Americas choice

[variant]

The phrase "freedom of worship" is problematic. It is the preferred phrase the Obama administration used rather than the older and more comprehensive "religious liberty". Or even better, use the first amendment's free exercise language as the exercise of religion is far more than what occurs in a building on Sunday morning (or Saturday if that's your thing).

The link poster gave was criticizing Obama for his Christmas cards, and what ornaments were on his tree.

That means the right to express yourself in a manner consistent with your christian faith including how you run your business (Burwell vs Hobby Lobby stores), run your schools (Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was a unanimous 9-0 decision siding with the church) or the type of health insurance you provide for your employees (Little Sisters of the Poor vs Azar). In other words the right to act as a christian in every avenue in life not just Sunday mornings. Freedom of worship addresses none of what I wrote. At the very least I think it's fair to say the Obama years were antagonistic towards churches.

All of those decisions went your way...

You were asked what new prohibitions were enacted.

 

[mindlight]

Are you serious? Byzantine culture was grotesquely brutal and authoritarian and their Christianity was little more than a thin veneer covering over that with an aura of sanctity. The fruits of which are still visible in today's Russia, where poison and a makarov are the elements of politics far more than reasoned discourse that respects the dignity of the human person.

It is a way of doing Christian faith that lasted a thousand years. There had to be something to it. The view being that being a heretic or following a false religion might erode ones human dignity in the eyes of the state. It is a theocratic tendency that those who favour to emphasise freewill will never warm to but we will all face Judgment in the next life, the Byzantine state just offered a person more opportunity than modern liberal society to realise the seriousness of sins. I recognise a brother in Christ in Emperor Justinian even if he was an extreme anti Semite and a bit of a bigot.

 

[variant]

It is a way of doing Christian faith that lasted a thousand years. There had to be something to it. The view being that being a heretic or following a false religion might erode ones human dignity in the eyes of the state. It is a theocratic tendency that those who favour to emphasise freewill will never warm to but we will all face Judgment in the next life, the Byzantine state just offered a person more opportunity than modern liberal society to realise the seriousness of sins. I recognise a brother in Christ in Emperor Justinian even if he was an extreme anti Semite and a bit of a bigot.

A brutal imperial theocratic approach doesn't really live up to our modern standards of freedom of religion.

 

[mindlight]

No, Obama did talk about Jesus in a very recognizable Christian sense, for instance at Christmas one year he explicitly mentioned Jesus in a traditional Christian manner, as a source of truth and light.

Emphasis on social justice is a prominent feature of American mainline Protestantism, and has been since the 19th century. Obama belongs to the United Church of Christ, which is an historic denomination that is a merger between New England Congregationalists and German Protestant pietist immigrants from the EKD. Reinhardt Niebuhr, the author of the well-known Serenity Prayer, is probably its most recognizable theologian that you might be familiar with (or not, I don't know).

Well at least 2 of the points in my list of election issues relate to social justice so not excluding a discussion on how Trump or Biden might be better for this.

 

[mindlight]

A brutal imperial theocratic approach doesn't really live up to our modern standards of freedom of religion.

Modern standards - hard to find , harder to define? Christians have always oscillated between Theocracy and respect for free will. In practice we want both but cannot exclude Theocracy as a Christian model.

 

[FireDragon76]

A brutal imperial theocratic approach doesn't really live up to our modern standards of freedom of religion.

In the Byzantine state he certainly wouldn't be free to be a generic evangelical who merely loves Jesus and conservative culture, he would have been declared a heretic if he preached his doctrine openly, and forced to engage in years of public penances, or to be expelled from the city, or (more likely) the local magistrates would simply have him tortured until he recanted, or simply disposed of.

Not pretty at all, in short. Sure, Byzantines weren't really theocrats as they recognized a separation of church and state, but they had something very close to it in the form of their imperial symphonia. The Church and State were separate, but the Church and State also had an incestuous relationship, the sort of thing we see in modern Russia today.

 

[variant]

Modern standards - hard to find , harder to define? Christians have always oscillated between Theocracy and respect for free will. In practice we want both but cannot exclude Theocracy as a Christian model.

Not really. If you are complaining that you're looking for Charlemagne you are no friend to freedom of religion.

 

[mindlight]

I was expecting blatant lies and tearful claims of victimhood - and your link did not disappoint.

From your link: "Which American president changed the White House Christmas cards from being about Christmas or faith to cards featuring the family dogs and similar non-Christmas related subjects?" That would be Republican President Herbert Hover in 1932. His the white house Christmas card featured the Hoover's dogs.

From your link: "Which president decorated the White House Christmas tree with ornaments that included figures such as Mao Zedong and a drag queen?" Actually none. The ornaments in question were one one of several community decorated trees in the white house. Neither the president or the first lady had anything to do with them. The author of your link knew that. But you can't smear a president or promote anti-gay bigotry by telling the truth now can you?

