The State Religon

[Nathan David]

And the very instution of the so-called "Welfare State" is inherently anti-Christian and materialistic.

Really?

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.

You need to seriously re-read history.

 

[Norea]

Nathan I filed-13 that chap. I think he's really just a troll looking for flames.

-- Bridget

 

[onfire4Jesus]

Religion is a very personal thing. I believe that it should be up to an individual as to what choice he/she makes about religion. That's not to say I don't think everyone should be a Christian, I just don't think you should force someone to become a Christian. That's really just forcing them away from God, I would think. So...no, I don't think there should be a state religion at all. If I had to choose a religion for our state to be, I would definitely choose Christianity. I'm going in circles here....anyone dizzy yet?

Did you know that it's actually not against the Constitution for a state to adopt a state religion/church? That was surprising to me. There can't be a national church, but there can be state churches.

 

[Norea]

Actually the Constitution makes it clear that no one will gain favorable or detremental treatment under the law with regard to churches. The government has never officially mandated a religion or church on the grounds that would be unethical considering the diversity of the colonies even after the Revoluntionary War. Maryland was primarily Catholic. Massachusetts ws mostly sectarian Protestants[anglican breakoffs]. Pennsylviana was primarily sectarian as well[they accepted jews, catholics, quakers, etc etc]. And I can go on. Oh the Carolinas were mostly French Protestants[Hueganot]. I hope you get the point.


-- Bridget

 

[Norea]

Hey Lifesaver... Here's some real links about Marxism, before you spew about me being one...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

And here's a link to the political philosophy for which I subscribe...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

Oh and here's my favorite Philosopher Max Stirner. He was an opponent of Hegel whom Marx idolized...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner

Lets see you make Marxism out of Stirner. LOL!

And here's the real story of what happened to the Cathars...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathar

-- Bridget

 

[Caylin]

Does that mean what I think it means?!?

What exactly do you think it means?

Bump is forum speak for bringing a topic back up to the top that had drifted. I asked anyone if they wanted to answer my question, which at that point no one had.

 

[Randall McNally]

Did you know that it's actually not against the Constitution for a state to adopt a state religion/church? That was surprising to me. There can't be a national church, but there can be state churches.

It's a little more complicated than that. The 14th Amendment's equal protection clause has been interpreted to mean that states can't violate whatever protections federal courts have derived from the Bill of Rights.

This issue was brought to bear on the matter of Roy Moore's monument. The argument was made that the language of the Alabama Constitution legitimately established Christianity as the state religion (or acknowledged God as a necessary part of governance or somesuch), but legal scholars pretty much uniformly whacked that argument into oblivion with an Equal-Protection-Clause-shaped club.

 

[Norea]

Yea, and I'm glad too.

-- Bridget

 

[The Bellman]

"From dictionary.com"?

Will you always disregard depth in favour of the over-simplified and not rarely inaccurate definitions of the dictionary?
It is suited for searching for common everyday words, but when it comes to concepts with historical relevance and which carry a lot of ideas behind them, it is wholy unsuited.

Ah, the old "somebody used a reference source to show that I was wrong, so I'll just attempt to denigrate the source used" tactic. Nice try, but it didn't work. A theocracy is a country ruled by religious authority.

And is my government ruled by a religious authority, or its actions subjected to the will of the Church?No.

How is this even relevant? We're talking of what you said you would like to see - a Catholic theocracy. The current state of your government is completely irrelevant.

it is best to focus on the individual changes which are needed on everyone: on the revival of the Catholic faith and morality.

Obviously, the above is merely a personal opinion, with as much validity as if I'd said that everyone needs to worship Satan. For what it's worthy, in MY personal opinion, the last thing that 'everyone' needs is a revival of the Catholic faith and morality. We're in enough trouble as it is...why make it worse?

 

[Lifesaver]

How is this even relevant? We're talking of what you said you would like to see - a Catholic theocracy. The current state of your government is completely irrelevant.

