Democracy: the enemy of the faith

[Genesis315]

Also, we’ll never get that Cahtolic World unless we have the faith and courage to say that Christ is the ONLY way and Christ only founded ONE church and STOP saying all religions are of value, praying with Jews, Moslems, etc. This whole ecumenism thing is deeply evil and at the root of so much confusion.

Catholic ecumenism is not concerned with non-Christian religions, but rather with the Baptized, but separated who still profess a belief in the Triune God.

That being said, as St. Thomas Aquinas explained, where there is truth, it comes from God, so there is value. The Catholic Church has always had the position that whatever is good is supplemented and completed by conversion to the true faith–it’s usually not an all or nothing.

Also, I don’t know if you have had much experience bringing non-Christians into the fold, but friendly, fraternal dialogue, where we first understand where we agree, and then show how the full truth follows from those truths, is much more effective for demonstrating the truth than simply saying someone’s beliefs are completely valueless and then preaching at them.

 

[mulligan59]

The Second Vatican Council affirms this when it says it expressly states that it intends to leave the traditional obligation of individuals and societies to the Catholic religion untouched.

Man also has a right to come to the faith freely–he has the right to not be coerced into worshiping God and having the proper faith. That is what the Second Vatican Council is primarily concerned with (and the corresponding right that man must be free to fulfill His duty to God). The rest is generally prudential concerning how best to protect both these rights given contemporary circumstances. Again, if you read the posts I wrote for another forum that I linked to in a previous post, you will see this is the case. They trace the teaching on this subject and lastly include the Second Vatican Council, the relatio, and commentary from Pope Benedict XVI where he affirms my interpretation above (which is also in the relatio) which shows that the Council deals primarily with practical considerations in protecting the two rights I mentioned above.

OK sorry this is a bit long: Man has not a right, but an obligation to come to the faith. And yes, he must do it freely, as coerced love is of no value, but his obligation to come to the truth is not diminished by the fact that it must be free. To say it is a right implies he is “OK” if he he uses his free will to chose wrong. Vatican II did not clarify but confused this issue.

 

[mulligan59]

Catholic ecumenism is not concerned with non-Christian religions, but rather with the Baptized, but separated who still profess a belief in the Triune God.

That being said, as St. Thomas Aquinas explained, where there is truth, it comes from God, so there is value. The Catholic Church has always had the position that whatever is good is supplemented and completed by conversion to the true faith–it’s usually not an all or nothing.

Also, I don’t know if you have had much experience bringing non-Christians into the fold, but friendly, fraternal dialogue, where we first understand where we agree, and then show how the full truth follows from those truths, is much more effective for demonstrating the truth than simply saying someone’s beliefs are completely valueless and then preaching at them.

Perhaps narrowly defined “ecumenism” only dealt with as you say, the protestants and schismatics. But Vatican II also had praise for the Molsems and the Hindus. Consider the Assisi inter-religious prayer gathering. Crucifixes were covered or removed to avoid giving offense. This is apostasy. But it is off point anyway. The point being that everyone must be Catholic. It is actually worse to be Baptised and fall into heresy than to be a pagan. Yes, Aquinas is correct, all truth comes from God. The Church has taught that God’s law is written on our hearts. Athiests will do good and noble deeds. But their denial of god is not truth, nor is the goddess Shiva real or true. Could Christ have been anymore clear about His being the only way? So what’s the point? Finally, I would tend to agree about the approach you recommend for reaching non-Christians. But I thought I was talking to Catholics here.

 

[BlaineTog]

Again: The State does

What makes you think it does know?

or should know

5/6ths+ of the world isn’t Catholic, and even fewer people actually believe in Catholicism. “Should” isn’t accurate. It’s epistemologically unfair to claim that you “should” be able to pick Catholicism as the religion.

Man does not have the “right” to choose error.

But it’s a crucial part of free will. It’s certainly absurd for a government to force him to believe. For one thing, that only causes slavishly going through the motions which is just as likely to harm as to help (assuming it helps at all), and for another, it impinges on freedom. From a human/governmental perspective, humans have the right to believe whatever they way, just as they have the right to smoke or say mean things.

Now error may be tolerated if toleration avoids a greater evil (civil war) but it is very different to say that man has a right to chose any religion. Rights come from God and He does not give you the right to chose wrong. He tolerates it (ie does not prevent it / free will) but your sin will still damn you.

And similarly, he tolerates choosing a different religion, though the only way choosing a different religion would damn you would be if you did it knowing the Catholic Church to be the one true church. It’s hardly loving to keep someone out of heaven just because they mistakenly thought purgatory didn’t exist, or that the Eucharist wasn’t really Jesus, or that everything is illusion. Do you really think that getting into heaven involves a theology exam?

Do you need citations from the Magisterium? This whole modern notion of religious liberty essentially elevates respect for the opinions of man over respect for God’s truth. It isn’t that hard is it? You think God likes the fruits of it all?

You think God is indifferent to the selflessness of a sincere Hindu?

