.  Might be the dumbest take I’ve ever read.

According to my Merriam-Webster's.....  secularism :  indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.  That definition could apply to any of the 3.   Political secularism has a slightly different twist to it.

[TreeBeard]

3 minutes ago, suds said:

According to my Merriam-Webster's.....  secularism :  indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations.  That definition could apply to any of the 3.   Political secularism has a slightly different twist to it.

Don’t care about dictionaries.  Words have usages, not definitions forever set in time.  No one promoting secularism is in favour of fascism.  

 

Edited December 26, 2025 by TreeBeard

[blackbird]

34 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Indeed Protestantism, and Henry VIII, were the first chips in the Rock of Christianity...

Actually Henry VIII was a small part of the overall Reformation. 

I have heard Catholics taught the fake story that it was all caused by Henry VIII wanting a divorce.  That is only a tiny part of what happened.  Catholics are not told the real story.  

The Reformation was a return to Biblical Christianity rather than the top down dictatorial system of Rome that lasted for more than a millennium.

The Reformation was something that stretched over one or two centuries across northern Europe and the UK.  The UK decided not to continue being under the authority and exploitation of Rome.  So they took control of the monasteries and stopped Rome from all of its control over everything.  Same thing happened in Germany and parts of the Netherlands.  This was not a chip in the "Rock of Christianity".  The Reformation was a return to the ancient Apostolic Christianity in places where it was embraced.  The belief in the freedom of religion and individual freedom was embraced rather than having everything dictated from the clergy and higher powers in Rome.  The Reformation mottos were Sola Fide (by faith alone), Sola Scriptura (by Scripture alone as the final authority), and Sola gratia (by God's grace alone).

Edited December 26, 2025 by blackbird

[suds]

12 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Don’t care about dictionaries.  Words have usages, not definitions forever set in time.  No one promoting secularism is in favour of fascism.  

 

'Political secularism' is more of a specific term used in defining the relationship between religion and the state. The term 'secularism' as defined in the dictionary is a far more general term. And yes, there are differences between the two as there are with a number of other hyphenated secular terms. I will agree though that if one is going to use the term in describing a political leader then it should be used in the political sense. Ok, so my bad. And I corrected myself in another post after reading one of paxamericana's posts. Anyways, I'm done with this.

[herbie]

What the hell does a secular nation do that is un-Christian? Do tell citizens of a nation built by European Christians what we do that is against those principals?

Try your best without revealing you're an Old Testament zealot and not a Christian at all.

[Nationalist]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Tell me…. did they fight over religion, land, etc. throughout Great Britain for centuries? 

Yup.

And?

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Don’t care about dictionaries.  Words have usages, not definitions forever set in time.  No one promoting secularism is in favour of fascism.  

 

Which is why they are updated every year....But you knew that right?

[User]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Don’t care about dictionaries.  Words have usages, not definitions forever set in time.  No one promoting secularism is in favour of fascism.  

 

But when people are making hasty generalizations about religion to promote it... it is fair game to make the generalizations back. The folks promoting religion are not promoting death, destruction, war...

[blackbird]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Indeed Protestantism, and Henry VIII, were the first chips in the Rock of Christianity... And why do I own this Catholic Church?🙂

Henry VIII was a very insignificant part of the Reformation.  It was far bigger than one man in the UK.  But RCs will make a big issue out of Henry VIII wanting a divorce as if that was what it was all about.  Far from the truth.  The fact is the RCC was full of corruption and false teaching and had nothing to do with Christianity.

Encyclopedia Britannica says this:

"Martin Luther claimed that what distinguished him from previous reformers was that while they attacked corruption in the life of the church, he went to the theological root of the problem—the perversion of the church’s doctrine of redemption and grace. Luther, a pastor and professor at the University of Wittenberg, deplored the entanglement of God’s free gift of grace in a complex system of indulgences and good works. In his Ninety-five Theses, he attacked the indulgence system, insisting that the pope had no authority over purgatory and that the doctrine of the merits of the saints had no foundation in the gospel. Here lay the key to Luther’s concerns for the ethical and theological reform of the church: Scripture alone is authoritative (sola scriptura) and justification is by faith (sola fide), not by works. While he did not intend to break with the Catholic church, a confrontation with the papacy was not long in coming. In 1521 Luther was excommunicated; what began as an internal reform movement had become a fracture in western Christendom.

