I don’t think devout Christians tend to care who you were as long as you’re converted.
Yeah, they’re kinda like the Borg in that respect.
Um…so you’re saying that the rest of America didn’t vote for Kerry because he was Catholic? That’s utterly ridiculous. The people who would care about that sort of thing - mainly fundamentalists Christians - weren’t going to vote for him for a variety of reasons, that he was Catholic being the least of them.
Yeah…and? Kennedy was forty years ago and has not much bearing on Kerry’s failure.
And look at who they were paired up with. Do you really think Miller’s Catholicism cost him against the Johnson Administration in '64? Do you really think Muskie’s Catholicism cost him in 1968 vs. Nixon? Do you really think Shriver’s Catholicism cost him vs. Nixon in '72? Do you think that if Ferraro had been a protestant that the Mondale ticket would have stood a chance vs. Reagan in '84? Give me a break.
Not really. Especially since most of the Catholic candidates of late have been for the Democrats and been pro-choice and have faced a remarkable amount of opposition from their own church leaders. The days of Catholics voting in any semblance of a bloc is long gone.
No. There’s the fact that the Democratic candidates have been remarkably weak in their own right and ran poor campaigns. Kerry’s Catholicism wasn’t even brought up in this election, except by Catholics opposing him. It wasn’t a factor for most people.
Of course, and that’s not what I’m saying. It would be equally ridiculous to say Bush won because everybody voted against gay marriage or abortion. But for key segments of the population, those issued mattered a great deal, and they may have cast decisive votes. I know some of these Evangelicals. Guess what they think of Catholics. Is this a common sentiment among Evangelical Protestants, be they Lutheran, Calvinist, or of other ilks? I’m wondering aloud.
And slavery was abolished a century before that. Is Civil Rights not an issue still? When Kennedy ran for pres., despite his assertions of independence, half the nation was up in arms over the prosepct of the USA turning into a Papist puppet. Have things really changed so much?
You may be right, but I still find it hard to ignore the fact that people have taken note of Kerry’s Catholicism nearly every time faith has come up, if only to point out the dearth of Catholic presidents. If it’s simply a non-issue, why keep pointing it out? I also have to wonder what would have happened if a pro-life (read: more loyal) Catholic were running. The American Churches made a point of condemnig Kerry for his pro-life stance, but the Pope made a point of condemning the war in Iraq to the rest of the world on terms at least as strong, a fact the American Catholic clergy conveniently downplayed. I guess abortion trumps war anytime.
And on that note, while I’m willing to concede Catholicism per se may have been less of a quiet wedge than I suspect, there’s no way in Hell this is an effectively secular nation; rather, it’s less so, lately.
OK, so I lose, poo on me, etc.
To atone for the Sin of Hijacking and general stupidity as best I can, and return to the OP and the questions of How Secular Are We Really, and Should I Be Worried, I wonder what y’all think of these
[quotes]
(http://adam2.org/articles/america.html).
Do the Christian Reconstructionalists cite the ostensible values of the Founding Fathers et al. as precedent?
Well, I spotted several well-known bogus quotes without even bothering to look very hard, so I don’t think much of them.
Many of them do, as historically ludicrous as that may be. Gary North, on the other hand, has publicly admitted that the U.S. Constitution did not establish a “Christian nation” (of course in his view that was a terrible mistake, and he thinks the Constitution ought to be amended).
Hmm. Probably should have checked Snopes, but it’s bad enough if half of them are valid quotes, even taken out of context. What’s also disconcerting is the pointer to the quotes was forwarded to me by my wife, who, as you might guess, got them in a mass email from a relative living out near the WI border (Dr. Qadgop’s environs, yes?)
It’s one of those things that makes her temples throb occasionally.
OK- a very over-simplyfied statement of how I think Biblical Law applies today- to be qualified & nuanced with further discussion…
Any Biblical Law regulating religious belief or behavior & consensual adult sexual behavior is outside the hands of modern government. From a Jewish perspective, the dissolution of the Sanhedrin has rendered these provisions unenforcable. From a Christian perspective, with Jesus as Lord of the Covenant, and the Church as the Agency of the Covenant, any rules regarding such covenants, religious or sexual, are outside the realm of government, civil & criminal rewards or penalties.
That said, Biblical Laws regarding crimes against persons or property, and the penalties exacted, at the very least should be considered as to their relevance & applicability today.
