Can someone tell me why theocracy is bad

[ncjohn]

EasterJoy:

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no form of government that is not prone to the taint of self-interest and the desire to control, rather than govern, others.

It is true. However I do not believe that theocracy is any more prone to this than democracy or any other government.

I would fully disagree. The statement has been made (paraphrased from memory) that men will never do evil so joyfully as when they do it in the name of God. This is absolutely true and the greatest brutality in man’s history has almost always come based on religious beliefs. It is the one area where we are unbending and that cannot help but translate over time to increasing oppression to meet the beliefs of those at the top of a theocracy.

 

[KindredSoul]

I would fully disagree. The statement has been made (paraphrased from memory) that men will never do evil so joyfully as when they do it in the name of God. This is absolutely true and the greatest brutality in man’s history has almost always come based on religious beliefs. It is the one area where we are unbending and that cannot help but translate over time to increasing oppression to meet the beliefs of those at the top of a theocracy.

I am afraid we will then continue to disagree on this issue. There are evils in corrupt secular democracy that simply would not exist in even a corrupt theocracy just as there are evils in a theocracy that would not exist in even a corrupt secular democracy. Perhaps for you, say, the burning of “heretics” and persecution of many far outweighs, for instance, the current rate of legalized abortions. I do not believe so. Until someone can convince me that this atrocity would have happened in a theocracy, I fail to see how the errors that can occur in a democracy are any less evil than those that can occur in a theocracy. It seems to me one must first have believed that the atrocities going on right under our noses are somehow more acceptable than those that have occurred in historical theocracies, and I do not.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Catholics believe in separation of Church and State.

The church should be run by clergy, and the state run by politicians. That’s not a theocracy.

Politicians should be good catholics (everyone should be a good catholic) but its not the clergy’s job to enforce that politicians are good Catholics in their jobs.

 

[Wesley7]

Catholics believe in separation of Church and State.

The church should be run by clergy, and the state run by politicians. That’s not a theocracy.

I think the * Philosophers should be in US congress.

 

[KindredSoul]

Catholics believe in separation of Church and State.

The church should be run by clergy, and the state run by politicians. That’s not a theocracy.

To that extent, I suppose what I’ve been defending isn’t technically a theocracy. The word seems convenient to distinguish what I’m talking about from systems of government where religion has less direct influence.

 

[Wesley7]

I think the * Philosophers should be in US congress.

I don’t have to quote people anymore.

 

[EasterJoy]

Pope Benedict XVI’s recently-released Caritatis in Veritate speaks in glowing terms of Paul VI’s encylical, Populorum Progressio. The latter encylical weighed in on the subject of theocracy: that is, the Church has learned from her own history. If the job of theocracy is open or if temporal power is being offered, Rome doesn’t want it:

“The Church, which has long experience in human affairs and has no desire to be involved in the political activities of any nation, "seeks but one goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth; to save, not to judge; to serve, not to be served.’’

Founded to build the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than to acquire temporal power, the Church openly avows that the two powers—Church and State—are distinct from one another; that each is supreme in its own sphere of competency. But since the Church does dwell among men, she has the duty “of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.” Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees these aspirations not satisfied, she wishes to help them attain their full realization. So she offers man her distinctive contribution: a global perspective on man and human realities.”

Which brings up a second reason why theocracies are a bad idea: If one nation is officially Roman Catholic, it puts the Holy See in a bad political position itself. The Vatican will have a harder time speaking the truth to this country or that one without being accused of favoritism, or angling for more political power.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

You won’t find a method of governance, including theocracy, that either forces people to love God (or even an ordered society) or makes up for the consequences when they don’t.

People can never be forced to do anything. But a theocracy, again a carefully-planned one, can help the moral fabric of society to stay intact.

And I would not be so hard on the United States.
We’ve had a little more time than the others to drive the thing between the ditches. So far, no total roll-overs. Power has been freely and peacefully transferred over and over and over again. Let’s all hope that all of the world’s democracies do so well.

Power has been transferred peacefully, you say. Many times yes but what about the recent “pro-life”-ers are terrorists? That’s not peaceful to me. And in a theocracy (which could be partially monarchial) I would like to point that monarchies have also had periods of peaceful transition.

As for the conservative and the heirarchical, those are also the enemies of innovation and the meritocracy. There is always that trade-off. Politics will always veer around, trying to find a good balance between the various levels and ways of taking risk.

The heirarchial is enemy of innovation and meritocracy? Can I point back to my example of Japan? Japan is a very hierarchial society yet it is one known for its major innovation and a society where you must work to move up in the world.

