The State Religon

[CaDan]

Lifesaver--I'm waiting for a discussion of how the preferential option for the poor will be implemented in your planned theocracy.

God does not demand much of you. He asks back what he gave you, and from him you take what is enough for you. The superfluities of the rich are the necessities of the poor. When you possess superfluities, you possess what belongs to others.​

St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 147

It will be necessary above all to abandon a mentality in which the poor - as individuals and as people - are considered a burden, as irksome intruders trying to consume what others have produced. The poor ask for the right to share in enjoying material goods and to make use of their capacity to work, thus creating a world that is more just and prosperous for all. The advancement of the poor constitutes a great opportunity for the moral, cultural and even economic growth of all humanity.​

Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus

And all of Rerum Novarum, of course.

 

[Lifesaver]

The acceptance into Christian groups of abortion and other sins is one effect of the relativistic and hedonistic world views which are promoted by the secular governments of today.

Plus, when a government treats all religions in the same way, it is indeed a relativism of truth, because religions make exclusive truth claims. If one religion is right in one matter, the others are wrong.
Fueled by the false notion that the truth is subject to democratic vote, the modern government will adapt its laws to whatever the majority wants (ideally, at least). Thus we have complete relativism: in treatment, in truth and in morality.

You are right that the dream of many atheists is to have a government which actively persecutes religion. And history makes that evident:
First, the French revolution slaughtered thousands of religious people, curbed the rights of the Church and instituted their own civil mock-religion.
But of course, the people of Europe, at that time, still did not accept such a radical posture. Therefore, the newly founded French government adopted the relativistic stance (and so the rest of Europe followed), instead of actively denying religion.

The next step was the socialist revolution. What the bloody revolutions of the previous age had not the power to do, these even bloodier revolutions did: prohibited religion.

Thankfully, the horrors of socialism could only be endured for so long; and nowadays it is but a sad memory on the minds of those who lived under it.
But he is very naive who thinks those who conspire against Christianity (even if unconsciously) were satisfied with relativism. Even though atheistic revolutions now seem a lot less likely (though guerrillas are being fought as we speak in continents such as mine), the mentality which inspired them is being spread.
And here is the point in which we realize that under the guise of indifferent relativism, the modern State and the modern mindset deny traditional Christianity and do not tolerate Christian values.
The extremely secular mentality of the French revolution is still alive, only now it is a lot more popular. And the modern State reflects that, by passing ever more anti-Christian laws. And many Christian groups give in to it, and with it reject everything that Christianity was traditionally connected to, hence your association with abortion and Christianity.
There's probably not one vice which some Christian denomination today does not condone. But that doesn't mean they are Christian at all.

This illusion that Christianity has become more bland and tamed is an effect of the growth of atheistic secularism, which now has gone from torture and murder of Christians to the unconscious conversion of them to the relativistic values of total equality and liberty.
The government gives people the freedom to be religious and not be persecuted (I am here typing all this and attending my church with no fear of being shot for my beliefs), but through its laws denies Christianity. It is impossible for me, as a Christian, to be in favour of my completely secular, relativistic, demagogue and quasi-socialist government.

Governments such as ours which take no religious stance have already taken the stance against religion.

 

[Lifesaver]

Truer words John Paul II couldn't have spoken. Let me re-quote them:

It will be necessary above all to abandon a mentality in which the poor - as individuals and as people - are considered a burden, as irksome intruders trying to consume what others have produced. The poor ask for the right to share in enjoying material goods and to make use of their capacity to work, thus creating a world that is more just and prosperous for all. The advancement of the poor constitutes a great opportunity for the moral, cultural and even economic growth of all humanity.

And who better than the Church herself to help the poor? Not only does she give them material food, but spiritual food also, which is infinitely more important.
And how do we create more jobs, more opportunities to allow the poor to make use of their capacity to work, if not by increasing the economic freedom in our society?
And this indeed will constitute the moral, economic and cultural growth of our society, which is today dominated by a materialistic socialistic worldview, which does the exact the opposite of that, by ignoring the differences between each individual, seeking to treat all strictly in the same way and by equalizing all under misery.

