Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
America and France have a tradition of separating the state and religion, but I am not sure it is a Western tradition. In fact it is difficult in a monarchy because the coronation is a religious ceremony. So which other Western countires separate the state and religion?While it may have origins in the West's tradition of seperating state from religion, it is in no way an example of, or connected with it.
We all learn from experience. Unfortunately we don't all learn as much as we should.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
The easier question is ... which countries don't?Originally Posted by Duke of Gloucester
Simply put, all Western countries are seperated from religion to a greater or smaller extent.
It does, in fact, originate from France and the USA. Though France went through a phase in which it did not separate, but rather, merged the church with the state (clergy was appointed, it could recieve no commands from outside the state, and was paid by the state) ... that turned out to be a failure, so the state and church were seperated later.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
Sorry Keba, but my country is so enmeshed in its official religion that the religion is named after the country. It is certainly a western country, so I think you need to have a look again. Which countries have state and religion separated? Apart from France and USA, I don't know of any, but my ignorance of countries constitutions is pretty deep. I think you may be confusing legal separation between state and church and a cultural notion that religion is a private matter, which is (although, I am sure not exclusively) Western.
We all learn from experience. Unfortunately we don't all learn as much as we should.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
To ensure its own survival a purely secular state must marginalize the Church. When secular ideologies enter the sphere of morality they seek to eliminate their rivals. Religion is just such a rival. The Church holds that an individual owes obedience to a higher moral law and basic loyalty to a higher power. This makes blind obedience to an earthly governments problematic. Totalitarian governments must be anti-religious in principle. A central tenet of these movements becomes a hostility to established religion. Religion acts as a limiting factor on what men will do, and Totalitarian governments who wish to remake society for the betterment of all, see this as a challenge and a threat.
The separation of Church and state if it means that one should not establish a state religion is not a problem. If you take it to mean that the state is non-religious; indeed separate and independent of religion, then it tends to become murderous. Where politically secular governments take power, you almost always see tyranny and massacre. In France with the revolution, in Russia with Bolshevism, in Italy with Fascism, the Nazi movement in Germany, etc. The history of secular governments, unhindered by religion is not a pleasant one.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mills
But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
LORD ACTON
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
But interestingly does this state religion have less influence here in northern Europe than in the US.
Ask yourself, what would happen with Blair if he said publically that the inspiration for the Iraq war came from God?
Would people care if it was public knowledge that he was Christian, but offically never based his decisions directly on it?
(Atleast in Sweden it would be a public outcry for the first, but none would care for the second).
Plenty of state churches exist or did recently exist in Europe (in Sweden they separated in 2000), they aren't much influencal nowadays though, and haven't been for decades.
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
That is, of course, exactly the point. In Europe, religion is less influential than in America, even though many European countries have links between church and state. Having constitutional links between state and church does not automatically mean significant political influence and expressly rejecting those links does not remove all political clout.
We all learn from experience. Unfortunately we don't all learn as much as we should.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
I am not familiar with Protestant countries as much ... however, the separation of church from state exist in nearly all Catholic countries (mainly because of the Pope).
That is not to say that the church doesn't wield influence. In a democratic country everyone wields influence. The Church is organised enough to be able to wield a significant amount. Which is why most countries seperate, or limit, the churches' influence in politics.
What I meant is that most states are secular ... with the distinctly multi-religious nature of modern society any attempt to link a state to a certain religion would cause unrest and, possibly, collapse. Even though the UK does have a state religion, it is still secular enough ... it has to be if it wishes to survive as a state.
Oh, and the UK is an odd-ball in either case, you've more in common with the US in that regard than continental Europe ... probably has to do with the legal system.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
If churches are going to get involved in politics outside of generalized beliefs, they can pay taxes like every other damned business in the country unless they can prove their good in the community outweighs their income. Take the "hugher power" out of the equation and they have no leg to stand on. A church is a business. Capitalism, baby.
Baby Quit Your Cryin' Put Your Clown Britches On!!!
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
Thinking about a little, I think it's possible to define the issue in the US quite accurate.
What has happened is that some people feel that religion got too much influence on the American politics and to counter that, they are targeting all religious symbols, no matter if they have something to do with religious influence or not (the actual issue).
And as they teach in physics, every action gets a counter-reaction, which of course (as this is American politics) makes the first group even more fanatical (and that in turn makes the second group more fanatical). So you end up with an issue that's as dead locked as abortion, guns etc.
In most protestant countries did the church and state merge at some point, usually quite fast after the introduction. When it comes to influence, the church was the big loser in that union, atleast how it is today.
