₦airaland Forum

plaetton: 1. Time would be experienced differently by the two depending on the state of their minds. I find that time goes very fast(duration of time is very slow) when I am playing a video game. I always find it to be my best way of whiling away time when am waiting for something. Duration of time increaes with anxiety. So it all depends on whether the person sitting in the BA jet was sleeping, watching a film or full or anxiety during the flight. His sense of time would be affect by all of the above.

This is a most improper, if not disingenuous answer. It is trite that people may experience time differently based on their activity: such as sleep, etc. This does not however imply that the duration is actually longer or shorter. It simply means that the person based on his state of mind, either took little, moderate or excessive notice of the duration.

The question is very conscise: because it seeks to ask if the experience of duration will change based on movement alone: it is an important question since the discussion here is whether or not time is contingent on motion.

As such, you should be addressing yourself to whether time changes based on motion: this is why I gave you the examples of a person travelling in a jet and a stationary person - even if it can be argued that there is in fact no stationary person as the earth is in constant motion, the motion of the earth will still be different from that of a person travelling within a jet.

If current scientific notions are correct, then given all other factors to be constant between the person sitting motionless on a couch and a person flying in a jet, there should be a standard difference in duration AND experience of time based exactly on the difference between the speed at which both are travelling.

If this is not the case - as it evidentially is not - then time indeed is not contingent on motion.

2. If the earth were to take 80yrs to make its revolution around the sun, obviously our climate, our environment, our DNA and our physiology and consciousness would be altered to blend with that new reality. In that case, the physiological changes could go in one or two directions.
It is not possible that we would remain the same.

But since a DNA alteration is would be a logical consequence, I am of the opinion that our physiology would change for much greater longevity ,and that our consciousness would experience 80yrs in the same way we see 1yr today.

Then why would you call it greater longevity?

Kay 17: Whenever I think about the personality of the Judeo Christian God, I feel the awe of his impressive and superpowerful being. An omniscient, omnipotent, all great, self sufficient, selfexistent, perfect being. And he is accepted by most as the best explanation for the world.

But I'm struck by his person, he is too perfect and too satisfied and too independent to create us, our creation would not add any more of his essence, it wouldn't make him any happier or any more perfect. Rather we'd be purposeless toys with zero value.

We'd be a waste of love, care, concern. We'd be insufficient. He wouldn't have created us at all.

Imagine God as the sun and creation as the rays of the sun.

[quote author=Area_boy]to be politically correct, i'll go with "time as we know it stops".[/quote]What does it mean to say that "time as we know it stops" Can you concisely tell me what this statement means please, because, as for me, I do not understand it.

Does time move in the first place.

Is there any conceivable perspective of existence that is not embedded in time.

I think I understand your point a bit clearly now, but what relevance does it have to anything?.

Its relevance rests in the cosmological question of the existence of God viewed from the perspective of the nature of existence itself. It is generally asserted by modern scientific thinking that time and space were created by or at the moment of the big b@ng. I believe that this is not logically consistent. The reason it is theologically relevant is that it contains an inference that nothing could have existed prior to the big b@ng. This is logically inconsistent because (x) same science holds that a singularity existed prior to the big bang - a singularity is not nothing and as such being physical must needs exist in already existent time (y) If space was created by or at the moment of the big bang, then into what space is said universe expanding into - already existent space and (z) Time by nature is an intangible continuum that is neither created nor destroyed.

All of these dovetail into the necessary, prior existence of a permanent intangible time - on which bulwark rests the proper construct for the notion of the existence of that permanent element that is referred to by the theist as GOD.

Except you are saying that time has always existed pre big bang,

Yes.

But then that would mean our universe has always been eternal and will continue to be. hmmmm more implications here....

But o no, the universe is demonstrably finite in the past: and again this forms the foundation for the Cosmological Argument.

Agree or disagree, at least I hope I have answered your question as to what the relevance of this discussion is with reference to theistic/ atheistic discourses.

I notice that neither thehomer nor martian have addressed themselves to this most crucial point:

"The key point remains that what you gave me was a method to measure a duration. I asked you WHAT THE EXISTENCE OF THAT DURATION IS CONTINGENT ON - NOT HOW TO MEASURE THE ALREADY EXISTING DURATION! ! ! !"

