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

[AntiochusIII]

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?

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...

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?

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.

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!

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.