I do not know when it was that politics did not concern itself with right and wrong. When was that? In what way was that some kind of an ideal?

Politics always concerned itself with right and wrong. You missed my point. When the two parties agreed generally on ideology (i.e. infanticide is wrong) we could focus on good things like helping the poor. The two sides only disagreed on the way in which to carry that out.

I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no form of government that is not prone to the taint of self-interest and the desire to control, rather than govern, others.

So democracy is equally, if not moreso, prone to these than Theocracy, making it no better of a system.

If there is a theocracy, then God and religion are blamed when things go to pieces. History would say that it is a vanity to say that God rules, when people do. It is a bad idea to give someone the opportunity to gain secular power by saying “Thus says the Lord…”. It is inevitable that God’s name will be profaned. Even the some of the Popes have fallen into that trap, and the papacy itself became a jewel for the self-interested to angle for. This was the reason that Theodore Roosevelt did not want “In God We Trust” to be put on our money. It wasn’t that the use of money couldn’t be elevated by being associated with the name of God. It was that he felt it a greater danger that God’s name would be profaned by being associated with our money. The sword cuts both ways.

Like was said before, that only reflects poorly on the people who come to blame GOD for not realising human faults.

It was the devil who tempted by offering dominion over all the kingdoms of the earth, not the Lord. When the Lord Himself was offered political power, He rejected it, over and over and over again. Rather, he told his disciples that if they wanted to be the most important, they needed to be servants. The Lord didn’t send us out to seek power, but to speak the truth to power, even when power doesn’t know what truth is. That doesn’t sound like any theocracy I know of.

Again, democracy is fine when the people and the government know what is right and what is wrong. America has lost this sense. Political power should not be ultimate but that doesn’t mean Catholics shouldn’t participate in politics.

Rationalism and so-called “logic” fails sometimes, too.

I may have missed the memo but when did this happen?

That doesn’t mean that we don’t want people polluting the political process by daring to try to think things out. Likewise, the reasons of the heart have their place in politics, too. Religious people do belong in politics, as long as they are open to correction.

Open to correction by whom? GOD - not their political power.

I am talking about a true theocracy, where religious officials make the civil laws. History shows that this is a bad idea. When the Lord said that the Kingdom of God was at hand, he did not mean a human government. He meant dominion over hearts. There is no reason to believe that we were meant to take over governments in His name. We aren’t failing God if we don’t. We may very well be failing God if we do.

How does history show this is a bad idea at all?

It is the people that make the government(s) work.

Right. So when the people become corrupt, the government becomes corrupt. To quote myself from before, "Even China’s president Hu Jintao realised this and so released his 八荣八耻 (8 honors and 8 shames). While I disagree theoretically on the aformentioned honors and shames, I applaud him for addressing in the bud the moral decline of Chinese society. In otherwords, he started by asking the right questions and came up with the wrong answers. "

Pax.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Catholics believe in separation of Church and State.

The church should be run by clergy, and the state run by politicians. That’s not a theocracy.

Politicians should be good catholics (everyone should be a good catholic) but its not the clergy’s job to enforce that politicians are good Catholics in their jobs.

This is what people don’t understand about the Catholic understanding of “Separation of Church and State”; it is an economic doctrine. To quote myself from a previous post, “Separation of Church and State is an economic doctrine that is being applied to philosophy when it shouldn’t be. The economic body of the Church is separate from the economic body of the State - but my Faith should always infulence my politics.”

Pax.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Pope Benedict XVI’s recently-released Caritatis in Veritate speaks in glowing terms of Paul VI’s encylical, Populorum Progressio. The latter encylical weighed in on the subject of theocracy: that is, the Church has learned from her own history. If the job of theocracy is open or if temporal power is being offered, Rome doesn’t want it:

“The Church, which has long experience in human affairs and has no desire to be involved in the political activities of any nation, "seeks but one goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth; to save, not to judge; to serve, not to be served.’’

Founded to build the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than to acquire temporal power, the Church openly avows that the two powers—Church and State—are distinct from one another; that each is supreme in its own sphere of competency. But since the Church does dwell among men, she has the duty “of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.” Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees these aspirations not satisfied, she wishes to help them attain their full realization. So she offers man her distinctive contribution: a global perspective on man and human realities.”