[quote author=Area_boy]You are getting it all muddled up man. six hours is six hours, 24hrs is 24 hrs. Like i said, this is the world our brains developed into. At this same moment Jupiter has about 14hrs/day.[/quote]Good, and this conclusively shows that time is not contingent on motion.

The bold says it all.

[quote author=Area_boy]You are getting it all muddled up man. six hours is six hours, 24hrs is 24 hrs. Like i said, this is the world our brains developed into. At this same moment Jupiter has about 14hrs/day..

Try and understand that time is fixed and we only have reference points as our brains developed. our earth is our reference point. At the quantum mechanics level, everything falls apart because at the speed of light, time stops entirely. so what then is time??[/quote]The bold is my point exactly.

The red bold is exactly what I state: our reference point for measurement of time is our earth: but that is measurement: that is not time in itself: that does not mean that time is motion. Such would be, to use a crude analogy, like saying that the tailor's tape rule is the cloth.

In response to the blue bold, I say to you that time neither begins nor stops. Time is.

[quote author=Area_boy]We are only a few minutes into our two hour Journey and already 380 thousand years have passed

The narrator is referring to scale of time for the documentary and the history of the universe. [/quote]

Were those the exact words? I need to re check. I don't remember it that way. If that's what was said, then my bad.

Unfortunatly i still cant get audio on that video.

However, you should not that the issues do not go away, even if I misheard that: because it is still contended that the early universe breaks down in terms of time. You alluded as much yourself. This remains my contention.

thehomer: Okay. This doesn't affect the length of a second so I don't see how your question helps.

1. O yes it did because dividing up the cycle of the earth was the first method for arriving at such before the more accurate atomic clocks came along, but anyway that's just by the way and beside the point.

2. The key point remains that what you gave me was a method to measure a duration. I asked you WHAT THE EXISTENCE OF THAT DURATION IS CONTINGENT ON - NOT HOW TO MEASURE THE ALREADY EXISTING DURATION! ! ! !

[quote author=Area_boy]well.. He's just making arguments that for the most part is irrelevant cos we already know most of what we need to know about the concept of time.

Think of it this way... If we were in a different planet, say Jupiter that takes about 12 years to orbit the sun. Our brains will develop differently and adapt to the world we live in, Hence giving us a different perspective of time and that perspective will be used to puzzle out our universe differently.
That still doesn't mean we will get our calculations wrong because scientists always adjust "our" time to the time of other worlds so they can launch probes there.

That's how we got Curiosity to land on Mars, Cassini to orbit Saturn voyager 1 to interstellar space and many more...

At the first two concerns,

1) its called Inflation, and there is a sound mathematical calculation to support this.


2) The earth has slowed down indeed thanks to our moon and gravity from Jupiter. However it is still slowing down by as much as 1.4 milli seconds every hundred years. This will continue until the earth and moon share similar cycles.[/quote]And does this change the duration in question?

Does an earth spinning so fast that a day lasts six hours only, mean that that duration is shorter or longer than 6 hours on an earth where a day lasts 24 hours?

plaetton: I am still at a loss as to what you think time is. Time and space are one and the same and we recognise time by the duration of motion. No motion, no time.
Time is not a static force we can grasp or measure independently outside of motion. Infact, time bend and alters with characteristics of motion.
Someone travelling at the speed of light for 3 seconds would come back ot his starting point on earth about 300yrs later.

A phenomenon called time dilation, will cause space explorers traveling near the speed of light to age more slowly than their compatriots left behind on earth.
This phenomenom of time dilation shows that 1 seond for one person may be different for another person depending on their relative motions. Therefore,time is not a constant quantity, but is largely or wholely dependent on motion.

This would seem to contradict your view that 1 second is the same for veryone irrespective of motion.

Indeed, this is what the current science says. I do not dispute that this is what the current science says. I dispute that it is correct.

I have laid out very simple, and seemingly childish questions to show what I mean. However, as simple and seemingly childish as these questions are, they go to the root of the matter. If indeed time is a function of motion, please answer me these questions -

ONE

Would time be experienced differently by a person travelling in a British Airways Jet and a person sitting motionless on his couch at home.

TWO

Let me ask all a hypothetical question: If the earth slowed down so much that it takes about 80 years in current measurement for the earth to rotate on its axis once, would you be an old man by sunset, or not?

If the answer is yes - which is my view - then time is not a function of motion - because that would show that you would still experience that SELF SAME duration and your body age accordingly.