For example, modern government should not enforce capital or any criminal penalties against idolatry or sabbath-breaking or adultery or gay sex or adult consensual incest. However, Biblical penalties of capital or corporal punishment for violent offences and indentured servitude & multiple reciprocity for property offences are quite appropriate to be considered by modern government.
No, I do not see persecution against Christians occurring in the US, maybe petty harassment by overly-PC bureacrats, but nothing else. I meant that Revelation’s “End-Times” prophecies may apply primarily to the persecution of Christians in the First Century AD by the Sanhedrin & the Romans, tho they also resound to any age or situation in which the Church is persecuted, which does indeed occur in modern times, but not in the Western world.
Gary North’s POLITICAL POLYTHEISM is his tome on his view that the U.S. Constution was a political & religious hijack by the theologically-compromised Framers who were only to revise the Articles of Confederation. Btw, their main offense was not the First Amendment, but the “no religious test” clause.
Oh yeah, and one reason for their flawed political-religious perspective… their Masonic affiliations. <G>
So you are in favour for a separation of Church and State.
First of all: which “Church” do you refer to, because as I understand there are many “Chutches”. I’m only familiar with the “Church” as is understood in the Roman Catholic Church.
If you say Christian must fall under the law of your Church, this excludes the non-Christians of that law.
So here you are in my view in favour of a seperate set of laws for Christians Only and a separate set of laws for non-Christians Only.
How do you see that at work in practice?
Why do you think the laws of your Church are better (or more complete) then the secular laws you have now?
Same question as above.
It depends what type of Christianity you speak of and what you call persecution.
I encountered Christian websites who list “Western” nations among those from which they claim that they “persecute Christians”.
Where in the non Western world are Christians persecuted in your view? (I mean persecution instated by Law, not some acts of some citizens of these nations) ?
How does this lead to what you say is “End-Times” prophecy being furfilled?
What is the connection of this with implementation in the USA of laws derived from the Bible the USA?
Salaam. A
I’m not FriarTed, but I can answer this. The big one is of course Saudi Arabia, which we are all familiar with. Others include China (unless you are in one of the state-approved denominations), Turkey (where the Greek and Armenian Orthodox are not allowed to operate seminaries and have all sorts of other restrictions placed on them), Turkmenistan, and Burma. I’m not sure if you’d count what is going on in Serbia as religious persecution or ethnic cleansing (or both), but Christian Serbs are being burned out of that province with the tacit permission of UN security forces. If there are any Christians in North Korea, I can’t imagine they’re too comfortable right about now.
Regarding your comments on separation of church and state, I believe the two should exist as separate entities. I don’t believe in active persecution against anybody, but I do believe that it is preferable for the Orthodox Church to have the support of the state, as existed in old Russia and Byzantium, and exists today in Greece. Failing that, having some form of Christianity established is preferable to nothing, as long as other religions are not being persecuted (and I don’t consider lack of support to be persecution). In secular matters, secular law should be applied. For ecclesiastical matters, ecclesiastical law should be applied, with the Church having jurisdiction over her members. Other denominations can discipline their members as they see fit.
Laws putting certain restrictions on the practice of a religion (= for example commanding that it should only be practiced in private) is hardly persecution. It is restriction on a way a religion is (openly) practiced.
That is not persecution. It is a form of discrimination.
I follow you so far.
There are several nations where this religion and others are supported by the secular state.
In my view you just said in the other part of your post that you consider lack of support for Christianity in certain nations to be persecution. While in several cases it only comes down to a form of discrimination = lack of support for the openly practicing of that Christianity.
So in your State, everybody has to be Christian?
What about those of other religions? Do you want them to have their own religious courts?
What about the atheists? Do you want them to have yet an other - separate - set of laws covering what others have covered by religious laws?
How are you going to give an equal citizenship to every citizen and a fair trial in case of violation of the Law, things that can only be possible if everybody is equal under the Law = under every Law?
Salaam. A
No, I think that things like not being able to operate religious schools, being imprisoned and/or tortured for being of a certain denomination, or having one’s churches and monasteries burned fall under persecution. There’s a difference between not supporting a religion and actively restricting it.
Did I say that? No.
If they want to form courts to discipline members of their own religion in religious matters, more power to them. Note that if one doesn’t want to fall under the jurisdiction of one’s religion’s spiritual courts, one can simply renounce that religion. I also think the death penalty should be reserved to the state, if only for the sake of public order.
Atheists don’t have religious regulations, so there would be little point in them convening spiritual courts for policing themselves in spiritual matters.
Hit reply too soon…
Well, I don’t believe in egalité as an absolute good, for one, but that is largely outside the scope of this discussion. Commoners should of course be treated equally in the secular courts. Religious courts (which, remember, only apply to members of their own religion) can set their own standards for equality or lack of it.
And remember, this is only what I think would be ideal by my standards. I have no expectation that it will ever come about.
If you want to make a case here, I think you could list the nations you have in mind (= those that have laws who command such things)
The difference between the two is first of all discrimination. Discrimination however is not the same as persecution. Persecution happens when a government takes measures that are outlined in the Nation’s Law to prevent people from being religious (or from following certain religions).
Is the death penalty if offically supported by your religion?
I see a rather complicated society emerging from your sketch. One that holds an open invitation for every kind of discrimination to occur, because it is discriminating on itself already since not every citizen is equal under the Law = equal under the same Laws.
Why would you prefer such a nation instead of the one you have now?
Salaam. A
Well, it is a fact that Christians are not allowed to operate seminaries in Turkey (nor, for that matter, are Muslims). It is also a fact that the ruling force in Kosovo has, with full knowledge, allowed Albanian mobs to burn Serbian churches and monasteries; this may not be explicitly decreed in law, but it is allowed by the ruling power, i.e. UN security forces.
Try building a church (on private property) in Riyadh.
Well, if the discrimination occurs in the private realm, then sure. I’m a great supporter of property rights. It’s when the government becomes involved in supressing religions that I start to get peeved.
Other than a desire to force non-adherents of Orthodox Christianity to support a religion they don’t accept, I don’t really see the point of yBeayf’s desire for a state establishment of religion. If taxes go to support church functions (building and maintaining churches, salaries for clergy, funds for evangelizing and missionary activity), then non-believers will, to whatever small extent, be forced to pay for a religion they don’t accept and may even vigorously reject. (Rather as if yBeayf had no choice but to chip in a few bucks for the support of Islam or Hinduism.) Even if non-believers are ostensibly exempted from the “religion tax”, they will still be indirectly forced to support the Established Church–they must pay taxes to and obey the laws of the state, the same state which uses its authority to proclaim their religious beliefs to be false (which authority is derived in part from the consent of those same dissenting citizens, according to the political theory in force in all modern civilized nations).
Establishment is certainly not needed to prevent persecution. In states with strict separation of church and state, churches are certainly free to build new houses of worship or seminaries on private property (and the government will be obliged to protect Christians in the peaceful exercise of their freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly, the same as it does citizens of all other or no religions). Religious denominations may also exercise “spiritual” jurisdiction over their members in a state with a secular government; they may convene ecclesiastical courts and discipline their members for heresy or other religious offenses. Such discipline won’t extend to burning at the stake of course, but I would presume religious believers find excommunication and similar punishments sufficiently compelling. In questions of personal status (marriage and divorce and so on), there will necessarily be two sets of laws, and they may diverge, but there’s nothing to prevent a church from enforcing its own rules on its own members within the religious realm. Thus, just because the state recognizes divorce does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church must give approval to its members divorcing and re-marrying.
You have a reference to a situation in which a group of ethnic Albanians approached a UN checkpoint and said, “With your permission, we would like to go burn down that church.”?
Or is the reality simply that understaffed UN peacekeeping units have found themselves within two or three miles of a spontaneous riot and were not able to interpose themselves between the rioters and a church or had to make a choice between defending a church building or an inhabited apartrment building?
Underfunding and understaffing UN peacekeeping efforts is an ongoing problem with and complaint against the UN, overall, and the claim that the UN is deliberately condoning specific actions requires a bit more evidence than “my group got hurt because the UN failed, again, so they did it on purpose.”
Well, yes. That’s kind of the point of having an established religion.
Ah, there’s the rub. I’m a monarchist, and don’t believe political legitimacy derives from consent. The ideal state’s duty is to protect the Church and allow her to flourish. I strongly believe that it should also tolerate other religions, as history has shown that when this does not happen bad things tend to occur. But in any case, it certainly does not bother me that people may not consent to being governed a particular way.
A monarchist. Interesting. Divine right of kings and all that, then? So, which church, then, and who picks?