You're correct with the secularism though.
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
If you admit the Soviets persecuted some X then they can be considered oppressive (one of the criteria of the question).
This is a non sequitur. If something has its origins in a thing then it is by definition connected with that thing.While it may have origins in the West's tradition of seperating state from religion, it is in no way an example of, or connected with it.
This is not correct. Neither Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev or the larger swath of apparatchiks that followed or attended those mentioned saw communism as a religion.And communism was seen as a religion by the higher-ups.
The rationale for doing a thing is distinct from the fact a thing was done. The question did not ask about reasons for doing a thing, but an example of an oppressive/dysfunctional state that came from the Western tradition of separating the church from the state. The U.S.S.R. meets these basic criteria.Yes, communism seperated church from state, but for entirely different reasons...
No, I'm answering a question about oppressive governments that came from the Western Tradition of separating church and state.Are you advocating the merging of church and state?
Last edited by Pindar; 10-22-2006 at 09:43.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
As Keba said, almost all Western countries have separated religion and state.
Although in England's case that's quite hard I guess, since the head of state is also the head of church?
Belgium has seperated as early as it's independence, and I'm quite sure it's like that in all other european countries now. Clergy is no longer appointed by the state, nor does the religion play major part in country politics. Even Spain and Italy have separated them, I think.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
Agreed, its hard to type while pinching my nipples....
RIP Tosa
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
Pindar: While you are obviously correct in maintaining that communism is not a religion, I believe the point that others are trying to make still stands: excessive adherance to a totalitarian ideal often results in a totalitarian force. In this case, a merging between the State and the Church, an organization that adheres to a Higher Power that you cannot question, often increases the risk.
How many times have God been used as a rallying point for an expansionist war? Or an excuse for intolerance and persecution?
sharrukin: In short, your post is an emotional argument that completely ignores the other side of the fence. You call activities of a totalitarian state "Secular Ethics," which twists my meaning off completely. I could, frankly, name many examples where a State that sponsors one religion commit similar crimes: the Spanish in the New World, the Crusades, and many such. I could also name the persecution of Jews as another example of religious intolerance: it is, in fact, not too stretched of an argument that such an "atheistic" regime as the Nazis (which is a false claim in and of itself) simply expands upon a long-standing European tradition of persecuting Jews for everything -- originated from certain interpretations of certain passages of the Bible...
Besides, I have seen many posts that inherently equate having religion with having morality: this is quite a stretch of a claim.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
If you are not actually talking about the real world, and what has in fact taken place regarding the secular ideologies and their histories, then what are you talking about? I call the activities of totalitarian states "Secular Ethics," because that is what they are. Perhaps you are postulating the existence of secular ethics displacing religious ethics, that doesn't in fact, degenerate into mass murder? Or are you talking about some university professor's lovely theory about secular ethics, that has never seen the light of day, or been tested in the reality of human society?
If I have twisted your meaning then spell it out in detail.
That war exists and atrocities have happened throughout history is obvious. Religion is of course going to be involved in all of these things. The Spanish in the New World didn't massacre the vast majority of Indians. They died mostly because of the introduction of diseases that they had no natural immunity to. Trying to lay this at the foot of religion is absurd! Italian merchants are as much to blame for introducing the Black Plague into Europe with similar results. Is that a Catholic conspiracy? Why should the Catholic religion be blamed for what happened in the New World to the Indians, but not for what happened during the years of the Black Plague? What exactly is the difference?
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!
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mills
But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
LORD ACTON
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
Common sense indeed. As an atheist I have never really had any problem with prayer in school, or swearing oaths or whatever. This is in fact how most western nations have conducted business since the wars of religion. If either secular authority, or the Church achieve dominance it usually means trouble.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mills
But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
LORD ACTON
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
Oh, how about Democracy. It's very Christian, you know.
...not.
My point was that the removal of Christianity or whatever religion somebody happen to believe in from the State does not suddenly put it into a complete, total destruction that seems to be the argument here. France does just fine without the Cardinal dictating its business, collecting taxes ("tithes") from the already overtaxed peasants, and burn down the heretics and other poor scums who just happen to be a little different.
And no, I'm not blaming religion squarely on that. I'm blaming totalitarianism in general -- you equate totalitarianism with secularism; I call that false. When an ideal or an organization inherently incapable of tolerance dominates, the result is usually either hell's pandemonium or just a little iron fist. Your "examples" involving the revolutions of the world are completely irrelevant to your argument. A drastic shift in ideals usually were done with violence anyway. The scale of the oppression that occurred in the rise of Christianity in Europe might not be as breathtaking as the French Revolution was, but it happened. Charlemagne, for all his glory, had quite a lot of the pagan Saxon blood in his hands...