In this way, there will be a lot less poor people in need of help, but those who do will always have the generous hands of the Church to provide them with what is necessary for their dignified existence, all coming from the personal charity of each faithful, who decides how much it is proper for them to give at that time.

Plus, let me make it clear that I don't defend a theocracy at all. Just a Catholic government, which upholds Christian values and the Christian faith.

 

[CaDan]

Would a Catholic government enforce St. Augustine's observation that "When you possess superfluities, you possess what belongs to others"?

 

[The Bellman]

The acceptance into Christian groups of abortion and other sins is one effect of the relativistic and hedonistic world views which are promoted by the secular governments of today.

That's your opinion, one that you back up with nothing (and, to be honest, I don't see how it COULD be backed up with anything).

Plus, when a government treats all religions in the same way, it is indeed a relativism of truth, because religions make exclusive truth claims. If one religion is right in one matter, the others are wrong.

Governments (ie., secular ones) treat all religion the same way in terms of rights. They make no claim as to the validity of the religion's truth claims. This is not any kind of relativism of truth, for the government does not say that all religions are equally true (or false). It merely says that all religions have an equal right to be practised.

Fueled by the false notion that the truth is subject to democratic vote, the modern government will adapt its laws to whatever the majority wants (ideally, at least). Thus we have complete relativism: in treatment, in truth and in morality.

It is, indeed, a false notion that truth is subject to democratic vote. However, modern government is not 'fueled' by this notion; it doesn't even hold it.

You are right that the dream of many atheists is to have a government which actively persecutes religion.

No atheist I've ever met.

And here is the point in which we realize that under the guise of indifferent relativism, the modern State and the modern mindset deny traditional Christianity and do not tolerate Christian values.

No, it's the point at which you IMAGINE that. It doesn't happen. The modern state happily tolerates christian values. It just prevents christians from imposing those values on everyone.

The government gives people the freedom to be religious and not be persecuted (I am here typing all this and attending my church with no fear of being shot for my beliefs), but through its laws denies Christianity. It is impossible for me, as a Christian, to be in favour of my completely secular, relativistic, demagogue and quasi-socialist government.

The government's laws in no way deny christianity. It is not impossible for a christian to be in favour of a completely secular government. Many of them are.

Governments such as ours which take no religious stance have already taken the stance against religion.

False and unsupportable.

 

[wandering_paladin]

I highly doubt we need to repeat the theocracy exhibited during the Dark Ages, along with all its torture, public execution, and untold oppression upon the poor.

 

[Lifesaver]

Would a Catholic government enforce St. Augustine's observation that "When you possess superfluities, you possess what belongs to others"?

No.

Superfluity is that which we possess that is more than what is necessary to survive.
Popes have, throughout history, defended private property, even that of those who possess a lot more land than what they need to feed themselves and their family, and those who have more money that what they need to survive well.
Papal authority, in this respect comes before the words of St. Augustine who, wise as he was, could not have known the scientific facts behind the economy: how labour creates wealth and how economic relations are not a zero-sum game.
Likewise, we are not bound by the scientific view held by St. Thomas Aquinas: that everything physical was composed of water, earth, fire, air or ether.

And that is if we have interpreted St. Augustine's words correctly. A particular point of contention could be what he meant by superfluity, for instance.

 

[Lifesaver]

That's your opinion, one that you back up with nothing (and, to be honest, I don't see how it COULD be backed up with anything).

Do you not know that abortion was considered a heinous sin by all Christians in the past?
Even more shocking: up to the 1930s, all Christian denominations agreed that contraception was immoral. Nowadays, the Catholic Church is the only one which still upholds that value.

Governments (ie., secular ones) treat all religion the same way in terms of rights. They make no claim as to the validity of the religion's truth claims. This is not any kind of relativism of truth, for the government does not say that all religions are equally true (or false). It merely says that all religions have an equal right to be practised.