No, Bellman; the government I advocate is governed by a secular authority.

It is not a theocracy, no matter how much web-dictionaries you may try to bring in.

 

[The Bellman]

No, Bellman; the government I advocate is governed by a secular authority.

It is not a theocracy, no matter how much web-dictionaries you may try to bring in.

Really? Let's see exactly what you advocated...

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

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.

Hmm...doesn't sound too secular to me. "The government would officially be Catholic"...in fact, that's directly opposed to 'secular'.

You advocated a Catholic theocracy. If you know think that that's not a great idea, then well and good - say so. But don't try to weasel out of what you've already said.

 

[Lifesaver]

There are few references to the Cathars. All come from [gasp] YOUR CHURCH[Catholic] and not from any objective or unbiased sources. Like the equivelent of a newspaper of a local municipality like we have in most nations today.

Your position has become even more contradictory.
First you claimed you knew the truth about the Cathars, and how the Church was evil, but the Church had destroyed all the sources. That made me wonder how you knew anything.

And now you claim that the sources come from the Church, and that they are biased and not objective.
But didn't you say you knew the Church had been "evil" and brutalized the peaceful, civil and free-thinking Cathars?
And this you read in biased and not objective sources which come from the Catholic Church, which had destroyed all the relevant sources to fit her designs?
So the Church has condemned herself by presenting sources which go against them, and you, despite having thought these sources are thoroughly untrustable, believes them.

Your case is inexistent.

Nor is logic merely contained or restricted to a particular set of people.

That's true. Everyone has a rational soul.
But so far, in this thread, you have shown very little use of your reason.

Lemme explain here for ya, bucko. If it's not peer-reviewed it has no ethical or moral grounding. It must be considered with a grain salt if it cannot be considered an ethical/moral source.

Norea, you have been positively brainwashed.
Exactly like cults in which the members won't even read something that might prove them wrong, you are doing the same thing.
And per usual no rational explanation is given.
You have just said that you will not read anything written before "peer-reviewing" existed, or where it is applied.
In other words, the only thing you'll be reading for the rest of your life are academic "papers". What a waste of one mind's potential.

If, one day, you want to know the Church's position on the persecution of Jews, you'll read the encyclical I linked you to, written centuries before the persecution of Jews in Spain (at the mandate of the Queen).
Or you can just continue with your uncriticized views and to the end of your life, when, I hope, God will show you to be wrong and thus allow you to be with Him forever.

Do you know what you're talking about? Look Marx supported the destruction of Capitalism[I'm a Libertarian, DUH!!!!]. He also was against the Socratic method and many scientific principles. And said humans were purely irrational. And he had a significant existential view on life.

Marx never said humans are purely irrational.
He tried to turn study history and mankind scientifically, in a purely rational way.
And he believed that the thoughts of men were determined by the mode of production in effect at the time and place (an economic determinism), quite unlike existentialism according to which humans have a completely free will.

How can a Libertarian[political party] be supportive of a Statist[pro-government] position?

Don't you know Marx also dreamed with the end of the State?
After a period called dictatorship of the proletariat, when the economy was centrally planned, this government would step down and society would be equal and harmonious on its own, each man free to pursue their own personal dreams.

I REALLY SUGGEST YOU ASK ME MY VALUES BEFORE YOU STATE WHAT MY VALUES ARE, BOY.

All right, you are not Marxist if you say so. But your thought is certainly influenced by him.

 

[Lifesaver]

Hmm...doesn't sound too secular to me. "The government would officially be Catholic"...in fact, that's directly opposed to 'secular'.

Not at all.
The presidency is a secular position. So is senatorship, judges, etc.

Argentina's government is officially Catholic today. Only Catholics can be president. And whoever thinks that it is a theocracy is using a completely new definition of "theocracy".

 

[The Bellman]

Not at all.
The presidency is a secular position. So is senatorship, judges, etc.