In other words, the experience of duration was not affected by the slower or faster motion.

Do you think the answer is no?

I have found the intro on youtube. Can't hear much audio though. Maybe its the computer i'm using.

Check it out.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8Uu81SEfHc&feature=relmfu

thehomer: In this question, what are you measuring? Are you assessing how long it takes the earth to rotate or how much a person's physical features change?

Sure the person would be old by sunset if the biological clock were assumed to continue "ticking" at its current rate but I don't see how this helps you. If you simply wish to pin all your hopes on a person's experience, then you need to realize that people's experience which is deeply coupled to memory are highly susceptible to errors.

I am saying that the same duration of time has passed irrespective of the speed of movement of the earth.

Can't get the transcript yet. . . .but here are some comments and criticism's of the documentary -

http://www.amazon.com/History-World-Two-Hours-Applicable/dp/B006ENHGLS

A lot of the criticism centres on the fact that its a casual work for casual viewing, nevertheless those statements which concern me were made by leading scientists in this field. . . .

Going back to search out the statements. . .. be right back

Ok, the documentary is actually titled "The History of the world in two hours" And a thirty second ad introducing it can be found here -

http://www.historychannel.com.au/tv-shows/videos.aspx?id=974

Synopsis -

http://www.historychannel.com.au/tv-shows/show-details.aspx?id=974

I am off to find a transcript.

Later.

thehomer: Well that makes no sense. A minute is not 300,000 years. Or do you think a minute is 300,000 years?

Well the statement I quoted is exactly what was stated by Professors and Research Fellows at leading American Universities.

Your modern "science" for you.

I will try even harder to find the transcript: it might just stop you from recommending to me "leading experts" in these matters.

How does it show your case to be correct?

It shows that you are providing the method of measurement of a GIVEN duration already and as such time is not contingent on motion.

PS: Please attempt the various questions I laid out above? The ones in red?

Paentera: Bros its because of folks like you that Google was made na...just Google Third Mainland bridge repairs - shouldn't take up much of your time.

I am an illiterate. I do not know what google is. Please just be kind to a poor illiterate and assist me to understand exactly what works were done on the Third Mainland Bridge - especially in light of the fact that same overhaul was carried out just three years ago, and also to understand what exactly took four months of doing.

Thanks again,

Your humble and illiterate slave.

Can anybody please provide details of exactly what work was done on the Bridge during this period.

Thanks.

I REPEAT FOR EMPHASIS:

You need to address yourself, not to the method of measurement only, but precisely to the non-contingent existence of the duration.

thehomer horribly misconceived the question when I asked him what the second is contingent on. He gave me a method of measurement, failing to recognize that the question is "what is the EXISTENCE of the DURATION" contingent on.

Is it the atomic measurements that CREATE the duration measured?

No: the duration is there: all you have done is measured it!

Martian: Motion is what's been measured!!!

Well motion is not time, and for this reason you concede that time itself is not motion. Do I need to explain this? If you move faster, you get to a destination quicker. However the 1 second you use to get there is the same 1 second experienced by a stationary man.

This simple analogy alone conclusively shows that motion is not time.

What else do you want?! You keep harping on and on about how time is not a measurement of motion, but when I asked you how you'll measure time without motion, you said nothing.

I did answer you in that thread:maybe you missed it.

My second question should perhaps help you see the point:

Would time be experienced differently by a person travelling in a British Airways Jet and a person sitting motionless on his couch at home.

What makes you think that life would be the same if the conditions on earth are altered? The answer is that if the earth was moving at a different speed, life would have adapted differently than what obtains now or maybe life wouldn't even exist at all.

You know very well that this is a horrible cop out. This is no answer.

Martian: Deepsight holds on to a discredited view of time because it lets him hold on to this idea about a god creating the universe. The problem we have is that he refuses to accept reality and supporting obersvations and calculations that show time to be a measurement of motion(ie the expansion of spacetime and the physical bodies moving through it) instead of a "void where events are etrapolated" that he came up with based on 18th century physcis.

I do not know anything abiut 18th century notions of time and do not base my queries on such. I base my queries on the self evident, self existent nature of time. It is glaring that current science is living in la la land regarding the nature of time: and I have no doubt that in future, the notions of current science regarding this matter would be shown to be disastrously wrong.