We’re not looking for some shallow temporal, earthly power. We’re looking for a State system that actually listens to Christ instead of classifying Him as merely one voice among many. Politics is just another realm of human activity, why should it not be subjected to the Divine Authority? Christ is King of Heaven and earth. When a nation allows pornography, contraception and all kinds of blasphemy that cry forth to Heaven for vengeance, all in the name of freedom of speech, how can any Catholic possibly say that there shouldn’t be an official buffer, i.e. ecclesiastical jurisdiction, to prevent it? Russia may just reject sex education in public schools because the Orthodox Church disapproves. That is the ideal. We should want theocracy.

 

[otjm]

Well …first of all, you have to get over the obstacle that most Catholics in the US dont believe what the church teaches.

… Evidenced by the fact that more than half of all voting Catholics voted for the man that has one of the worst records where life is concerned.

I do’t think that there has been an adequate survey to indicate what most believe or do not believe. Obama not withstanding, many people do not do well with moral issues that can be as clouded easily as the issue of lesser of two evils.

 

[Wesley7]

the issue of lesser of two evils.

Can you tell me who came up with the specific “the lesser of two evils?”

 

[Detales]

Thanks, JS, for answering my post in detail.

part 1

“* Now it is time for the government to help it’s people through morally strenuous times, not for the immorality of the populus to override the government.*” That statement, again, is one of the scariest things I’ve seen posted on these fora. How many times have you heard now that A) the Vatican doesn’t want to (thank God) be a political force, and B) that you can’t legislate morality. Neighborhoods, schools, organizations, any of these that have turned around politically, economically, or morally have done so from within, which always has been and always will be the only efficacious and lasting way to peaceful change. Imposed change always bears the seed of aggression, and as the even slight abitlity of a government to deal with morality might be instituted, it will, as it is already doing now, fail.

I am reminded of the Catholic pastor of a parish in Norwalk, Conneticut. He used legal means as well as public protests to stop the patrons of a nude bar across the street from parking in his parishes parking lot. At the time, I lived in Arizona. It was on the news there. As it happened, I took a job in Stamford CT. I drove by the church in question on a delivery one day and saw that the bar across the street was packed with cars , including many with out of state plates and rental cars. The next round of legalities came up and was published in the papers. It seems that the pastor’s efforts had increased the bar’s business by tenfold. I thought it was great for the pastor, as it seemed to me that by all rights he could claim a tithe from the club for promoting them by means of national advertising.

In every neigborhood I’ve ever lived in, things changed for the better or worse by the effoerts of teh citizens. The police were useful to some degree as a detering presence, but for the most part were easily circumvented, as crime happened in relation to public participation, of not, in neigborhood activities. I also had a lot to do with how children were bgought up and treated,a nd if they had activities in and after school.

In my reading, you are wishing to abdicate your influence by means of your paticipation in civic matters by foisting the responsibility on the government, whose job it isn"t, and which doesn’t want it. And perhaps the public doesn’t want your brand of morality either. Heck, if you were in charge, I might be one of the first to be hanged, and if Jesus returned you’d have Him on the cross again. His Divintiy by no means assures your correct perception, or that of the Church. I’ve little doubt that if you met the Master in person, you would immediately reject Him as a blasphemer, etc. as usual, as I am convinced that His teaching is not as advertised by the Church.

Should government leaders encourage civil behaviour? Most certailnly. But that can and ought be done by the example of their private lives, or in interviews about such, and definitly not by legistlation, and bsolutely not according to the morals of the One True Church. Which is which one, by the way, by public opinion?

“* I’m afraid democracy just doesn’t work and frankly - it’s because some people just don’t know what’s good for them.*” Which implies that you do??? God help us!!!

" It is a Christian’s duty to evangelise those people" It may be so, as it is the duty of Muslims to do the same and of Prtestants of every ilk to do the same. So as a public, which shal we adopt? Yours, becuse in your opinion it is right? Remember, you practice a faith or a belief. it is not called a knowledge for a reason. And clearly, by saying “those people” you already have set up and adversarial dichotomy as distinct from a “we” that have an internal problem. YOu have again separated yourself from the activity of solution.

"Again so what? What does this have to do at all with our conversation?"/I] What conversation are you *having? The point of this is that you are postulating that your belief system ought to have sway over the behaviour of those who don’t buy it. It has everything to do with this conversation, because you are defining who is moral and who is not by your own personal lights by means of a filter you accepted by default. Or did you at some point do a cross cultural study of faiths and arrive at Catholicism from the outside? I somehow doubt it.

Separation may indeed be an economic doctrin. But it must be a legislative one as well. Please consider again the quote from Senator Goldwater above.

