/lit/ - Literature

>>21847478
hm, right about the time jewish influence started accruing in America. Curious...

>>21751228
I don't care about your second-hand knowledge, my own is FIRST-hand.

I was reminded of this gem in another thread on this same topic:
https://archive.is/xyeWe

This published prose was not written by a fifth grader—no—it was written by a Yale senior. Let that sink in, sweaty.

Writer's grab

>>14696779
So what your saying is that he needs... The Will to Believe?

>>13849481
All of this brings into question whether these writers can be seen as secular. If we consider secularism as the separation of mere the institutions of church and state then I they could be seen as such in a way. However, in no way do any of these authors attempt to derive a foundation of government that is not in itself religious in character. There is no separation of religion and government in any true sense: there is merely a transfer of divinity from Kings to Commonwealth by the vector of Nature, which pacifies the power of formal religious institutions by making the construction of government a divine act itself. I think it is only because we in contemporary society consider Nature in a materialist fashion that we think these writers were secular and their arguments agnostic of religious character. These systems are based rather on a natural theology than a truly secular foundation. So, referring to these authors as the founders or progenitors of secularism seems absurd to me

That's it, thoughts?

>>13647952
All of this brings into question whether these writers can be seen as secular. If we consider secularism as the separation of mere the institutions of church and state then I they could be seen as such in a way. However, in no way do any of these authors attempt to derive a foundation of government that is not in itself religious in character. There is no separation of religion and government in any true sense: there is merely a transfer of divinity from Kings to Commonwealth by the vector of Nature, which pacifies the power of formal religious institutions by making the construction of government a divine act itself. I think it is only because we in contemporary society consider Nature in a materialist fashion that we think these writers were secular and their arguments agnostic of religious character. These systems are based rather on a natural theology than a truly secular foundation. So, referring to these authors as the founders or progenitors of secularism seems absurd to me.

Thoughts?

>>13154463
I just want to say your post is very good and got me thinking for a good while. Thanks.