From your link: "Which president excluded pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored healthcare summit?" Yet somehow pro-life groups like the Catholic Health Association were there....hmmmm

I could go on.

Must admit there are problems with that link. Athanasius377 said it better in his post about religious liberty

Americas choice

 

[variant]

In the Byzantine state he certainly wouldn't be free to be a generic evangelical who merely loves Jesus and conservative culture, he would have been declared a heretic if he preached his doctrine openly, and forced to engage in years of public penances, or to be expelled from the city, or (more likely) the local magistrates would simply have him tortured until he recanted, or simply disposed of.

Not pretty at all, in short.

I'm aware of what Christians were actually like when in power, when they decided that they had the right to dictate the true religion.

 

[variant]

Must admit there are problems with that link. Athanasius377 said it better in his post about religious liberty

Americas choice

Religious liberty is more of a modern take, you've been praising Byzantium.

 

[mindlight]

Not really. If you are complaining that you're looking for Charlemagne you are no friend to freedom of religion.

If it was not for Charlemagne and indeed his grandfather Charles Martel you would probably be a Muslim and freedom of religion would not even be a concept. The Franks were brutal Christians but Christians nonetheless. Because of their victories a fuller reading of scripture allowed for the development of freedom later on.

 

[mindlight]

Religious liberty is more of a modern take, you've been praising Byzantium.

If it was not for Byzantium and the Franks in the West you would probably be a Muslim now with no freedoms at all. So yes theocracy was probably more important than the whole liberty theology that it has allowed since.

 

[FireDragon76]

I'm aware of what Christians were actually like when in power, when they decided that they had the right to dictate the true religion.

There was Christian power in the western world, then there was the Byzantines. Byzantines were on a whole nother level even compared to the Papacy in the West. The Pope had to threaten and cajole people into obeying him, and sometimes it didn't work. But in the East, the Emperor was an absolute monarch who reigned over the church in all but name in a way the Pope never could.

 

[variant]

If it was not for Charlemagne and indeed his grandfather Charles Martel you would probably be a Muslim and freedom of religion would not even be a concept. The Franks were brutal Christians but Christians nonetheless. Because of their victories a fuller reading of scripture allowed for the development of freedom later on.

Hindsight. Charlemagne happened to be of a religious variety that ended up having the reformation and the enlightenment. He didn't intend to help me in any way.

We also don't know what the Muslims look like today if they hadn't been subjected to the Crusades and the mongol sackings, so, it's hard to actually rewrite those history's in detail.

 

[FireDragon76]

If it was not for Charlemagne and indeed his grandfather Charles Martel you would probably be a Muslim and freedom of religion would not even be a concept. The Franks were brutal Christians but Christians nonetheless. Because of their victories a fuller reading of scripture allowed for the development of freedom later on.

Meh... Muslim, Christian... it's hard for me as a non-monotheist to see the difference.

 

[mindlight]

There was Christian power in the western world, then there was the Byzantines. Byzantines were on a whole nother level even compared to the Papacy in the West. The Pope had to threaten and cajole people into obeying him, and sometimes it didn't work. But in the East, the Emperor was an absolute monarch who reigned over the church in all but name in a way the Pope never could.

How was David or Solomon any different?

 

[FireDragon76]

Hindsight. Charlemagne happened to be of a religious variety that ended up having the reformation and the enlightenment. He didn't intend to help me in any way.

We also don't know what the Muslims look like today if they hadn't been subjected to the Crusades and the mongol sackings, so, it's hard to actually rewrite those history's in detail.

Indeed. I'm eternally grateful to Luther and Lutherans for breaking the back of an oppressive religious system, but that doesn't mean I actually want to be a Lutheran or agree with their doctrine.

How was David or Solomon any different?

Two bad hombres that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies.

 

[mindlight]

Meh... Muslim, Christian... it's hard for me as a non-monotheist to see the difference.

Oh right I was wondering why you focused on this one issue at the expense of all the other points. Just looked at your profile.

 

[variant]

There was Christian power in the western world, then there was the Byzantines. Byzantines were on a whole nother level even compared to the Papacy in the West. The Pope had to threaten and cajole people into obeying him, and sometimes it didn't work. But in the East, the Emperor was an absolute monarch who reigned over the church in all but name in a way the Pope never could.

It was a long history with plenty of examples of why the west abandoned the idea of religious control of governance.

It ended up being that they couldn't stop fighting over it with one another that convinced Americans to put forward religious freedom as a first principle.

 

[mindlight]

Indeed. I'm eternally grateful to Luther and Lutherans for breaking the back of an oppressive religious system, but that doesn't mean I actually want to be a Lutheran or agree with their doctrine.

Two bad hombres that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemies.

Luther was as much a theocrat as the Catholics of his time. It is only really since the German wars of religion that the whole theocratic concept has been dismantled in many churches.