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

[sharrukin]

Oh, how about Democracy. It's very Christian, you know.

...not.

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?

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.

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!

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....

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?

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!.

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.

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..

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.

But of course, the world without religion is eeeeevil! It's because Hitler has no religion that he committed the Holocaust! .

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.

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.