Time is time. It self exists. It could not but. It is. It is not birthed by the Big ba.ng, and it will still exist even if the universe didnt.

What you have given me is methods of measurement of durations.

As such, you need to address yourself,not to the method of measurement only, but precisely to the non-contingent existence of the duration.

thehomer horribly misconceived the question when I asked him what the second is contingent on. He gave me a method of measurement, failing to recognize that the question is "what is the EXISTENCE of the DURATION" contingent on.

Is it the atomic measurements that CREATE the duration measured?

No: the duration is there: all you have done is measured it!

See?

@ thehomer,

Please address also my question in red above.

@thehomer and martian,

Please can you address this question also:

Would time be experienced differently by a person travelling in a British Airways Jet and a person sitting motionless on his couch at home.

Many thanks.

Martian: @Deepsight

You're still saying the same old thing!!!! But I see theHomer has provided you with the wiki on the cesium 133 atom. Here is another one
http://www.npl.co.uk/reference/measurement-units/si-base-units/the-second

You have provided what I expected: a reference for the measurement of time and not time itself.

As a rough analogy, I would say that this is like thinking that the tailor's tape-rule is the cloth.

The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.

Again, the bold word shows exactly what I am saying: namely that it is that specific DURATION that is measured as described above. All you have shown is the method through which that duration is measured. You have not shown that such a duration would not exist without motion.

The atom can be pictured as a mini solar system, with the heavy nucleus at the centre surrounded by electrons in a variety of different orbits. The orbits correspond to energy levels, and electrons can only move between levels when they absorb or release just the right amount of energy.

This energy is absorbed or released in the form of electromagnetic radiation, the frequency of which depends on the difference in energy between the two levels. By measuring the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation, like counting the number of pendulum swings, we can measure the passage of time.

Time measurement has become a basic part of everyday life and accuracies of the nearest minute or a few seconds are usually good enough for most human activities, but highly accurate timing plays a vital role in many other aspects of the modern world. The Global Positioning System (GPS) satellites broadcast timing signals from onboard atomic clocks, which enable land vehicles, shipping and aircraft to know their location within a few metres.

Clocks for the 21st century based on single cold trapped ions or collections of atoms are being developed. Ions are charged atoms which can be trapped almost indefinitely by electromagnetic fields, and cooled by laser beam close to absolute zero. In this way, certain optical absorptions in the ion can exhibit a very pure frequency. This can also be achieved for atoms trapped by intersecting light beams.

At the National Physical Laboratory, optical clocks are being developed which may have accuracies of around 100 times higher than the best current microwave atomic clocks. That is equivalent to losing no more than one second in the lifetime of the universe.

Same as above. You are simply lecturing on method of measurement. You have said essentially nothing relevant to the concerns of the OP.

As such I would simply ask you to address this simple question I raised earlier:


Let me ask all a hypothetical question: If the earth slowed down so much that it takes about 80 years in current measurement for the earth to rotate on its axis once, would you be an old man by sunset, or not?

If the answer is yes - which is my view - then time is not a function of motion - because that would show that you would still experience that SELF SAME duration and your body age accordingly.

In other words, the experience of duration was not affected by the slower or faster motion.

Do you think the answer is no?

Answer?

thehomer: Do you know what the title of the documentary is?

I think it's titled "The Universe" and I have not been able to find a video of it onlne, but I will try to get a transcript of the text.I actually tried to record it as well but failed to do so and I understand anyway that Icannot transfer a recorded version from Dstv's PVR decoder anyhow.

Can't say I have. I don't even understand what is being said there.

Exactly what was said was that within a few minutes [? ? ?] of the expansion, more than 300, 000 years [? ? ?] passed. ? ? ? ! ! !

It is contingent upon this.

And I hope you recognize that that excellenty shows my case to be correct.

lekkie073: time is a complex phenomenon. understanding its concept is a difficulty in itself. time comes in two forms: chronos and kairos
chronos is a sequential time....it has a definite order.
but the most confusing concept of time is TIME as 'kairos'.... it will definitely sound unreasonable but dats why its more confusing.
time in the kairos has no order. e g in a matter of less than ten seconds, a person can play a scene in his own head whereby he left his home, queued to enter a plane, d plane passed d runway and shot into tha air taking him to wherever he believes he went. in ten seconds, the whole travelling episode is over. but in actual sense, its imposible. thats time in kairos...

