The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State

How many millions died in the reign of terror?

~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

How many millions died in the reign of terror?

~:rolleyes:

---

20000-40000.

You sarcasm is mistaken. I was affirming your point...

From the 3rd of September 1793 to the 27th of July 1794, the number of victims of the Terror is 40,000 victims of whom 17.000 by the guillotine and the rest drown, by shooting squads etc…
After the victory of Fleurus (26th of June 1794, where for the first time an observation balloon (filled with hydrogen) was used, in fact a far better moral factor than a real observation role) the Republic felt safer and Robespierre rule was ended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Given that Christianity believes we are all created equal before God, I would say that it establishes one of the fundamentals of Democracy. Without the 'created' part, we have the false premise that 'all men are equal', which is a logical absurdity. A handsome, athletic genius is in no way equal to a crippled, mentally retarded ugly person. Utilizing secular ethics, how exactly do you justify One Man, One Vote?

---

I don't understand your position. Not only religion has carried that message, philosophy has done the same from a different point of view. In answer to your question, there's another branch wich states that equality and freedom have to be conquered, no man is born free and equal, that's an illusion, one wich has autorized christianity to commit the most terrible atrocities in Earth so they can be undone in Heaven, when we'll are equal. The idea is being equal before man not before God...

Quote:

---

Given the number of Republics and governmental changes France has seen, it could very well be argued that a more stabilizing influence wouldn't go amiss, IMHO. Be that as it may, France during the revolution descended into exactly the kind of violence I am talking about and decided to invade the rest of Europe in a bid for mastery. The results were millions of dead. This is hardly support for your argument. I don't know what century you think we live in, but it isn't the 14th century. Things may be different where you live, but around here our last heretic burning was...like months ago! Peasants, burning heretics? I mean get real!

---

The Revolution is from the XVIII century, why do you say 14th century? If it was by the religious ethics of christianity many revolutions wouldn't have happened, that's what tradition dictates. Here, for example, the bishop was on the side of spanish domination. The revolutionary man always loses one of the christian virtues, and it's generally compassion, but ask yourself where would America (as a whole) be without secular revolution, and where will all of the Western world be without the ideas behind the french Revolution and without the separation of Church and State, wich by the way is far much more older than the USA.

Quote:

---

The scale of the violence is exactly the point I was making. Charlemagne killed about 4,500 Saxons, though some are suggesting it never actually happened. This is hardly a comparison to the mass murders of Stalin.

---

Yes, when Stalin lived there were more people on Earth (and more on Russia for that matter)... However your arguement doesn't hold ground. The intolerance of the Christian church (and others) was displayed in a more ample ground than just war and conquer, it had a lot to do with a sistematic oppression of the disident, the pagan. If you're going to measure the evilness of something by numbers then we're on a completely different ground.

Quote:

---

Well, if you would actually take the time to read what I posted you would discover that I said..."That war exists and atrocities have happened throughout history is obvious. Religion is of course going to be involved in all of these things." and I said..."didn't massacre the vast majority". Clearly suggesting that they did massacre their fair share.

---

Now, I ask again. Why do you only take massacres into account, when the killing of people is not the only way to portray one's ethics? The ethics of the christian church were until the XIII century the one wich hold entire Europe on inertia, not to talk about intolerance. You're giving to much importance to numbers when it's not a question of numbers, but valoration of the respective conducts according to moral rules (IMO).

Quote:

---

A belief in religion does not guarantee morality in an individual, but it does seem to guarantee a moral society. Like all things in life, it is not a 100% sort of thing. Secular morality on the other hand does not guarantee immorality in an individual, but it does seem to guarantee an immoral society.

---

The same movements wich tried to get rid of religion in name of the temporal power also attacked their morals, that's the reason everything failed, not because religion was attacked, but because the customs and traditions wich set the morality were also attacked. And it's not a coincidence that it's secular movements, because those are the ones wich carried the revolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Actually, it doesn't even mean that. Legislators are free to bring their religious convictions to the laws they write. What they cannot do (in most Western nations) is explicitly enshrine their religion in law.

---

That was more or less what I was trying to to say.

:oops:

Quote:

---

My point is that secular ethics seem to be much more virulent when it assumes power unhindered by religious ethics. Is it just a coincidence that the list of the greatest mass murderer's in history, with the exception of Ghengis Khan, were the leaders of secular movements? The Crusades? The Crusades don't hold a candle to any of them!

