The State Religon

[Suzannah]

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.

The Troubles are not really about religion and never have been. It is about politics and more specifically the question of independence vs. Crown rule. It is entirely possible to be a Catholic and support Crown rule, just as it is entirely possible to be a Protestant and support independence. There are many who cross those lines. The "problem of the Irish" is in short: whether or not, a Protestant King/Queen with attendant out-of-country parliament has the best interest of the Irish, who are predominantly Catholic, at heart. So using Northern Ireland as your example is quite erroneous.

But to answer the OP: No , Christianity is about free will and should never be made a "state religion".

 

[Norea]

LOL. Yea. What values does your Catholic Government have? Does it value individuality? Free-thinking? Critical Analysis? Representative Governance? Well, unless such values are satistified I'm not really interested in hearing about your Theocracy(tm) Redux.

-- Bridget

 

[zoe_uu]

But to answer the OP: No , Christianity is about free will and should never be made a "state religion".

Then why are Christians forcing their beliefs into becoming state law?

 

[Suzannah]

LOL. Yea. What values does your Catholic Government have? Does it value individuality? Free-thinking? Critical Analysis? Representative Governance? Well, unless such values are satistified I'm not really interested in hearing about your Theocracy(tm) Redux.

-- Bridget

Bridget,
It would be helpful if we knew to whom you are responding. If you were referring your comments to me, I would tell you first, I am Orthodox, not Roman Catholic, and further, your endorsement of the Republic of Ireland's government is certainly not necessary.

 

[Suzannah]

Then why are Christians forcing their beliefs into becoming state law?

Well, I am certainly against such a thing. Please tell me where people are being forced to become Christian, as a result of state law, and confine your response to modern day examples, please.

 

[Norea]

The Troubles are not really about religion and never have been. It is about politics and more specifically the question of independence vs. Crown rule. It is entirely possible to be a Catholic and support Crown rule, just as it is entirely possible...

Not quite. According to what I've read about the Catholic Church in Wikipedia, that it changed its stance on 'divine right' kingships on the basis of the acceptance of Natural Law[e.g. that all people have rights that are derived from Nature...]. If you accept Natural Law[Atheistic, Deistic, Catholic, or Protestant] you cannot accept Monarchies. It's clear to me that the claim of divine-right monarchies are not acceptable anymore; theologically, philosophically and ethically.

But to answer the OP: No , Christianity is about free will and should never be made a "state religion".

Not at the start. Christianity's largest theocracy was Byzantium[The Eastern Roman Empire] and there was no free-will in its development or governance. I would temper the entertaining of a theocracy with extreme caution, it only leads to murder, deceit, and death.

-- Bridget

 

[Norea]

... your endorsement of the Republic of Ireland's government is certainly not necessary.

But every government in a critical thinking civilization is by default under my concerns. If I think said government is leading its people to further depotism I will speak. If I think said government will imping the values of others I will speak. It is not a matter of it being 'necessary' to you, it is necessary to me.

-- Bridget

 

[Suzannah]

Not quite. According to what I've read about the Catholic Church in Wikipedia, that it changed its stance on 'divine right' kingships on the basis of the acceptance of Natural Law[e.g. that all people have rights that are derived from Nature...]. If you accept Natural Law[Atheistic, Deistic, Catholic, or Protestant] you cannot accept Monarchies. It's clear to me that the claim of divine-right monarchies are not acceptable anymore; theologically, philosophically and ethically.

I am neither Catholic nor Protestant, but Orthodox and I certainly can accept monarchy. I can also accept free thinking, critical analysis and freedom of thought. Without it, the Republic of Ireland would never have become a reality.

Not at the start. Christianity's largest theocracy was Byzantium[The Eastern Roman Empire] and there was no free-will in its development or governance. I would temper the entertaining of a theocracy with extreme caution, it only leads to murder, deceit, and death.

Theocracy in its most deadly form, would best be represented by Islam and not Christianity. That was a nice try, however.

 

[Suzannah]

But every government in a critical thinking civilization is by default under my concerns. If I think said government is leading its people to further depotism I will speak. If I think said government will imping the values of others I will speak. It is not a matter of it being 'necessary' to you, it is necessary to me.

-- Bridget

Speak away. Despots will be ever with us, I'm afraid, as long as the human race endures. This is, however, a rather impossible task, that of Utopia building....

 

[Norea]

Sorry but the Ottoman Empire wasn't truly islamic it was a Persian redux. Byzantium saw many tortures, executions and etc of so-called 'heretics.' In the Ottoman Empires, they just tax you and you would be on your way, just a few coins lighter. And I remind you it was Pope Urban the Tenth that one of the many people that intiated the crusades mostly as a means of profit. Prior to the crusades most islamic states weren't nary a problem for Christians or Jews alike, whom have co-existed in such states in peace for centuries...

-- Bridget

 

[Suzannah]

Sorry but the Ottoman Empire wasn't truly islamic it was a Persian redux. Byzantium saw many tortures, executions and etc of so-called 'heretics.' In the Ottoman Empires, they just tax you and you would be on your way, just a few coins lighter. And I remind you it was Pope Urban the Tenth that one of the many people that intiated the crusades mostly as a means of profit. Prior to the crusades most islamic states weren't nary a problem for Christians or Jews alike, whom have co-existed in such states in peace for centuries...

-- Bridget

Yes, well, I will say again: I am Orthodox and not Catholic, therefore, this is not my philosophical problem.