"How so? is religion a monumental chapter in human history? Look in the mirror.

Of course God hates no one. But if you are past the fifth grade, you know that people hate each other in His mame in droves! Put a government behind that and you have the inquisition and the crusades all over again, or jihad, or ethnic cleansing, or whatever.

Who we pray for reflects our own fears and concerns, as well as whowe don’t pray for. Anyone advocating a Theocracy ought first have a profoundly deep understanding of their own psyche. Do you?

“Man worships GOD, who is above.” and everywhere else. But isn’t it a generalization to say that Man as a species worships God? again. less than a third of the world is christianist, and not all those are solid, by any means. So where does that leave eveyone else?

“The Church contains the fullness of Truth and is larger that man for it was founded by the divine” So you say, and there are as many ort more who would say that from the perspective of another Church. Perhaps you would like to live under their idea of moraltiy? As for errors, the Church is just gettin around to even admitting that it made any, sixty years ago or ceturies ago, and is still blind to ones it made 1700 or more years ago.*

 

[Detales]

part 2

And if you don’t think that the Churches as a group are against liberty, please re-examine the history of missionaryism, in our Church or any other. Despite kindnesses and humanitarianism, entire cultures have been destroyed by such ministrations.

And thank you for your quotes. As you may have gathered from the above, I agree that liberty is a duty, as I am very active in the civic arena on the city and county levels. And yes, democracy is very flawed. Jefferson rightly predicted ours would last about 200 years. For my part, I’d rather let it fall and rebuild something simmilar on what we have learned from it, but not under your imagined god whom you ignorantly worship, or any other such. A very influential world leader said some 60-odd years ago that “It is great luck for leaders that men don’t think!” If there is any reason that governments, including our democracy, fail, it is becuse we the people fail to think for ourselves and act in concert for the civic good. The government, any government, can’t think for us, and neither can a god, even of your active imagination. Oh, that was Hitler who said that. So, I’m asking you: what are you thinking?

 

[peary2]

I mean, I can’t think of any reason. The way I see it is like this, why shouldn’t theology dictate public policy? When I see Catholics fighting gay rights and the culture of death, we’re just begging for scraps from the table of secular democracy. Why not just start believing in theocracy again? We don’t have to burn Protestants at the stake just because Catholicism is the official guiding religion of the State. I think we can make it work. Why should’t we all?

Whose theocracy are you going to choose? Read about what Calvin and Zwingli did in Geneva back in the heyday of Reformation.

We are not just a country with Christian denominations anymore. We are quite globalized with many nonChristian religions.

And God respects our free will. That is why He gave it to us.

 

[KindredSoul]

p…as I am convinced that His teaching is not as advertised by the Church…I’d rather let it fall and rebuild something simmilar on what we have learned from it, but not under your imagined god whom you ignorantly worship, or any other such. … and neither can a god, even of your active imagination.

Based upon what is quoted in red, especially the first one it would be impossible for you to take a theocracy seriously even if God Himself had said we should have one in black and white. Not that He did (well, in the Old Testament He did but you’ve already shown your disrespect for that as well), but even if He had said so, you’d say something like “Oh that’s the imagined god whom you ignorantly worship, not the real one.”

Basically, since you have such a disregard and disrespect for Catholicism as taught by the Church, you have nothing real to add to the conversation of those who actually hold to the teachings of the Church as infallible. You don’t take Catholicism seriously, even hypothetically speaking for the sake of making a valid appeal to the Catholic mentality, in the first place. What makes you think those who actually believe Catholicism is true should believe in your arguments, when over and over part of your argument’s fabric has been “because what the Catholic Church teaches is false anyway”?

If I as a believing Catholic want a valid rebuttal as to why theocracy might be a bad idea, I’ll turn to such posters as EasterJoy, who had this to say:

Pope Benedict XVI’s recently-released Caritatis in Veritate speaks in glowing terms of Paul VI’s encylical, Populorum Progressio. The latter encylical weighed in on the subject of theocracy: that is, the Church has learned from her own history. If the job of theocracy is open or if temporal power is being offered, Rome doesn’t want it:

“The Church, which has long experience in human affairs and has no desire to be involved in the political activities of any nation, "seeks but one goal: to carry forward the work of Christ under the lead of the befriending Spirit. And Christ entered this world to give witness to the truth; to save, not to judge; to serve, not to be served.’’