Argentina's government is officially Catholic today. Only Catholics can be president. And whoever thinks that it is a theocracy is using a completely new definition of "theocracy".

I give up. You want a state where the official religion is Catholicism, where the government is Catholic...but not a theocracy. Riiiiiiight.

 

[Lifesaver]

I'm sorry you do not understand the difference between a temporal government with an official religion and a government which imposes religious law as civil law and has their deity, or someone directly chosen by it, as their leader.

 

[The Bellman]

I'm sorry you do not understand the difference between a temporal government with an official religion and a government which imposes religious law as civil law and has their deity, or someone directly chosen by it, as their leader.

I don't recognise the difference between a government which is Catholic, with Catholocism as the official religion, and a theocracy - because there is no difference.

The 'leader chosen by their deity' bit is your own invention - it is no part of any requirement for a theocracy.

 

[Norea]

Your position has become even more contradictory.
First you claimed you knew the truth about the Cathars, and how the Church was evil, but the Church had destroyed all the sources. That made me wonder how you knew anything.

And now you claim that the sources come from the Church, and that they are biased and not objective.
But didn't you say you knew the Church had been "evil" and brutalized the peaceful, civil and free-thinking Cathars?
And this you read in biased and not objective sources which come from the Catholic Church, which had destroyed all the relevant sources to fit her designs?
So the Church has condemned herself by presenting sources which go against them, and you, despite having thought these sources are thoroughly untrustable, believes them.

Your case is inexistent.

Wrong. I stated the current sources are all Catholic but I neglected to state the Rosicrucians are officially recognized as the descendents of the survivors of the massacres of the Cathars and south french nobility.

That's true. Everyone has a rational soul.
But so far, in this thread, you have shown very little use of your reason.

1. There is no soul.
2. I've used more reason here than you got in your socks.

Norea, you have been positively brainwashed.
Exactly like cults in which the members won't even read something that might prove them wrong, you are doing the same thing.
And per usual no rational explanation is given.
You have just said that you will not read anything written before "peer-reviewing" existed, or where it is applied.
In other words, the only thing you'll be reading for the rest of your life are academic "papers". What a waste of one mind's potential.

Sorry but it's not a cult it's called logic and reason. Also called the scientific method. You probably think the development of transitors, artificial insulin, refrigeration, vaccines, blood-types, and the scientific method all are wastes too huh?

If, one day, you want to know the Church's position on the persecution of Jews, you'll read the encyclical I linked you to, written centuries before the persecution of Jews in Spain (at the mandate of the Queen).
Or you can just continue with your uncriticized views and to the end of your life, when, I hope, God will show you to be wrong and thus allow you to be with Him forever.

Wrong again buddy I can find any instances of Catholics and clergy saying jews are demons prior to John Paul II's asking of forgiveness from the jews.

Marx never said humans are purely irrational.
He tried to turn study history and mankind scientifically, in a purely rational way.

Wrong the Dialetical method isn't rational. I find it funny you defending a man that believes only the will of the group was the will of the individual...

And he believed that the thoughts of men were determined by the mode of production in effect at the time and place (an economic determinism), quite unlike existentialism according to which humans have a completely free will.

Wrong again. Determinism can and does exist with free will as you assume it. But of course you haven't read the compatibilist view of causlity and choice?

Don't you know Marx also dreamed with the end of the State?
After a period called dictatorship of the proletariat, when the economy was centrally planned, this government would step down and society would be equal and harmonious on its own, each man free to pursue their own personal dreams.

And Marx turned back on that idealogy and Max Stirner shows that it could never happen[for source read The Ego and His Own].

All right, you are not Marxist if you say so. But your thought is certainly influenced by him.

Wrong again, Marx was influenced by Hegel who was influenced by Kant. I'm of the thread of thought that runs counter to mysticism in philosophy e.g. Aristotle, St Thomas of Aquinas, Locke, Stirner, Rand and etc.. None of which ever subscribe to anything you stated. PLEASE QUIT BEING A LITTLE CHILD AND GROW UP.