However, this is such a fallacy that I feel compelled to continue and further my politically incorrect agenda, by recommending this book:

The Sword of the Prophet.

Your last statement is just so funny, that I cannot help myself. I must ask you: Please name one Islamic country where there are Jewish synogogues and Christian churches permitted to exist in "peace". LOL

 

[Lifesaver]

How exactly is that diffrent from a theocracy?

In a theocracy, the State itself is seen as a Divine institution. God, or someone who is his supreme representative (or chosen directly by God), is in power (in the eyes of the people, at least), and the secular laws are the religious laws.

Such is not a case with a Catholic government. First, the leaders come to power through secular means: monarchy, aristocracy or democracy each have different secular means of passing down power. Likewise, the law seeks to repress those vices which are more harmful to society, and which can be repressed effectively; this means that not all vices are repressed by it; not the institution of Divine law (which is a law that demands perfection) to the general population, which is far from perfection.

 

[Lifesaver]

Not quite. According to what I've read about the Catholic Church in Wikipedia, that it changed its stance on 'divine right' kingships on the basis of the acceptance of Natural Law[e.g. that all people have rights that are derived from Nature...]. If you accept Natural Law[Atheistic, Deistic, Catholic, or Protestant] you cannot accept Monarchies. It's clear to me that the claim of divine-right monarchies are not acceptable anymore; theologically, philosophically and ethically.

That's why you shouldn't believe in wikipedia so much. The doctrine of divine right of the kings is unCatholic, and was used to defend monarchich absolutism, which went against the Church.

 

[Norea]

That's why you shouldn't believe in wikipedia so much. The doctrine of divine right of the kings is unCatholic, and was used to defend monarchich absolutism, which went against the Church.

There's a big problem with your statement. I said that Wikipedia stated the Church changed its stance in that time period. And more so in the 20th century. It's well documented that at times members of the Church's bishops were dissenters to the idea of divine-right kingships. I don't know where you get your bias against Wikipedia but it's peer-reviewed and constantly reviewed for bigotry, bias and omissions.

-- Bridget

 

[zoe_uu]

Well, I am certainly against such a thing. Please tell me where people are being forced to become Christian, as a result of state law, and confine your response to modern day examples, please.

Christians are forcing their idea of what marriage should be on the whole population and in denying a segment of society equal rights simply because they don't agree with them.

 

[Norea]

Yes, well, I will say again: I am Orthodox and not Catholic, therefore, this is not my philosophical problem.



However, this is such a fallacy that I feel compelled to continue and further my politically incorrect agenda, by recommending this book:

The Sword of the Prophet.

Your last statement is just so funny, that I cannot help myself. I must ask you: Please name one Islamic country where there are Jewish synogogues and Christian churches permitted to exist in "peace". LOL

I don't go for popular books they tend to sensationalize the facts. Yes Arab muslims invaded Egypt and tried by force to convert the population. No questions about that in history. You can ask the last of the Chemic[Egyptian] peoples about that, personally since so few are alive today[see Rural Egyptians and the 'Black' Egyptians for sources.]. But the Burning Times by the Church are a classic example of bigotry masked in the guise of piety. Same with the Protestant revolutions throughout central Europe, where jews and Catholics were put to the sword and vice versa[French Hueganots[sp?]].

I think it's very questionable that you turn a blind-eye to the attrocities done in the name of Xian piety and yet you love to shine a flashlight on Islamics. Reminds me of that old parable of the Log in Thine Eye and all that jazz.

-- Bridget

 

[Suzannah]

I don't go for popular books they tend to sensationalize the facts. Yes Arab muslims invaded Egypt and tried by force to convert the population. No questions about that in history. You can ask the last of the Chemic[Egyptian] peoples about that, personally since so few are alive today[see Rural Egyptians and the 'Black' Egyptians for sources.]. But the Burning Times by the Church are a classic example of bigotry masked in the guise of piety. Same with the Protestant revolutions throughout central Europe, where jews and Catholics were put to the sword and vice versa[French Hueganots[sp?]].

I think it's very questionable that you turn a blind-eye to the attrocities done in the name of Xian piety and yet you love to shine a flashlight on Islamics. Reminds me of that old parable of the Log in Thine Eye and all that jazz.

-- Bridget

Ah yes, who can forget the invention of the Burning Times....
http://wicca.timerift.net/burning.html

 

[Norea]

Your last statement is just so funny, that I cannot help myself. I must ask you: Please name one Islamic country where there are Jewish synogogues and Christian churches permitted to exist in "peace". LOL

My answer is the Ottoman Empire at its height. And even prior. And even while it was officially at war with the Church. No other society was as cosmopolitan as the Ottoman Empire save for the pre-Xian Roman Empire. It's very odd how folks really pretend to know their history....

-- Bridget

 

[Norea]

Ah yes, who can forget the invention of the Burning Times....
http://wicca.timerift.net/burning.html

Lemme think you don't think the Church didn't have 'purges' throughout Europe? Come on! The Cathars? Does that ring a bell? How about the extermination of pre-xian pagan religions[Cult of Kybele/Magna Mater]? And what about the persecution of Spanish jews to consolidate power in Spain?

Wow those never happened. You learned the new-speak very well, young padawan...

-- Bridget

 

[Suzannah]

My answer is the Ottoman Empire at its height. And even prior. And even while it was officially at war with the Church. No other society was as cosmopolitan as the Ottoman Empire save for the pre-Xian Roman Empire. It's very odd how folks really pretend to know their history....

-- Bridget

Ah yes. The good old days:
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/ottoman.html