 

Huldrych ZwingliHuldrych Zwingli, oil portrait by Hans Asper, 1549.

The Reformation movement within Germany diversified almost immediately, and other reform impulses arose independently of Luther. Huldrych Zwingli built a Christian theocracy in Zürich in which church and state joined for the service of God. Zwingli agreed with Luther in the centrality of the doctrine of justification by faith, but he espoused a different understanding of the Holy Communion. Luther had rejected the Catholic church’s doctrine of transubstantiation, according to which the bread and wine in Holy Communion became the actual body and blood of Christ. According to Luther’s notion, the body of Christ was physically present in the elements because Christ is present everywhere, while Zwingli claimed that entailed a spiritual presence of Christ and a declaration of faith by the recipients."

Reformation | Definition, History, Summary, Reformers, & Facts | Britannica

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, paxamericana said:

Try building a society on envy and see what it does, that’s how you get mass starvation. That’s not a bug, that’s a feature of communism.

WTF are you talking about, you're describing one of our societies most cherished values, trying to keep up with the Jones's. You get incentivization, ambition and innovation.  It's pretty hilarious and ironic that a commie has to explain this to you.

You get starvation when the biggest Jones become afraid of falling behind and they concentrate and hoard wealth in such a way it makes it harder for anyone to get ahead never mind catch up - usually by lobbying politicians who covet the power associated with wealth.

Then you get dictatorship.

Edited December 27, 2025 by eyeball

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, suds said:

The thing is the three are not really 'secularists' when it comes to 'political secularism'. 

No, they were simply power greedy arseholes in the right place at the worst time.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

What the hell does a secular nation do that is un-Christian? Do tell citizens of a nation built by European Christians what we do that is against those principals?

Try your best without revealing you're an Old Testament zealot and not a Christian at all.

Normalizing transgender and sexual deviance to children, for starters.

Edited December 27, 2025 by Nationalist

[paxamericana]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

you're describing one of our societies most cherished values, trying to keep up with the Jones's

It’s still a sin

[paxamericana]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

Try your best without revealing you're an Old Testament zealot and not a Christian at all.

This is a false dichotomy. The Old Testament is just as foundational to the biblical tradition as the New Testament. The story of exodus for example, is how to persevere against tyranny.

[eyeball]

1 minute ago, paxamericana said:

It’s still a sin

You sound like someone afraid of having to compete in the world.

And for whom God is the only one and true Nanny.

[paxamericana]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

You sound like someone afraid of having to compete in the world.

And for whom God is the only one and true Nanny.

The fear of god is the beginning of wisdom

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, paxamericana said:

The fear of god is the beginning of wisdom

No it's not, it's late-stage capitulation to ignorance.

[herbie]

27 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Normalizing transgender and sexual deviance to children, for starters.

Nad do tell us what Jesus said about transgenders? Or defined 'deviance? Or encouraging anyone to restrict another's rights?

It must be there in your Christian Nationalist perversion of the Bible.

[Nationalist]

1 minute ago, herbie said:

Nad do tell us what Jesus said about transgenders? Or defined 'deviance? Or encouraging anyone to restrict another's rights?

It must be there in your Christian Nationalist perversion of the Bible.

No...it's in my soul and sense of decency and morality.

Concepts rather foreign to you evidently.

[blackbird]

15 minutes ago, herbie said:

do tell us what Jesus said about transgenders? Or defined 'deviance?

 You must have seen your idol Trudeau in a pride parade and so you think that is not perversion.

[paxamericana]

34 minutes ago, herbie said:

defined 'deviance

when you place sexuality or anything above god. That's why the American pledge of allegience is not to a king or sovereign, it's : "one nation under god". America and by extension the west (includes you Canada), was founded on a judeo-christian doctrine.

Edited December 27, 2025 by paxamericana