The State Religon

[Caylin]

Do most christians think christianity should be made the state religon? If it were, what would the punishment be for not following it?

 

[Risen Tree]

No. That's overkill. It'd be great to have everyone be a Christian, but using legislative force to attempt to do that is downright draconian.

 

[Caylin]

No. That's overkill. It'd be great to have everyone be a Christian, but using legislative force to attempt to do that is downright draconian.

Just like my name!

 

[Risen Tree]

Oh my. That pun was SO not intentional.

 

[Caylin]

Bump.

Anyone?

 

[Beoga]

nope, it shouldn't. The truths of Christianity should be laws, but Christianity should not be made a state religion.

if it were made the state religion, and there were people not following it, their consequences should be having a dead chicken as a mask everywhere they go.

 

[Ryal Kane]

It'd be great to have everyone be a Christian, but using legislative force to attempt to do that is downright draconian.

But which brach of Christianity? Fundimentalist Christian? Liberal? Catholic? Mormon? Northern Ireland is all Christian but it hasn't caused much peace there.

Christianity has some very good points to it but people are people. They have a tendancy to factionize and to label and blame the 'others'.

To paraphrase a quote I read somewhere but can't find..

"If the whole world woke up one morning the same gender, skin colour, height weight and sexual orientation, we'd find new prejudices by lunchtime."


As to the original question, I think that anyone should be allowed to chose their religion but the government should remain neutral, not hodlign one above any other. A theocracy is dangerous because, since it is doing the will of God, then it can do no wrong.

 

[Lifesaver]

Do most christians think christianity should be made the state religon?

I don't know the opinion of the majority, but I think it should

If it were, what would the punishment be for not following it?

None.

The government would officially be Catholic and take the stance that it is the true religion (thus teaching it at schools, endorsing Christian values, etc), but there would be no punishment on someone who was not Christian.
As for some repressive measures against the spreading of unCatholic doctrine, then I still have no formed opinion.

Anyway, it is very naive to think that a secular government is neutral towards religion, when in fact every secular government, by its very tolerant and relativistic nature, promotes atheism, agnosticism and other relativistic world views.

 

[seebs]

I think Christianity should not be the state religion. Christianity is at its best as an outsider to power structures. The near-inevitable corruption of power would be amplified by involvement with the state. Governments compromise. Churches shouldn't.

 

[InnerPhyre]

Not a chance

 

[Innocent Bystander]

Of which state? Be more specific.

 

[Innocent Bystander]

There are 50 after all.

 

[Isis-Astoroth]

In my opinion, keep religion and government seperate. By forcing a religion on all people of a country is a form of discrimination and dictatorship by that religion. If my country had Christianity become the official religion I would be outraged. Nobody should have to live the religion of another if they don't want to. That includes putting religious law into governmental law.

 

[Stinker]

The Bill of Rights
1st ammendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exersice thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people to peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievences."


In other words, Congress shall pass no law establishing any of the Denominations, non-denominations, or the Catholic Church, as the official Government church.

 

[Randall McNally]

Anyway, it is very naive to think that a secular government is neutral towards religion, when in fact every secular government, by its very tolerant and relativistic nature, promotes atheism, agnosticism and other relativistic world views.

Can you give some examples of this? It would seem like government promotion of atheism would be rather noticeable. People have been known to confuse secular with atheistic.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Anyway, it is very naive to think that a secular government is neutral towards religion, when in fact every secular government, by its very tolerant and relativistic nature, promotes atheism, agnosticism and other relativistic world views.

The current levels of atheism in the world support the opposite conclusion.

Take a look at England and Sweden, and then compare to America. America has a secular government, and England and Sweden have state churches. However, religion is very popular in America, and merely gets a ho-hum reaction from many in England and Sweden. Look into this, you might be surprised.

Honestly, as much as I am in favor of the separation of Church and State due to my principles, if I wanted pragmatically to encourage atheism and agnosticism in America, I'd switch my support to having a state church.