---

Secular movements... except they weren't secular, they were anti-religious. If the government is executing people because of their religion, then there isn't exactly seperation of chruch and state, because the government is allowing religion to play a role in its policies. The chruch needs to be protected as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mongoose

Quote:
My point is that secular ethics seem to be much more virulent when it assumes power unhindered by religious ethics. Is it just a coincidence that the list of the greatest mass murderer's in history, with the exception of Ghengis Khan, were the leaders of secular movements? The Crusades? The Crusades don't hold a candle to any of them!

Secular movements... except they weren't secular, they were anti-religious. If the government is executing people because of their religion, then there isn't exactly seperation of chruch and state, because the government is allowing religion to play a role in its policies. The chruch needs to be protected as well.

---

So Stalin was a religious man because he shot priests?

I think anti-religious movements qualify as secular movements or the word has no meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

With the possible exception of Genghis Khan, all the mass murderers you mentioned were not just "evil men". They were sociopaths, mentally dysfunctional people with no capability of moral judgement. These sort of people tend to be atheists, true, but to use them as an indicator for any secular government is ridiculous.

---

Communism is not a religious movement. It is a secular movement as is fascism. They were secular movements, with a non-religious ethical standard. The central tenets of these movements are not religious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I want a secular government, not an atheist one. We speak of a secular government when a government does not endorse any specific religion. Civil servants can adhere to any religion they want but shouldn't be allowed to show preference when doing their job. That anybody can have a problem with this is amazes me, and shows their true colors.

---

If secular means that no one particular religion is established by the government then I would agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

From the 3rd of September 1793 to the 27th of July 1794, the number of victims of the Terror is 40,000 victims of whom 17.000 by the guillotine and the rest drown, by shooting squads etc…
After the victory of Fleurus (26th of June 1794, where for the first time an observation balloon (filled with hydrogen) was used, in fact a far better moral factor than a real observation role) the Republic felt safer and Robespierre rule was ended.

---

What happened in France led a lot more than just how many were guillotined. Fascism is responsible for much of what happened in World War Two, just as the French revolutionaries are responsible for what followed.

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

Civilian deaths are impossible to accurately estimate. Whilst military deaths are invariably put at between 2.5 million and 3.5 million, civilian death tolls vary from 750,000 to 3 million. Thus estimates of total dead, both military and civilian, can reasonably range from 3,250,000 to 6,500,000.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I don't understand your position. Not only religion has carried that message, philosophy has done the same from a different point of view. In answer to your question, there's another branch wich states that equality and freedom have to be conquered, no man is born free and equal, that's an illusion, one wich has autorized christianity to commit the most terrible atrocities in Earth so they can be undone in Heaven, when we'll are equal. The idea is being equal before man not before God...

---

So in your opinion men are not equal at all unless they earn it through... violence? Something else? Are you talking about a graduated system of votes? Alpha Citizens, Beta's for those who have earned them? If you 'earn' or 'conquer' freedom then by implication you are saying there will be those who have NOT EARNED THEIR FREEDOM! We used to call that slavery.

I assume that is not in fact what you mean so a clarification would be helpful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

So Stalin was a religious man because he shot priests?

I think anti-religious movements qualify as secular movements or the word has no meaning.

---

a trully secular movement would not judge people on the basis of their religious beliefs....religion would simply not be an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

Communism is not a religious movement. It is a secular movement as is fascism. They were secular movements, with a non-religious ethical standard. The central tenets of these movements are not religious.

---

Fascism most certainly was not secular. Christianity and religion played a major part in that particular movement. Gott mit uns, right?

Communism is a different story ... it was atheistic, therefore, it was not secular. While one cannot qualify atheism as a religion, it nevertheless falls into that sphere, and therefore, makes communism cease being secular.

A secular goverment is one that ignores religion, in essence. While that is not truly possible, the impact of religion is minimized, and the state does not attempt to push itself into religious matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

Fascism most certainly was not secular. Christianity and religion played a major part in that particular movement. Gott mit uns, right?

Communism is a different story ... it was atheistic, therefore, it was not secular. While one cannot qualify atheism as a religion, it nevertheless falls into that sphere, and therefore, makes communism cease being secular.