Oh, let's see. The Spanish never killed a single Aztec! It's all a lie! No atrocities ever happened! No slavery of the natives at all! They never really thought themselves to be the most superior men on Earth with God's backing and that everything about the native Americans was...heretical!
I'm perfectly aware most of the drastic downfall in the native American population resulted from disease. But I think you miss the mark entirely: the Spanish conquistadors were an atrocious bunch of what we would now mark without hesitation as the worst kinds of war criminals. The kind, you know, that you've been blaming secularism for. Or tried in Nuremberg.
I think Hitler was just a loon. He would have been a fanatic religious loon if he happens to be a Lutheran or a Catholic. I'm sure Reynald de Chatillon wouldn't mind genociding the whole of Middle East if he had the means to do so. Correlation does not equate a causal link here. I'm not sure if he happens to believe in God he'd stop the Holocaust. If anything, there's a certain issue with the way certain Europeans back in the day read their Bible that apparently made them think that Jews "killed Jesus!" and deserved some punishment. Anti-Semitism was prevalent prior to Hitler's rise.
But of course, the world without religion is eeeeevil! It's because Hitler has no religion that he committed the Holocaust!
Here's another point: adding one religion into government and you have a classic unfairness situation to deal with. The magnificent Pilgrims of Massachusetts back in the day, for all the classic picture of a village of wood cabin and friendly people eating turkeys, weren't a very nice group when they came face-to-face with the most unbelievably heretical Quakers. I remembered at least a few of them poor Quakers got thrown out and a certain infamous case by the name of Salem shows what would happen in a judicial system that happens to be just a little religiously slanted.
And the example of England that came up in this thread...back in the day, also, when the Church of England still meant something to the general politics of the day, I believe quite a few Irishmen and English Catholics suffered just a little unfairness and general nastiness from the Most Just and Gentlemanly Government of Great Britain. A few of the American colonies were founded specifically as havens for Catholics...
I wouldn't like the return of Church in the State.
Last edited by AntiochusIII; 10-22-2006 at 04:09.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
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?
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 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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloody_Verdict_of_Verden
My "examples" of secular movements in power and their conduct is irrelevant to the ethics of secular movements? What then would be relevant to illustrate their ethics? And if that is your logic then what do the Crusades have to do with religion? If their conduct isn't a benchmark to judge their ethics then what is? You would do well to judge people, beliefs, and movements, by what they do when they can get away with it. By this standard, Christian ethics wins hands down against secular ethics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
That war exists and atrocities have happened throughout history is obvious. Religion is of course going to be involved in all of these things. The Spanish in the New World didn't massacre the vast majority of Indians. They died mostly because of the introduction of diseases that they had no natural immunity to. Trying to lay this at the foot of religion is absurd! Italian merchants are as much to blame for introducing the Black Plague into Europe with similar results. Is that a Catholic conspiracy? Why should the Catholic religion be blamed for what happened in the New World to the Indians, but not for what happened during the years of the Black Plague? What exactly is the difference?
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.
As I didn't say the Spanish were nice guys, so your point is basically irrelevant. The Spanish invaders were a bunch a very sadistic wack jobs. This doesn't make the deaths of most of the native Indians their handiwork. It was largely the result of disease.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharrukin
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!
[QUOTE=AntiochusIII
I think Hitler was just a loon. He would have been a fanatic religious loon if he happens to be a Lutheran or a Catholic. I'm sure Reynald de Chatillon wouldn't mind genociding the whole of Middle East if he had the means to do so. Correlation does not equate a causal link here. I'm not sure if he happens to believe in God he'd stop the Holocaust. If anything, there's a certain issue with the way certain Europeans back in the day read their Bible that apparently made them think that Jews "killed Jesus!" and deserved some punishment. Anti-Semitism was prevalent prior to Hitler's rise.[/QUOTE]
And yet, the Church consistently defended the Jews and interfered with local plans to massacre them. Reynald de Chatillon is a good case in fact. If he or indeed any of a dozen others throughout the ages, could have garnered the support they would in fact have done as you suggest. Except, it never happened! Why? Given the long span of centuries and the great hatred that existed in that age, why did it never happen? Don't you ever ask such basic questions? I am an atheist. I just cannot find it in me to pray to an invisible man in the sky. That doesn't mean that I fool myself as to the consequences of my disbelief writ large.