I would agree that we can experience time differently - for example your experience of time whilst asleep. There are many possible examples and scenarios in which time may be perceived differently. The life of a housefly may seem very long to it, but would appear very short to a human. So that is understood.

What is at issue in this thread is the following -

1. Is time an element which was created by or at the moment of the big bang

2, Is time a function of motion or an absolute

Evil Brain: @OP
First of all, you shouldn't be learning science from TV shows. TV is almost always dumbed down for mass consumption. That means the science gets changed in subtle, but important ways.that make it inaccurate.

Fair comment, but no, I do not make a practice of learning science from TV shows. I am an avid reader and I do enjoy researching subjects that interest me. That said, this documentary was put together by front-line leading scientists and researchers at the world's leading universities and NASA. It was quite interesting, notwithstanding the fact that I do not agree with the conception of time delivered therein; which I find to be contradictory.

Secondly, the standard unit of time is the second. Measuring time in years is stúpid because the length of a year is not constant. The revolution of the earth has been gradually slowing down since the earth was formed. That means this year will be slightly longer than last year, and a lot longer than one 4 billion years ago. The same thing applies to days. We only use them because of tradition and because the rate of change is very small relative to the length of a human lifetime. But on an astronomical scale, measuring time in years is seriously rétarded.

There's no problem here, I agree entirely with you. Nevertheless we should consider that the presenters are probably referring to the total amount of seconds in a present day year on earth - when they refer to years: probably because the numerical figure for the age of the universe in seconds, would be far too vast to present intelligibly.

Now, haven said this: I should note that this measurement of time in seconds in itself verily proves exactly the point I have labored over the years to convey to Martian and thehomer: namely that the current scientific notions of time are mis-footed.

Plaetton, martian and thehomer all contend that time is a function of motion. I say no: that time is an absolute: and there is time as an eternal constant even if there is no motion.

The frame of time captured within one second is not a function of motion.

Let us assume, as an analogy, that instead of breaking up our earthly day into 24 hours, we had rather measured it as 12 hours - with each hour thus consisting of 120 minutes of the current measure - as opposed to 60 minutes of the current measure. And each minute thus being defined as consisting of 120 seconds of the current measure as opposed to 60 seconds of the current measure.

In this event, you will note that what we would define as one second would be the duration of two seconds of the current measure.

In neither framework does the actual duration of time change.

In other words, time - and by this I refer to duration - is not a function of movement. It is rather that eternal continuum into which events are interpolated: and the experience of duration DOES NOT change with reference to faster or slower movements of the earth. To put this succinctly, what I mean to say is that if the earth were to slow down today in terms of rotation, you will have longer days - BUT time has not slowed down: you will experience those days as actually longer - i.e: you will experience more hours of the current measure before sunset arrives.

Note that it is the time you have to wait before seeing the sunset that is longer: you will however still experience THE SAME hours as you would have otherwise have experienced, if you are not looking at the sunset: i.e: let's say you are locked in a room. Your experience of the duration will remain the same

Thus it is the mere events of sunset and sunrise that have arrived at a further point in the self same time. The event. I repeat, the events. Time itself remains the same.

Whereas if it were true that time were a function of motion, then a slower earth will mean that time on the earth would slow down. This is not about sunsets and sunrises - this is about the experience of duration.

Let me ask all a hypothetical question: If the earth slowed down so much that it takes about 80 years in current measurement for the earth to rotate on its axis once, would you be an old man by sunset, or not?

If the answer is yes - which is my view - then time is not a function of motion - because that would show that you would still experience that SELF SAME duration and your body age accordingly.

In other words, the experience of duration was not affected by the slower or faster motion.

Do you think the answer is no?

I could flip the question either way. Let's say the earth starts spinning so fast that there is only one hour of currently measured time in each day. Would you age faster? Or better still, would that "day" be a shorter or longer period of time, than the currently measured sixty minutes? - - - Or would it be the same in terms of duration?

thehomer: Which documentary was this? Is it available somewhere maybe YouTube?

I have tried to find it on You Tube but it has been blocked as infringing Intellectual Property rights of the makers.

If I don't have the appropriate context, then it would be difficult for me to reasonably respond to what you're saying.

Fair enough: however are you saying that you have never heard of such a statement regarding time in the early universe?