 

[meebs]

Do most christians think christianity should be made the state religon? If it were, what would the punishment be for not following it?

heck no!

i came to God of my own free will, as it should be for everybody. I couldnt live anywhere where i couldnt exercise my right to choose (with the way things carry on, that will be everywhere soon!)

Besides, nobody can be forced to follow God, he alone knows what we are like inside, and he would know what went on behind this paticular governments back.

Also this govenment would be like a dictatorship...

 

[Lifesaver]

Take a look at England and Sweden, and then compare to America. America has a secular government, and England and Sweden have state churches. However, religion is very popular in America, and merely gets a ho-hum reaction from many in England and Sweden. Look into this, you might be surprised.

But here you make a big mistake: you assume that, since England and Sweden have State-churches, they promote Christianity, and not atheistic secularism.
The opposite is true.
The Anglican Church in England and the Lutheran Church in Sweden have not led the State to become Christian. On the contrary, it is the State of these countries which turned the churches into almost secular institutions.
When a church submits to the power of the State, this is called caeseropapism. Something which must be avoided, for it only corrupts religion and gives the government a false image of Christianity.
The legalization of abortion is a prime example of how secular they are. And the very instution of the so-called "Welfare State" is inherently anti-Christian and materialistic.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is above any national State. Throughout its history, though there are probably exceptions, she had the upper-hand when conflicts arose between State and religion.
The Catholic monarchies were undeniably Catholic, and their laws often re-enforced Catholic teaching, instead of changing the Church to match the desires of the national State.

If the government controls the religion, it becomes a mere puppet of its laws, regulations and schemes, and not the promoter of superior values and protector of sacredness that it ought to be.

Honestly, as much as I am in favor of the separation of Church and State due to my principles, if I wanted pragmatically to encourage atheism and agnosticism in America, I'd switch my support to having a state church.

Yes, a State Church is truly a great boost to weakening of faith. But to have the State limited in its power by the Church has the contrary effect.

 

[Lifesaver]

Can you give some examples of this? It would seem like government promotion of atheism would be rather noticeable. People have been known to confuse secular with atheistic.

Legalization of abortion. Laws such as this one promote an unChristian morality; a form of morality which, being based on the premise that it is pleasure (or social order) which defines right and wrong, effectively affirms relativistic atheism.

And also notice that a completely secularized government treats all religions exactly in the same way, without giving preference to any. In this way, it once more promotes relativism.

And finally, with institutions such as the strictly civil marriage, it seeks to replace the Church, and become the supreme authority for the population.

It is no wonder that many will, in a discussion regarding morality, bring up the laws of their country as a sort of argument for a given position. Clearly, there is already a confusion in people's minds between what is right or wrong, and what the government encourages, allows or forbids.

 

[Randall McNally]

Legalization of abortion. Laws such as this one promote an unChristian morality; a form of morality which, being based on the premise that it is pleasure (or social order) which defines right and wrong, effectively affirms relativistic atheism.

Sorry, I don't think this works. There are atheists who are pro-life and Christians who are pro-choice. You have a false dichotomy set up with legalized abortion = promotion of atheism at one end.

And also notice that a completely secularized government treats all religions exactly in the same way, without giving preference to any. In this way, it once more promotes relativism.

But relativism in treatment is not equivalent to relativism in truth. Again, many Christians agree that government ought to be secular whereas some atheists probably think the state ought to denounce religion entirely. Your false dichotomy persists.

And finally, with institutions such as the strictly civil marriage, it seeks to replace the Church, and become the supreme authority for the population.

You'll have to explain better how this is an atheistic position.

It is no wonder that many will, in a discussion regarding morality, bring up the laws of their country as a sort of argument for a given position. Clearly, there is already a confusion in people's minds between what is right or wrong, and what the government encourages, allows or forbids.

Governments don't derive authority from religious texts. Or at least the US's doesn't. Familiarize yourself with the phrase "consent of the governed."