Hitler was an evil man! There have been evil men, with evil plans in every age and generation. If we need a madman, or a dictator, it isn't that hard to find one. He has to gain power first. You also need a secular movement if you really want to see the body count go up.But of course, the world without religion is eeeeevil! It's because Hitler has no religion that he committed the Holocaust!
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.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
-- John Stewart Mills
But from the absolute will of an entire people there is no appeal, no redemption, no refuge but treason.
LORD ACTON
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
I think what the example of England shows is that it is possible to have strong links between church and state without it leading to unfairness to those of other faiths. Although, as Antiochus points out, historically this was not always the case. I think the fact is that we are so used to it, that we forget just how many the links are in England between the state and the Anglican church. Some of these are:
- The Head of State is also Supreme Governor of the Church of England
- The Prime Minister appoints bishops in the Church of England
- Specific Anglican bishops automatically have a seat in the House of Lords
- National religious ceremonies such as Remembrance Day at the Cenotaph are organised by the Church of England (although they are careful to be inclusive)
I am also going to continue to challenge this notion that separation between church and state is a Western idea. There are western countries that have this written in to their constitutions, such as Australia, Canada, France, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States. However there are just as many which have official state religions: Greece, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, England. Most others have disestablished their churches, but have constitutions which do not explicitly separate church and state. If you look at non-Western countries you get a similar pattern. My conclusion would be that separation of church and state is not a western idea.
Of course in Western culture, there is an idea that religion is a private rather than public matter. Paradoxically this is very strong in England, which has an established church, and much weaker in the US where church and state are explicitly separate.
Last edited by Duke of Gloucester; 10-22-2006 at 09:11.
We all learn from experience. Unfortunately we don't all learn as much as we should.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
“Where politically secular governments take power, you almost always see tyranny and massacre. In France with the revolution, in Russia with Bolshevism, in Italy with Fascism, the Nazi movement in Germany, etc. The history of secular governments, unhindered by religion is not a pleasant one.”
Revolutionary France was far from Atheism. Robespierre organised the Cult of the Supreme Being (Etre Suprême), in place of the Catholic God. That is NOT to be secular or atheist…
Russia Bolshevism fight against the Orthodox Church was more motivated by political means (the Church was closed to the Tsar and supportive of the Whites) and by the fact that as all new power, they feared concurrence. Stalin was a student in religion, when young… Priests were persecuted, as all political or others opponents were during the soviet area.
Fascism, you make me laugh. Mussolini and Franco were deep in Catholicism and the good old values as women in the kitchen, Churches or taking care of kids. Mussolini cancelled all what was done in Italy to keep the Church out of Italian affairs and Franco was openly help by Opus Dei and the Phalange, openly extreme Catholic…
The Nazi Movement was NOT atheist. During all the war, the German were a buckle with “God is with us” written on it. The SS swore allegiance to the Fuhrer. Even the soldiers and officers had to take an oath, I think. So we are far for atheism here…
“No, I'm answering a question about oppressive governments that came from the Western Tradition of separating church and state.”
Yes, France under Louis XIV and it repression of the protestant/Huguenots swan in happiness.
Ask the Muslims and the Jews about Spain of Isabela and Filipe how it was nice to be in a country with an official religion.
The Churches are oppressive because they have the TRUTH. No dialogue, no doubt, no discussion is possible because GOD gave them the answers. “Do you love me Peter? I do, you know I do…” Poor Peter could have doubts, he could have question about Christ. Total obedience required…
And that is the legacy of the Churches to the political power. If government become oppressive is because they just jump in the Church habits and demand. That is the real Western Tradition. Oppression from the Church cut and pasted by secular (or so-called) Governments.
“Why should the Catholic religion be blamed for what happened in the New World to the Indians, but not for what happened during the years of the Black Plague? What exactly is the difference?”
I suggest you to read the Controversy of Valladolid (1550) when Las Casas opposed Sepulveda about how the Spanish treatment of the Indians. It will help you to understand.
“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?” Well, that is because you choose to pick Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, the Spanish Inquisition, Louis XIV, all the Tsars of all the Russia, Isabel the Catholic, Bloody Mary, Ivan and all others (sorry the list is far too long) as SECULAR leaders.
“The Crusades? The Crusades don't hold a candle to any of them!” Right, just towns after towns destroyed and burned, even Christian ones…
“France does just fine without the Cardinal dictating its business”; Err, Richelieu was one of the best Prime Minister of France, ever. Do not Trust the three Musketeers and Dumas.
Sorry I have to go and I will be back….
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.
"I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
"You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
"Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
Hello,
I don't know that others have attempted the above point. If so, it does not relate to the question I responded to which concerned an example of "an oppressive/dysfunctional state that came from the Western tradition of separating the church from the state."
