Automoderated users, edit
178
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 185:
Line 185: − + +
Talk:Secularized Language (view source)
Revision as of 17:07, March 23, 2011
, 17:07, March 23, 2011→Christmas
:I don't expect the secularists to achieve the same success with [[Christmas]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 01:13, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
:I don't expect the secularists to achieve the same success with [[Christmas]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 01:13, 18 March 2011 (EDT)
== Christmas ==
== Christmas, and Islamic terorism ==
I may be totally off base here, but isn't "Christmas" technically an example of secularized language, as it is an abbreviation of "Christ's Mass"? It looks like an attempt to remove the "mass" aspect of Christmas. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
I may be totally off base here, but isn't "Christmas" technically an example of secularized language, as it is an abbreviation of "Christ's Mass"? It looks like an attempt to remove the "mass" aspect of Christmas. [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 01:31, 23 March 2011 (EDT)
:Also, I'm not sure that Islamic terrorism (or any terrorism, for that matter) and man-made disasters can be automatically conflated while excluding other terrorism. For example, the Oklahoma City bombing, an example of domestic (and not Islamic) terrorism, certainly wouldn't fall under the commonly accepted definition of "man made disaster". While it is certainly a disaster, made by man (and not God), then wouldn't all terrorism necessarily fall under this definition? [[User:DennyW66|DennyW66]] 13:07, 23 March 2011 (EDT)