A secular goverment is one that ignores religion, in essence. While that is not truly possible, the impact of religion is minimized, and the state does not attempt to push itself into religious matter.

---

So a secular movement is one that ignores religion, but... that isn't possible.

So logically there is no such thing as a secular movement!

Well I guess it my misunderstanding. Not much point in arguing about something that doesn't exist.

There is, in fact, no secular movement, yes. However, there wouldn't be a lot of things if we only counted absolutes.

Secular movements, like I said, attempt to minimized the impact of religion, while, at the same time, refraining from interfering in religious matters. That does not mean that religion does not influence politics and that politics don't influence religion, but secular movements attempt to minimize such things.

TBH, I'm not even sure who is advocating what here, or even what the debate is about, but I'll go with the flow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

So in your opinion men are not equal at all unless they earn it through... violence? Something else? Are you talking about a graduated system of votes? Alpha Citizens, Beta's for those who have earned them? If you 'earn' or 'conquer' freedom then by implication you are saying there will be those who have NOT EARNED THEIR FREEDOM! We used to call that slavery.

I assume that is not in fact what you mean so a clarification would be helpful.

---

No. It's simply a fact. The doctrine of christianity is pure metaphysics, you stated it clearly: "before the eyes of God". What I'm, almost quoting, to give it a face, is from Bakunin, however the ideology could be far more older.
And yes there will be and there are those who are not free and who deserve it and those who will not get freedom. Or are you saying to me that man was always free. Again before the eyes of God we could have always been free, as it's metaphysics you can forget about what you observe. But do you dare to say that freedom wasn't conquered by man? That slavery didn't exist? That opression was only an illussion? You can take the christian doctrine to your heart if you want, as natual law it's an species of panacea if you use it well, however as far as reality goes something has to be done.

Equality before the eyes of God brought a lot of doctrines, specially the "millenium" in the first years. It had to do a lot with the relationship between State and Church. Some extremits even stated that what happens in this world is not important because the real city is on heaven, justifying any kind of State and government. But equality before the eyes of God is pretty vague and you know that it could be used for the most terrible or the most benevolent of ends. If you're an atheist then I don't see why do you get so upset when I'm attacking its flawled doctrine. If you don't believe in God what's the difference if we're all equal before him or not...

All that sayed I think that it has nothing to do with the subject. I agree with the majority of the article, I only disagree as far as his moral tesis goes, as stated in my first post.

I thought separation of Church and State was more along the lines that government wouldn't interfer with what Churches do.

=][=

I do think that Churches should be taxed as corporations.
I don't think there should be a state religion as this would not be fair to the other religions.

So Pindar, what is it you think America should be doing differently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
So in your opinion men are not equal at all unless they earn it through... violence? Something else? Are you talking about a graduated system of votes? Alpha Citizens, Beta's for those who have earned them? If you 'earn' or 'conquer' freedom then by implication you are saying there will be those who have NOT EARNED THEIR FREEDOM! We used to call that slavery.

I assume that is not in fact what you mean so a clarification would be helpful.

No. It's simply a fact. The doctrine of Christianity is pure metaphysics, you stated it clearly: "before the eyes of God". What I'm, almost quoting, to give it a face, is from Bakunin, however the ideology could be far more older.
And yes there will be and there are those who are not free and who deserve it and those who will not get freedom. Or are you saying to me that man was always free. Again before the eyes of God we could have always been free, as it's metaphysics you can forget about what you observe. But do you dare to say that freedom wasn't conquered by man? That slavery didn't exist? That opression was only an illussion? You can take the christian doctrine to your heart if you want, as natual law it's an species of panacea if you use it well, however as far as reality goes something has to be done.

Equality before the eyes of God brought a lot of doctrines, specially the "millenium" in the first years. It had to do a lot with the relationship between State and Church. Some extremits even stated that what happens in this world is not important because the real city is on heaven, justifying any kind of State and government. But equality before the eyes of God is pretty vague and you know that it could be used for the most terrible or the most benevolent of ends. If you're an atheist then I don't see why do you get so upset when I'm attacking its flawled doctrine. If you don't believe in God what's the difference if we're all equal before him or not...