Founded to build the kingdom of heaven on earth rather than to acquire temporal power, the Church openly avows that the two powers—Church and State—are distinct from one another; that each is supreme in its own sphere of competency. But since the Church does dwell among men, she has the duty “of scrutinizing the signs of the times and of interpreting them in the light of the Gospel.” Sharing the noblest aspirations of men and suffering when she sees these aspirations not satisfied, she wishes to help them attain their full realization. So she offers man her distinctive contribution: a global perspective on man and human realities.”

Which brings up a second reason why theocracies are a bad idea: If one nation is officially Roman Catholic, it puts the Holy See in a bad political position itself. The Vatican will have a harder time speaking the truth to this country or that one without being accused of favoritism, or angling for more political power.

Now that is sound reasoning. I’m not 100% sure if Pope Benedict or Pope Paul IV meant to universally condemn even the slightest hope of there being a nation anywhere built upon Catholicism, but you have certainly given me more reason to pause in desiring an all-out theocracy than some other arguments on this thread…because you, my friend, have given me reasons that not only fit within, but which also utilize a Catholic theology and framework. Instead of ignoring Catholicism or dismissing it, you actually quote Catholic writings (instead of atheists, deists, and other non-Catholic-friendlies) to make your point.

Thank you.

 

[Detales]

Why, in the name of God, do you arrogantly believe that your particular interpretation of the Faith is a monopoly on truth? I am quite aquainted, thank you, with the teachings of the Church, having been an extremely devout and well catechised Catholic. I do not by any means dismiss the Church, I simply claim that it has misrepresented the teachings of Jesus in a profound way. The Church certainly has all the elements referent to salvation, but on a misinterpreted and anthropomorphic footing. That is my own particular interpretation based on my experience. I willnot force it on anyone, nor expect converts to it, or wishanyone even to accept my reasons. That would be silly.

What I am speaking to is your take in particular. As you know, I have also stated that by the Church’s own policy, it does not wish to be the backer of a theocracy. You are using Catholicism as a kind of lens that the Church itself doesn’t want to be, and you ar bending things in your own direction. As well as that, my argument never was against a Catholic theorcracy, but against any theocracy. I think you have taken too personally what my intention is, and have revealed the actual emotionalism that is benind your stand.

This is born out by your insistance that an argument for/against theocracy should cme only form within the Church, the very Church that has already said “No!”

 

[Wesley7]

Alas, the typical arguments continue without me.

 

[KindredSoul]

Why, in the name of God, do you arrogantly believe that your particular interpretation of the Faith is a monopoly on truth? I am quite aquainted, thank you, with the teachings of the Church, having been an extremely devout and well catechised Catholic. I do not by any means dismiss the Church, I simply claim that it has misrepresented the teachings of Jesus in a profound way. The Church certainly has all the elements referent to salvation, but on a misinterpreted and anthropomorphic footing.

That is a dismissive attitude of what Catholicism actually is, given that the Church claims to have infallible teaching authority. As for why I believe Catholicism is the “monopoly” on truth, it is because I am sincerely convinced, for a number of reasons I am sure you can find here on Catholic Answers (made by many apologists who have done plenty of their homework, which this thread is not the place to get into in major detail), that Christ founded the Catholic Church specifically because He wanted us to be able to know the truth instead of just making random guesses in the dark. And if I am sincerely convinced of this, surely you can see that this is not arrogance but obedience to my Lord?

That is my own particular interpretation based on my experience. I willnot force it on anyone, nor expect converts to it, or wishanyone even to accept my reasons. That would be silly.

But if, in any way, your “particular interpretation” stated that God wished for everyone to realize that truth in all its “particulars” then you would either A. Wish for others to convert or B. Not be living up to even your own particular interpretation by dismissing part of what it called for. Seemingly, your interpretation doesn’t say that God wishes for everyone to come to the truth as you believe it to be. The Catholic interpretation, however, does say that about Catholicism. Of course, I agree that forced conversions are fruitless and should not be done, and are also most unrighteous. If that’s what you think I have been advocating in any way, you have misread me gravely.

What I am speaking to is your take in particular. As you know, I have also stated that by the Church’s own policy, it does not wish to be the backer of a theocracy. You are using Catholicism as a kind of lens that the Church itself doesn’t want to be, and you ar bending things in your own direction.

EasterJoy has given arguments, and reasonable ones, why we should believe that the Church Herself does not wish to be the backer of a theocracy. Unless I missed something (and I admittedly may have) you may have stated the same but instead of giving any proof you quoted mostly deists, atheists, and other people prone to believe Catholicism is false…by definition, that did not do anything to prove your point about the Church Herself not wanting a theocracy.