If equal space is given, is because they are all considered equally valid.

It is, indeed, a false notion that truth is subject to democratic vote. However, modern government is not 'fueled' by this notion; it doesn't even hold it.

Have you not read that governments have changed from prohibiting divorce and adultery to allowing them in the past decades?
And that now they are moving from prohibiting abortion to allowing it?
And how they are now getting to encourage homosexual unions through civil marriage?

And this is because the general opinion has changed. These things were in the past considered absolutely wrong, and now they are either seen as neutral or even positive, and the governments reflect that.

The government's laws in no way deny christianity. It is not impossible for a christian to be in favour of a completely secular government. Many of them are.

Many Christians mistakenly assume that a completely secular government will be kept in harmony with Christianity.
But many are realizing this is not the case, with the legalization of abortion and the official encouraging of homosexual unions.

 

[The Bellman]

Do you not know that abortion was considered a heinous sin by all Christians in the past?
Even more shocking: up to the 1930s, all Christian denominations agreed that contraception was immoral. Nowadays, the Catholic Church is the only one which still upholds that value.

Even if true, this does not support your claim. The fact that religions' positions have changed on a number of issues says nothing about the reason(s) for those changs.

If equal space is given, is because they are all considered equally valid.

False. If equal space is given, it is because their validity is not a criteria.

Have you not read that governments have changed from prohibiting divorce and adultery to allowing them in the past decades?
And that now they are moving from prohibiting abortion to allowing it?
And how they are now getting to encourage homosexual unions through civil marriage?

Which has nothing at all to do with your claim that the government holds that truth is subject to democratic vote. Governments don't legislate truth; they legislate what is permitted.

And this is because the general opinion has changed. These things were in the past considered absolutely wrong, and now they are either seen as neutral or even positive, and the governments reflect that.

They are seen as being legally permissible.

Many Christians mistakenly assume that a completely secular government will be kept in harmony with Christianity.
But many are realizing this is not the case, with the legalization of abortion and the official encouraging of homosexual unions.

Perhaps they do. That, however, is not at issue. What IS at issue is that it is quite possible to be a christian and a supporter of civil government. All you have to do is realise that the job of a civil government isn't to legislate the morals/edicts of a particular religious group.

The job of a government is to govern for ALL the people, not for a select few. Obviously, being a christian is compatible with such a remit. I don't look to the government to legislate against those things that I think are immoral; christians should do the same.

 

[Lifesaver]

Even if true, this does not support your claim. The fact that religions' positions have changed on a number of issues says nothing about the reason(s) for those changs.

The reasons are known by all: submission of Christian groups to social pressure, of secularized and hedonistic opinions which appeared as a result of Modernity.

Which has nothing at all to do with your claim that the government holds that truth is subject to democratic vote. Governments don't legislate truth; they legislate what is permitted.

If a government permits something as abortion, it doesn't consider that wrong.

Perhaps they do. That, however, is not at issue. What IS at issue is that it is quite possible to be a christian and a supporter of civil government. All you have to do is realise that the job of a civil government isn't to legislate the morals/edicts of a particular religious group.
The job of a government is to govern for ALL the people, not for a select few. Obviously, being a christian is compatible with such a remit. I don't look to the government to legislate against those things that I think are immoral; christians should do the same.

I look to the government to legislate against those things which are immoral (though not all of them, such as exclusively private vices). And just like the law applies to all people, morality also apply to everyone.
It is not because one is agnostic that they are free from doing what is good and avoiding what is evil.

 

[The Bellman]

The reasons are known by all: submission of Christian groups to social pressure, of secularized and hedonistic opinions which appeared as a result of Modernity.

No, the reasons you state are believed by YOU. They're clearly not 'known by all' (since I, at least, don't know them), and you haven't evidenced them in any way.

If a government permits something as abortion, it doesn't consider that wrong.

False. If a government permits something, it doesn't consider it illegal. Governments don't make moral decisions.