All that sayed I think that it has nothing to do with the subject. I agree with the majority of the article, I only disagree as far as his moral tesis goes, as stated in my first post.

---

Soulforged, my point was that secular ethics have considerable difficulty in rationalizing a lot of what we in the west, take for granted. It essentially piggy backs on Judeo-Christian morality. On its own it tends to degenerate into a rather cold moral code that leads as it has done historically, to Totalitarian regimes. It seems that this becomes a necessity due to the lack of a absolute code of ethics.

If there is no higher authority dictating a moral code we are left with personal opinions. If God says 'Thou shalt not commit murder", that is a commandment. If you say... "Hey, it's just me but shooting those people is... like not real cool". That is your opinion. My opinion may be that they have a car I want and I never liked 'those sort of people' anyway. That's my opinion. There is no higher authority for the two of us, to determine whose opinion should prevail. Or maybe there is! Maybe if we make a God of a man, we get our higher authority. Let's call him Der Fuhrer, and lets create a cult around Stalin, or Mao. If we then enforce the higher authority with enough control and brutality we can essentially recreate what we just got rid of. That is why this Atheist is comfortable with the flawed doctrine of Christianity. It's better than what the secular alternative has shown itself to be!

The basic thing that preserves social order, protects property and safeguards our liberty is the basic morality that individuals hold in their own hearts. When too many people follow their personal code of conduct, rather than a societal code, society has to resort to the passing of many laws to govern people. The law cannot be used as a substitute for virtue. No law can protect you from a dishonest man, because the law can always be circumvented, and in any case is always applied after the fact. The rapid growth of laws, rules and regulations in our society is a reflection of this.

The secular movements consistently show that the divergent voices are silenced and the movement is 'purged' of dissidents. They need to do this as any society or group of people must do, to become capable of effective action. Too many cooks and the soup never gets done. This is why we have no committee's ruling nations for very long. Secular ethics almost always assume that men are basically good, and this is nonsense. Communism was based on this flawed concept and it simply didn't work. Free enterprise is based on the idea of harnessing greed to do good for society as a whole, and it works. If men were by nature virtuous we wouldn't need laws, and wars would be something we observe in ant farms. It ain't that way at all. The problem is that virtue cannot be created by legislation! It must come from something else. An unimpeachable authority whose name we all know... Uncle Joe Stalin. All hail the glorious leader!

No thanks Bob! I will take that strangely dressed fellow behind door number three. A Cardinal you say...?

I agree with you that men are not equal, but I am also aware that there are some pretty nasty conclusions that stem from that. Christianity may be a panacea, and a lie but it doesn't mean that it is a lie that doesn't have its uses. We all live a lie because to do otherwise is too frightening. The universe is a rather large, cold and dark, and we are just a bit of biological material on one of its smaller bodies. Nothing we do matters in any real sense any more than the life drama of an ant or a chicken matter! People die, there are no exceptions to the rule. They die for all sorts of reasons, none of which really matter in the long run. We foster an illusion that our lives have significance because we are afraid to deal with how little meaning anything that we do actually has.

There is no purpose to the universe, There is no purpose to human life, there is no purpose to your life, or mine. It is just a vast swirl of matter and energy and we face a future extinction of endless cold. Thats all! So what kind of ethical standards about the lives of chickens, men, or ants can you come up with that has any solid foundation?

On the other hand... That Old Time Religion is on the table, and its warm and sure smells good! Mmmm.. have a nice helping of hypocrisy!

Well, according to at least some analysts, Jefferson was a secularist wack-job, possibly a friend of Hillary:

Thomas Jefferson, primary author of the Declaration of Independence and the nation’s third president, twice experimented with editing the New Testament in order to “liberate” Jesus from the supernatural beliefs of the early Christians.

[ … ]

Jefferson’s confidence in his ability to extract a “real” Jesus from the Gospels is supreme evidence of hubris and arrogance. As historian Jaroslav Pelikan noted, Jefferson “was apparently quite sure that he could tell what was genuine and what was not in the transmitted text of the New Testament.”

And Ayn Rand is definitely not on board:

If it is ever proper for men to kneel, we should kneel when we read the Declaration of Independence.

And Billy Graham doesn't see the insidiousness of the separation. Leftie!

Sir David Frost: Is this still a Christian Country?