 

[Norea]

Not at all.
The presidency is a secular position. So is senatorship, judges, etc.

Argentina's government is officially Catholic today. Only Catholics can be president. And whoever thinks that it is a theocracy is using a completely new definition of "theocracy".

Sorry it's a theocracy. If you think Argentina is the perfect example of an open society, sorry it's not. When you exclude non-religious persons from the government with no means of REPRESENTATION. IT IS TYRANNY. The SAME TYRANNY that my forefathers, in America, fought against. And we, Americans, won't let YOU, elitest try to well us, Americans, how to live. Nor will the UN accept such a state-hood. Heck even in Iran, the people are resisting your little theocratic views but in this case from Islam. It will be a funny day when Capitalism and Reason have won the day and men like yourself, Lifesaver, will be laughed at as you pass by to tell someone that is openly gay, atheist, and/or non-xian how evil they are and must convert or you will kill them. They will laugh as they call the cops to haul you away...

-- Bridget

 

[stranger]

Not a chance

Hmmm ... consider this:
Matthew 24:24 For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Now if everyone but 144,000 elect are fooled by the antichrist message, that makes it inevitably a worldwide multi-state religion and its name will be what? ... yes you guessed it, christianity ....

 

[Lifesaver]

Wrong. I stated the current sources are all Catholic but I neglected to state the Rosicrucians are officially recognized as the descendents of the survivors of the massacres of the Cathars and south french nobility.

So you are using Rosicrucian sources...
Not very "scholarly"...

1. There is no soul.
2. I've used more reason here than you got in your socks.

You have used more reason that I have in my socks, that's true, for there is none reason there, and even in your angry and as of now insulting posts it is possible to see sparks of reason, though they haven't yet become anything more than that.

Sorry but it's not a cult it's called logic and reason. Also called the scientific method. You probably think the development of transitors, artificial insulin, refrigeration, vaccines, blood-types, and the scientific method all are wastes too huh?

No.

Wrong again buddy I can find any instances of Catholics and clergy saying jews are demons prior to John Paul II's asking of forgiveness from the jews.

What a fallacy you commit now!
Do you not know that whether a Catholic says or not something that doesn't mean that something is part of Catholic doctrine?
If I met an atheist who wished to see me being killed, would it be true if I said that atheism preaches the extermination of Christians?

Here, since you won't read it, I will post some of the Pope Gregory X's words on the persecution of Jews; these are orders that all Catholics are required to follow:
Moreover no Christian shall presume to seize, imprison, wound, torture, mutilate, kill or inflict violence on them;

In addition, no one shall disturb them in any way during the celebration of their festivals, whether by day or by night, with clubs or stones or anything else.

We decree in order to stop the wickedness and avarice of bad men, that no one shall dare to devastate or to destroy a cemetery of the Jews or to dig up human bodies for the sake of getting money.

The whole (or most of it, at least) can be read here:
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Greg10/g10jprot.htm

Wrong the Dialetical method isn't rational. I find it funny you defending a man that believes only the will of the group was the will of the individual...

Of course the dialetical method is irrational, but that didn't stop Marx from thinking he had developed a science. And that's why he called his socialism by the name of "scientific socialism".
And he never said that the will of the group was the will of the individual.
And I have never defended him.

I'm of the thread of thought that runs counter to mysticism in philosophy e.g. Aristotle, St Thomas of Aquinas, Locke, Stirner, Rand and etc.. None of which ever subscribe to anything you stated. PLEASE QUIT BEING A LITTLE CHILD AND GROW UP.

St. Thomas Aquinas?
I think you would find that yours and his views are quite in odds with each other.
It is a good thing that you strive to be a rational person, but for that ever to happen you must first be able to think for yourself, and think clearly. Not try to memorize some names and then claim to "use reason" all the while having not one argument to defend your position (and so far you've shown no arguments indeed).