As well as that, my argument never was against a Catholic theorcracy, but against any theocracy. I think you have taken too personally what my intention is, and have revealed the actual emotionalism that is benind your stand.

Emotionalism? Nope. In fact, although your argument was (as I well realized) against any theocracy, it is undeniable that such statements as I quoted in red above were meant to be applied not only to theocracy, but to any organized religion in itself making absolute truth claims, which I am sure we can agree includes Catholicism. My point was, and is, that if part of your argument against a theocracy is that those religions whose members might want a theocracy are somehow or in some way (however minor) false, you are failing in your attempt to appeal to people of those religions to see your point. That is not emotionalism, it is a simple observation, and if it was perhaps emotionally pointed out, there is still a big difference.

This is born out by your insistance that an argument for/against theocracy should cme only form within the Church, the very Church that has already said “No!”

Actually, once people, namely EasterJoy, gave good and authoritative evidence that maybe the Church Herself doesn’t want theocracy (though I’m not certain if those decrees were intended by those Popes to be infallible–I will look into it since a small quote can be hard to interpret–I assume they are informed by wisdom nontheless) you will notice that I have begun to back away from the “insistence” on the benefits of a theocracy. If you had taken into account the second part of that very same post (my response to EasterJoy), you would have known this already.

As for me insisting that an argument for/against theocracy should come from only within the Church, again, if you are using that to say my argument is based in “emotionalism” you are mistaken, not least of all because that’s not exactly what I am saying. I am saying, rather, that if you want to prove to a Catholic that theocracy is undesirable, your arguments must at least be compatible with Catholicism. Quoting a rather long list of people whose religious beliefs were decidedly in-compatible with Catholicism, as well as saying such things as “the god you ignorantly worship” clearly is not an argument compatible with Catholicism.

Again, my point, no matter how strongly I may feel about it, is rather rational and is quite independent of “emotionalism”: Why, without having first made an effort to convert Catholics away from believing fully in Catholicism (which is not your purpose), would you think using arguments incompatible with Catholicism (in the ways I have just now indicated) would be convincing to a Catholic?

 

[Detales]

Kindered, "* Church claims to have infallible teaching authority* it’s a claim, not a fact. And mine isn’t a random guess in the dark. As I said, I was a very strong Catholic and have been a student of religon and philosophy for over 55 years now.

“But if, in any way, your “particular interpretation” stated that God wished for everyone to realize that truth in all its “particulars” then you would either A. Wish for others to convert or B. Not be living up to even your own particular interpretation by dismissing part of what it called for.” No, I believe in agency and example. I give whit if anyone converts, because to this they can’t. It is a discovery, not a commitment. When you find you have a foot, it is not a matte of convincing others you have one. As to B, I don’t see how God would want anyone to realize any truth in alll its particulars because they can’t, as particulars.

“EasterJoy has given arguments, and reasonable ones” Yes, of course, completey valid within the Church. Does valid necessarily = universally true?

“you quoted mostly deists, atheists, and other people prone to believe Catholicism is false.” The alleged Catholic position being overwhelmingly well, or not well, stated on here, and the issue, again, not being a Catholic, but a general issue about religion, I did quote others who had an issue with a religion of any sort having sway over civic matters.

“* if part of your argument against a theocracy is that those religions whose members might want a theocracy are somehow or in some way (however minor) false, you are failing in your attempt to appeal to people of those religions to see your point.*” No, it isn’t against any particular religion having false elements. It is about any particular religion having sway over all the others, and the non-believers as well. Did you go back as I requested and read Senator Gosdwater’s practical statement on this issue?

“If you had taken into account the second part of that very same post (my response to EasterJoy), you would have known this already.” Yes, that was clear from what you said. Again, I was responding to the idea tha you are doing your revisitaion strictly through a Catholic perspective when it has been clear that this is a much larger issue.

“* Quoting a rather long list of people whose religious beliefs were decidedly in-compatible with Catholicism, as well as saying such things as “the god you ignorantly worship” clearly is not an argument compatible with Catholicism.*” That is very naive. You would appear to be claiming that only Catholics can think. Is that true? and again, the allegedly Catholic perspective on here was already well mis/represented.

I don’t, as I said, give a whit about convincing you or any other Catholic about my standpoint. I’m here answering a question by my lights. As for your enthusiasm, I think it is wonderful. You should apply yourself with all the intensity you can muster to your beliefs. It may be your only way through them. You will decide for yourself, any of my statements notwithstanding.