Billy Graham: No! We’re not a Christian Country. We’ve never been a Christian Country. We’re a secular Country, by our constitution. In which Christians live and which many Christians have a voice. But we’re not a Christian Country.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

If there is no higher authority dictating a moral code we are left with personal opinions. If God says 'Thou shalt not commit murder", that is a commandment. If you say... "Hey, it's just me but shooting those people is... like not real cool". That is your opinion. My opinion may be that they have a car I want and I never liked 'those sort of people' anyway. That's my opinion. There is no higher authority for the two of us, to determine whose opinion should prevail. Or maybe there is! Maybe if we make a God of a man, we get our higher authority. Let's call him Der Fuhrer, and lets create a cult around Stalin, or Mao. If we then enforce the higher authority with enough control and brutality we can essentially recreate what we just got rid of. That is why this Atheist is comfortable with the flawed doctrine of Christianity. It's better than what the secular alternative has shown itself to be!

---

My point is not to get rid of religion. Is a little complex: if there's religious man then they have to be politically represented and offer real pressure in the system. If there's no religious man, then it means that we've found our limit in the fellowman (no higher authority than humanity itself wich will require us to be equal and free), but beyond that, it also means that there's no religion to be represented politically so the problem of separation is null. In the society we live today my view is close to yours, we need religious ideas to penetrate the State as we need a lot of other ideas: socialism, liberalism, conservadurism, progresism, capitalism, iusnaturalism, positivism, etc. I see religion in politics as I see everything else, just another part of the aparatus wich creates a determined morality or legality, no its foundation.

Quote:

---

The basic thing that preserves social order, protects property and safeguards our liberty is the basic morality that individuals hold in their own hearts. When too many people follow their personal code of conduct, rather than a societal code, society has to resort to the passing of many laws to govern people. The law cannot be used as a substitute for virtue. No law can protect you from a dishonest man, because the law can always be circumvented, and in any case is always applied after the fact. The rapid growth of laws, rules and regulations in our society is a reflection of this.

---

That's exactly when custom, traditions and even common sense comes into play. The custom and traditions of the religious man and many atheist too are religious in nature and origin. However those three elements can be abstracted from religion, so there's no logical necesity for the fall of society without religion. The power of tradition, of repetition, of herence, is just as great as the power of faith.

Quote:

---

The secular movements consistently show that the divergent voices are silenced and the movement is 'purged' of dissidents. They need to do this as any society or group of people must do, to become capable of effective action. Too many cooks and the soup never gets done. This is why we have no committee's ruling nations for very long. Secular ethics almost always assume that men are basically good, and this is nonsense. Communism was based on this flawed concept and it simply didn't work. Free enterprise is based on the idea of harnessing greed to do good for society as a whole, and it works. If men were by nature virtuous we wouldn't need laws, and wars would be something we observe in ant farms.

---

This enunciation depends enterily on your vission of man, that makes it a question of opinion at best. However by that logic the entire doctrine derivated from Locke is also flawed, we've to remember that Locke teached a good social man wich only needed laws to ensure property, because, though the man is naturally good and has certain morality, there's always exceptions. The bad man is the exception, not the good one. The liberalist and proto utilitarist tesis of Locke is also very religious, and tolerant of religion (it couldn't be anyway else). However you attach yourself to much to utilitarism, using materialism as the justification for a certain regime.
The view of man we've is entirely functional to the kind of society and State we want to see. You see the truth in pragmatism and effectiveness, I think they're necessary but not sufficient.

Quote:

---

I agree with you that men are not equal, but I am also aware that there are some pretty nasty conclusions that stem from that. Christianity may be a panacea, and a lie but it doesn't mean that it is a lie that doesn't have its uses. We all live a lie because to do otherwise is too frightening. The universe is a rather large, cold and dark, and we are just a bit of biological material on one of its smaller bodies.

---

I agree with you in this.

Quote:

---

Nothing we do matters in any real sense any more than the life drama of an ant or a chicken matter! People die, there are no exceptions to the rule. They die for all sorts of reasons, none of which really matter in the long run. We foster an illusion that our lives have significance because we are afraid to deal with how little meaning anything that we do actually has.