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
I don't understand the above. It doesn't relate to the initial question asked me or the answer I gave.Are you advocating the merging of church and state?No, I'm answering a question about oppressive governments that came from the Western Tradition of separating church and state.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
Communism wasn't dysfunctional because of the seperation of church from state. It was diysfunction because of economics in their simplest form ... and human nature.
The basic idea of communism is that everything belongs to everyone. The state merely being the caretaker. However, the human nature is selfish at it's base. They do not care for something that does not benefit them. That was the simplest problem of communism, the attitude of the workers, 'This isn't mine, why should I care about it if I get paid anyway?'. Additionally, the factiories weren't financed by the results on the market, but by resources spend and quotas (so you had factories producing small shoes in extreme numbers, because they used less resources, and they got paid better).
Communism was a politically stable system ... it was, however, economically unstable, therefore it collapsed.
I see no-one pointing out that the clergy, for the most part, supported the Axis in WWII. While some acted against the regime, many provided support. Thus, the anger turned against them, especially in Communism where the state, having villified the fascists (as they were called) and the collaborators, supported such purges, using the situation to their advantage by breaking the one force that could mobilize enough support against the Party.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
“I don't understand the above. It doesn't relate to the initial question asked me or the answer I gave.”
So I explain:
You assert that the problem is “oppressive governments that came from the Western Tradition of separating church and state”. So, I gave you few examples of tyrannies when Religion and States were linked: Louis the XIV in France and the Catholic Kings and Queens of Spain. I assume you know what happened to Protestants, Jews and Muslims who had to live under their rules. I even don't speak of the one who refuse to believe...
And then I gave my opinion why it is worst to live under theocracy than pure political dictatorships, even the worst ones. If you keep quiet in USSR you may survive. If you are a Jew/Muslim in Catholic Spain, what ever you can do, be or work you are doomed. Protestants fled France in mass just to escape the percussion. Loyal subject or not, you were dead if you stayed.
Due to the total obedience demanded by religions, when the State and Religion melt together (Iran) to be an opponent become a crime against the HOLLY TRUTH, the one you can question.
Last edited by Brenus; 10-22-2006 at 10:43.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. Voltaire.
"I've been in few famous last stands, lad, and they're butcher shops. That's what Blouse's leading you into, mark my words. What'll you lot do then? We've had a few scuffles, but that's not war. Think you'll be man enough to stand, when the metal meets the meat?"
"You did, sarge", said Polly." You said you were in few last stands."
"Yeah, lad. But I was holding the metal"
Sergeant Major Jackrum 10th Light Foot Infantery Regiment "Inns-and-Out"
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
This doesn't relate to the general topic of discussion, but the dysfunction of communism is found in the very fabric of dialectical materialism.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
This is not correct. I have not asserted the problem is oppressive governments that came from the Western Tradition of separating church and state. 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.“I don't understand the above. It doesn't relate to the initial question asked me or the answer I gave.”
Last edited by Pindar; 10-22-2006 at 11:01.
"We are lovers of beauty without extravagance and of learning without loss of vigor." -Thucydides
"The secret of Happiness is Freedom, and the secret of Freedom, Courage." -Thucydides
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
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.
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. The United States would be a prime example -- despite the tradition of separation in the U.S., we're a very religious country, and that isn't going to change in the forseeable future. (Ridiculous "War on Christmas" rants on Fox news notwithstanding. And we should be due for some Jihad on Christmas messages any day now ...)
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:
On religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both.
I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.' Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.'
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
"Seperation of Chruch and State" means just that; nothing more. It doesn't mean that religious people can't hold office, it means that they can't write laws based on solely on their religous beliefs.
Last edited by Mongoose; 10-22-2006 at 15:46.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
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.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
For one thing, mass murder wasn't technologically feasonable in those days. If the crusaders, the conquistadores or whoever had acces to nowadays technology, they would have been even more brutal. There's only so much killing you can do with sticks and stones. Well Ghenghis Khan didn't do badly, but that's a case apart (besides he still can't hold a cancle on Tamerlane, who was a fanatical muslim)Hitler was an evil man! There have been evil men, with evil plans in every age and generation. If we need a madman, or a dictator, it isn't that hard to find one. He has to gain power first. You also need a secular movement if you really want to see the body count go up.
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.
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.
Last edited by Kralizec; 10-22-2006 at 16:04.
Re: The Origins and Dangers of the ‘Wall of Separation’ Between Church and State
Reminds me of Robespierre's reign of terror. Only so many you can kill with a guillotine after all...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks