Home > Archive > Cobol > January 2005 > Re: OT Re: Life style(s), personal beliefs, faith, opinions, and all that JAZZ
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Re: OT Re: Life style(s), personal beliefs, faith, opinions, and all that JAZZ
|
|
| Richard 2005-01-25, 3:55 am |
| > Christians were an oppressed minority with no political or military
power for hundreds of years.
... until the Roman Emperor created a form of christianity and made it
the new state religion as a means of state social control that would
survive after the Roman Armies had been driven back by the barbarians.
> Perhaps that explains why Christians understand separation of church
and state
It is debatable whether _christians_, or especially church leaders,
understand that separation, or agree with it. In many cases the
_state_ understands that, especially secular multicultural states such
as UK and USA and especially USSR. But not, for example, much of
Europe, particularly Catholic ex-Roman Empire parts and third world
colonies of those, though less so in the last century or two.
It seems to me that many religious organizations that claim a christian
basis are very much against the separation, but only so far as _their_
organization is concerned.
> Can anyone name a government based on religion that's also a
democracy?
There a stupid idea. Most religions* are not democratic, religions are
about hierarchical control. The people get _told_ what to do, what to
think, how to behave. The congregation don't get to vote on what 'god's
word' means, that is made up by the hierarchy.
> By democracy I mean the people can vote out the ruling party.
Excuse me, but you are suggesting that some religions 'god' could be
voted on. Religions get their authority from 'above' (or so they claim)
not from the masses below. It has only when the current authority has
been overturned, such as by the French Revolution, or the American,
that a secular democracy can result. In England, for example, Henry
VIII did that and ensured that the church, even the new one, was well
separated.
* I can think of some that aren't, such as Quakers, but then I could
not conceive how a 'Quaker based government' could possibly work, but I
suspect they may be a better government than many.
|
|
|
|
|