---

However... Things, in my opinion, don't matter because they're trascendent, they matter because they're, as simple as that. But if you want to find trascendence, secular style, you can always see that doctor who saves a life or an inventor wich gives humanity his creation for as long as the human spececies lives. Not all people find significance in something greater than the human being. I, for one, find meaning in helping my family first and then time will tell, the meaning of life has everything to do with what we do day by day, not many people find lots of time to meditate on transition... Of course I understand that you're again seeing numbers, from a macro perspective of social life, but I think that I already answered that.

Quote:

---

There is no purpose to the universe, There is no purpose to human life, there is no purpose to your life, or mine. It is just a vast swirl of matter and energy and we face a future extinction of endless cold. Thats all! So what kind of ethical standards about the lives of chickens, men, or ants can you come up with that has any solid foundation?

---

That's your perspective, including the fact of an endless universal expansion and eternal cold without energy, wich isn't certain...~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

This enunciation depends enterily on your vission of man, that makes it a question of opinion at best. However by that logic the entire doctrine derivated from Locke is also flawed, we've to remember that Locke teached a good social man wich only needed laws to ensure property, because, though the man is naturally good and has certain morality, there's always exceptions. The bad man is the exception, not the good one. The liberalist and proto utilitarist tesis of Locke is also very religious, and tolerant of religion (it couldn't be anyway else). However you attach yourself to much to utilitarism, using materialism as the justification for a certain regime.

---

John Locke has never impressed me very much. I think Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan got closer to the mark of what human nature actually is. That said I don't think we actually disagree on as much as I had at first thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

However... Things, in my opinion, don't matter because they're trascendent, they matter because they're, as simple as that. But if you want to find trascendence, secular style, you can always see that doctor who saves a life or an inventor wich gives humanity his creation for as long as the human spececies lives. Not all people find significance in something greater than the human being. I, for one, find meaning in helping my family first and then time will tell, the meaning of life has everything to do with what we do day by day, not many people find lots of time to meditate on transition... Of course I understand that you're again seeing numbers, from a macro perspective of social life, but I think that I already answered that.
That's your perspective, including the fact of an endless universal expansion and eternal cold without energy, wich isn't certain...~;)

---

Well, if the truth be told I was exxagerating a little. Life is to be enjoyed in the little things of life, IMHO. I don't think there is any purpose, but to an ant, a man, or a chicken I am sure their daily drama's matter to them. The problem is that we are thinking creatures and need to justify our actions. Nature doesn't provide and grand justifications, and we are left with opinions, of what I want as opposed to what the other guy wants. Not easy to forge a viable society from that.

“France during the revolution descended into exactly the kind of violence I am talking about and decided to invade the rest of Europe in a bid for mastery”: France was attacked by a coalition o monarchs who were afraid of the Revolution, then when victorious decided to free the enslave people against their will. Robespierre, not the most notorious hippy said once: “The nations don’t like armed prophets”.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

But could someone raise an example of a state that failed due to the Western tradition of separating the church from the state? Please post if you can think of one, 'cause I'm coming up empty.

---

Turkey.

Turkey are constitutionally secular but the current government is leaning toward Sunni muslim teachings in law. Turkey is also suitably dysfunctional and oppressive to meet your criteria

Ooooh, Turkey, I didn't think of them. Good one. Although one could argue that the repressive nature of the Turkish gov has to d owith other factors, but still, good one ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

“France during the revolution descended into exactly the kind of violence I am talking about and decided to invade the rest of Europe in a bid for mastery”: France was attacked by a coalition o monarchs who were afraid of the Revolution, then when victorious decided to free the enslave people against their will. Robespierre, not the most notorious hippy said once: “The nations don’t like armed prophets”.

---

The rise of a Fascist state on their borders somewhat concerned them! Go figure. Those crazy monarchies just couldn't understand that if you leave Fascists, and Communists alone, they will leave you alone.

They did what we should have done against Hitler when we had the chance!

Freeing people against their will? That would be a "Peoples Democracy"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Me

I did answer a question (post #7) that asked for an example of an oppressive/dysfunctional state that came from the Western tradition of separating the church from the state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And I certainly appreciate it, although I'm not sure I'm in total agreement. The Soviet Union actively persecuted religion, as you said, "excised" faith. Although one can argue that this sprang from the Western tradition of separation, I'm not sure it's representative.