There is nothing strange about the second statement. A day is defined by how long it takes the earth to spin on its axis. This can change and is different for different planets. The experience you're talking about depends on the external world. And there are places where for months at a time, the sun remains in the sky this doesn't change the definition of a second which is what is used to measure time.

Exactly, and this shows that you are wrong in your perception of time as being contingent on motion.

Can you tell me what the unit of measurement of time - the second - is contingent on?

Logicboy03: I was honest with you and so be honest with me. I could have dodged your question like Anony but I stayed on point.


The head of state position for the queen is ceremonial and so, her leadership flies out the window

The head of government is the Prime minister in UK

Of course it is ceremonial - but in true separation of Church and State, the monarch should NOT have the special rights which I listed.

Be honest, haba.

The Monarch, as the Head of the Church, should not be involved in Government, on ANY level if you are honest and serious about separation of church and state.

Please look at all these rights of the Monarch, and be sincere -

1. She is by right, Head of the Church of England.

2. She is by right, Head of State.

3. She is the image on the national Currency.

4. She is entitled to weekly briefings on the affairs of Government by the Prime Minister.

5. The Prime Minister must present himself to her when elected or resigns, as the formal notification.

6. She ceremonially opens parliament.

7. She (and all members of the royal family) represent the Government of Britain at Diplomatic and State Events all over the world.

8. As Head of State she rallies the nation in times of crisis or special events through national Broadcasts.

9. She is privileged with the enjoyment of the magnificent castles, palaces and crown jewelry of Britain gathered over more than 1, 000 years of Statehood.

10. She is protected by the British Secret Service.

My friend, nobody can honestly look at these and claim that this is perfect separation of Church and State, so long as the Head of the Church of England is by Right, entitled to all the foregoing.

On top of all that, the determination of the next person to enjoy all these GREAT privileges of state, is affected by religious laws such as principles on divorce - such as happened to the King who had to abdicate the throne for marrying an American Divorcee before the 2nd World War.

Logicboy03: Separartion of Church and state makes a state secular!

Well by that token, Britain is not secular, because their Head of State, BY RIGHT, is Head of the Church, and also performs many state functions, aside from having enormous leverage through her right to advise the Prime Minister at weekly briefings, open parliament, have her portrait on national currency, is Head of the Common Wealth of Nations, and many more.

I could make an argument that if Britain is truly an egalitarian society, every head of a Religion in Britain should also be given all these same rights! Where is the separation of Church and State in making the Head of the Church also be the Head of State - with all the rights I mentioned in attendance?

Deep Sight: Well then, many thanks, and as such, by this token, and according to you, Britain is not to be deemed a Secular State!

So why are you asking us to mimic them!

Good nite son!

I edit this as follows: I did not read your post properly. Your quote here -

"Okay...erm.....well......the Sultan being the ceremonial head of state in theory would not make Nigeria not to be a secular state."

Shows that you recognize that perfect separation of church and state is not the same thing as Secularity - since Britain evidently mixes both on many levels - and yet is a Secular State.

Logicboy03: Okay...erm.....well......the Sultan being the ceremonial head of state in theory would not make Nigeria not to be a secular state.

Well then, many thanks, and as such, by this token, and according to you, Britain is not to be deemed a Secular State!

So why are you asking us to mimic them!

Good nite son!

Deep Sight: Stop dodging. Give a specific answer. This is a yes or no question:

I repeat the question:

So would you say it would be symtomatic of good separation of church and state if the Sultan of Sokoto was also a ceremonial Head of State of Nigeria?

Plus his pictures on our Naira, his palaces funded by tax, and his work consisting of diplomatic representations for Nigeria all over the world? If he has to make national speeches as Head of State, open parliament, and if the President had to gice him a weekly briefing on affairs of state? And in all this let's say he remains (as he is) the leader of Muslims and Islam in Nigeria? Would that be good separation of Church and State? ? ? ? ?

Yes or no.

And in answering this question, remember that Headship of the Church is a hereditary RIGHT of English Heads of State.

Logicboy03: Japan is listed as a secular state but it is also a constituional monarchy.


Dont be foolish Deep Sight. You're better than this

Exactly: so is Britain, no?

This shows you that being Secular is not the same thing as the perfect implementation of separation of church and state, no?

Is Germany a Secular State? Yes it is. And yet you have a political party there whose name commences with "Christian"