I look to the government to legislate against those things which are immoral (though not all of them, such as exclusively private vices). And just like the law applies to all people, morality also apply to everyone.
It is not because one is agnostic that they are free from doing what is good and avoiding what is evil.

That is your problem. You want the government to legislate against what YOU think is morally wrong. Sorry, but that's not its job. Morality isn't the law; there is no definably accurate view as to what is and isn't morally right or wrong. Many of the things you view as morally wrong, others view as morally right, and vice-versa. It is precisely for that reason that governments that attempt to legislate morality inevitably end up making bad laws.

 

[CaDan]

Hmmm.... I'm more from the Dorothy Day end of the Church.

 

[HRE]

The reasons are known by all: submission of Christian groups to social pressure, of secularized and hedonistic opinions which appeared as a result of Modernity.

Christianity had 1500 years to prove the superiority of its moral standards. You know what we call those years now, don't you?

 

[Norea]

LOL yea, I know much of what people call morals are actually cautionaries[e.g. don't do that cause this will happen]. Morals must stand for values. Like valuing life, liberty and property; which oddly is the basic tenets of philosophy of Deists, Atheists, and generally critically thinking human beings.

-- Bridget

 

[Caylin]

Plus, let me make it clear that I don't defend a theocracy at all. Just a Catholic government, which upholds Christian values and the Christian faith.

How exactly is that diffrent from a theocracy?

 

[The Bellman]

Plus, let me make it clear that I don't defend a theocracy at all. Just a Catholic government, which upholds Christian values and the Christian faith.

How exactly is that diffrent from a theocracy?

It's not, of course. What he wants is EXACTLY a theocracy - a Catholic one. He just doesn't want to use the word 'theocracy'.

 

[zoe_uu]

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

Obviously George Bush does. He's working so hard to force it on us all..... first it's the "Christian" definition of marriage we're all supposed to swallow, what's next? These next 4 years are going to be very scary for anyone who isn't Christian, heterosexual and white.

 

[Lifesaver]

Christianity had 1500 years to prove the superiority of its moral standards. You know what we call those years now, don't you?

It proved them well.
Surely, I know where you are trying to go. You have wrongfuly equated the years of Christian predominance with the Dark Ages; a mistake made by many who have no very good knowledge of history.

The only ages we can properly call dark begin some centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, and lasted until the 11th century or so. And in these years, even within the Church men was morality disregarded.
And even then, there were worthy things done.

The Middle Ages were a period of great cultural production, stable society and moral superiority.
Architecture, philosophy and literature flourished.
There were many problems as well, but it is not unsurprising why the 13th century has been considered, by some scholars, as the best of centuries.

The so-called Renaissance brought with itself a decadence of morality. It is no wonder that Paganism and slavery, virtually inexistent in Europe, made a comeback then. And their anti-Catholicism contaminated the study of history of Medieval times.
Many of the prejudices remain until today, but all serious historians are conscious that these biased portrayals of the Middle Ages are not true.

 

[HRE]

So the middle ages were moral and good and the renaissance was immoral and bad? That's one I've never heard before.

 

[The Bellman]

It proved them well.
Surely, I know where you are trying to go. You have wrongfuly equated the years of Christian predominance with the Dark Ages; a mistake made by many who have no very good knowledge of history.

The only ages we can properly call dark begin some centuries after the fall of the Roman Empire, and lasted until the 11th century or so. And in these years, even within the Church men was morality disregarded.
And even then, there were worthy things done.

The Middle Ages were a period of great cultural production, stable society and moral superiority.
Architecture, philosophy and literature flourished.
There were many problems as well, but it is not unsurprising why the 13th century has been considered, by some scholars, as the best of centuries.

The so-called Renaissance brought with itself a decadence of morality. It is no wonder that Paganism and slavery, virtually inexistent in Europe, made a comeback then. And their anti-Catholicism contaminated the study of history of Medieval times.
Many of the prejudices remain until today, but all serious historians are conscious that these biased portrayals of the Middle Ages are not true.

Excuse me while I laugh for about three days.