---

---

The Soviet persecution of religion would be one example of the oppressive nature of the state you asked about. Mass slaughter of its own citizenry would be another. I think the Soviet Union fits all the base criteria you put forward: an oppressive/dysfunctional state that was part of the Western Tradition that separated church from the state.

Regarding the use of representative above: I'm not sure which sense you are using this. The initial question simply asked for an example. I think the U.S.S.R. is a perfect example. Representative status may mean more than an example of a thing however, it can mean something that qualifies for a whole. The Soviet Union is not representative of the Western Tradition of secular/religious division as there are other models. It is an interesting case however in that they actively sought to replace traditional religious sentimentality with a new ethic.

Quote:

---

Let's suppose a continuum, spanning from abosulte theocracy to state-enforced atheism. Lots of room for gradations in between. I don't think it's intellectually honest to put the Western tradition of separation between church and state at the atheist end of that scale.

---

That is true. The separation of church and state itself does not imply atheism, but a base recognition of distinctive spheres. The rhetorical impetus for separation of church and state in the West comes from St. Augustine who was quite a religious guy.

Quote:

---

Anyway, here's the sort of fightin' language from a legislator that you would never hear today. Can you imagine the uproar if a 2006 politician said he would "fight" religious pressure groups? Unthinkable. Barry Goldwater, 1961:

---

Goldwater would never have been able to stomach the Moral Majority. But then, the 50's and 60's were not the 70's. Times change and politics change to reflect the times. The seduction of the G.O.P. by Evangelicals is a fascinating topic all on its own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

So Pindar, what is it you think America should be doing differently?

---

Hello,

Do differently regarding the separation of church and state? I'm not a fan of the governmental 'do something' mentality. Rather, I believe in liberty and freedom of expression. I therefore oppose government encroachment. The state should not impose faith or impede its expression. Faith should have the space to present itself, be accepted, rejected, or ridiculed as people see fit. Any 'do' would therefore be a renewed understanding that the state is properly impotent regarding religious expression.

I put forward the initial piece as it is a simple illustration of the jurisprudential shift that has occurred.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Regarding the use of representative above: I'm not sure which sense you are using this. The initial question simply asked for an example. I think the U.S.S.R. is a perfect example. Representative status may mean more than an example of a thing however, it can mean something that qualifies for a whole. The Soviet Union is not representative of the Western Tradition of secular/religious division as there are other models. It is an interesting case however in that they actively sought to replace traditional religious sentimentality with a new ethic.

---

Yeah, I appreciate your clarification. The Soviet Union seems more like a fuller, fouler expression of the let's-replace-everything ethos that began with the French Revolution. (Well, I guess it really began with the Levellers, the Diggers, and some of the Italian egalitarian heresies, but let's not go crazy.)

But absolutely, you answered my initial criteria entirely. As usual, my criteria just weren't very well expressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Hello,

Do differently regarding the separation of church and state? I'm not a fan of the governmental 'do something' mentality. Rather, I believe in liberty and freedom of expression. I therefore oppose government encroachment. The state should not impose faith or impede its expression. Faith should have the space to present itself, be accepted, rejected, or ridiculed as people see fit. Any 'do' would therefore be a renewed understanding that the state is properly impotent regarding religious expression.

---

Most of the arguing here in the backroom is about posting the ten commandments in schools or keeping 'in god we trust' in the pledge. In your opinion would those be the government doing something it shouldn't?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

So Stalin was a religious man because he shot priests?

I think anti-religious movements qualify as secular movements or the word has no meaning.

---

You kinda missed the point there... anti-religous people are also secular, but they're still in a different catagory from regular secular people. Like wise, Klan members are white, but they're not in the same catagory as white people who aren't racists.

And as long as we're talking about seperation of chruch and state, Soviet Russia is not at all an example of this philosophy. Although the chruch couldn't interfere with the state, the state could interfere with the church. The protection should go both ways.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sharrukin

The rise of a Fascist state on their borders somewhat concerned them! Go figure. Those crazy monarchies just couldn't understand that if you leave Fascists, and Communists alone, they will leave you alone.

They did what we should have done against Hitler when we had the chance!

Freeing people against their will? That would be a "Peoples Democracy"?

---

Go read a book, or even watch a documentary before you go claiming crazy stuff like this.