 

[mulligan59]

What makes you think it does know?

5/6ths+ of the world isn’t Catholic, and even fewer people actually believe in Catholicism. “Should” isn’t accurate. It’s epistemologically unfair to claim that you “should” be able to pick Catholicism as the religion.

But it’s a crucial part of free will. It’s certainly absurd for a government to force him to believe. For one thing, that only causes slavishly going through the motions which is just as likely to harm as to help (assuming it helps at all), and for another, it impinges on freedom. From a human/governmental perspective, humans have the right to believe whatever they way, just as they have the right to smoke or say mean things.

And similarly, he tolerates choosing a different religion, though the only way choosing a different religion would damn you would be if you did it knowing the Catholic Church to be the one true church. It’s hardly loving to keep someone out of heaven just because they mistakenly thought purgatory didn’t exist, or that the Eucharist wasn’t really Jesus, or that everything is illusion. Do you really think that getting into heaven involves a theology exam?

You think God is indifferent to the selflessness of a sincere Hindu?

To answer your last question first, Yes. Look, if you want to keep reasoning with our puny human minds, then you have Free Will to do so, however if you claim to beleive in Christ, then don’t call him a liar. It was Christ who told us: 1) we must be Baptised, 2) We must “obey his commandments”, 3) narrow is the gate and FEW will find it. 4) to he from whom the truth is hidden it is hidden for a reason. So if you’re going to be a Christian, be a Christian. If you are really a Rational Humanist or some such thing, then why call your self Catholic?

 

[mchale]

Look, there is a difference between religious toleration (i.e. let’s not round up and burn the heretical protestants) and religious indifferentism (gee, we don’t know what is true so let’s make sure everyone is encouraged to follow whatever fool thing they chose). I’m not saying we should burn the synagogues tomorrow, but neither should they be allowed to poison the culture. And as you seem to agree, they have poisoned the culture. You have to understand what the Church has traditionally taught in this respect. Read Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X. Yes, we should work for a Catholic World.

Ok, I would start by stating that our Government doesn’t encourage everyone to follow “whatever fool thing they choose”. In any case, I am far more worried about the tendency amongst some to promote freedom from religion, most specifically Christianity. Our culture does indeed encourage that sort of foolishness, but culture is a different question than the one at hand.

The second thing I would say is that synagogues have not poisoned our culture. I am not arguing that anyone but the Church has the true path to God, but there is much valuable spiritual wisdom in the Jewish faith. I am far more concerned about the rampant secularism and materialism that exist in our culture.

There are two distinct types of religious freedom at issue here. The first is the Freedom that God grants us to choose to accept him and worship him. The second is a question of what level of authority a state should have over its people. Clearly history has shown that a union of Church and State has resulted in frequent attempts by the latter to encroach on the authority of the former; in the worst cases, state churches were established forcing millions of people away from the Church.

Over all, I feel the best way to work for a Catholic World (not that such a world can be achieved before the end of the World) is to live in a world where the State is separated from the Church.

–
Bill

 

[BlaineTog]

If you are really a Rational Humanist or some such thing, then why call your self Catholic?

Because everything I just said is orthodox Catholic theology. The catechism explicitly agrees with me.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

Please don’t stray into discussing salvation outside the Church. Please stick to the OP. Thank you all.

 

[mulligan59]

Ok, I would start by stating that our Government doesn’t encourage everyone to follow “whatever fool thing they choose”. In any case, I am far more worried about the tendency amongst some to promote freedom from religion, most specifically Christianity. Our culture does indeed encourage that sort of foolishness, but culture is a different question than the one at hand.

The second thing I would say is that synagogues have not poisoned our culture. I am not arguing that anyone but the Church has the true path to God, but there is much valuable spiritual wisdom in the Jewish faith. I am far more concerned about the rampant secularism and materialism that exist in our culture.

There are two distinct types of religious freedom at issue here. The first is the Freedom that God grants us to choose to accept him and worship him. The second is a question of what level of authority a state should have over its people. Clearly history has shown that a union of Church and State has resulted in frequent attempts by the latter to encroach on the authority of the former; in the worst cases, state churches were established forcing millions of people away from the Church.

Over all, I feel the best way to work for a Catholic World (not that such a world can be achieved before the end of the World) is to live in a world where the State is separated from the Church.

–
Bill

I don’t think we’re really connecting. I don’t advocate forced conversions at the hand of the State. But when we talk about the poisioning of the culture, understand that it is essentially tolerated because the State claims not to be able to make value judgements precisely because of the notion that Church State separation is good. Do you think in Catholic Spain (and Catholicism was the State Religion in Spain until Vatican II) would allow abortion, pornography, or tolerate homosexuals tossing condoms on altars? Again, I’m not saying lock up the Jews or the Protestants, I’m saying that Catholic morality should be the foundation of any just law and that the Church should have legal protections. Yes, Nativity scences should be allowed in the public square and no, menorahs should not be. Look, there is “wisdom” as you say in false faiths, but wisdom will not save you. Wisdom is not a Divine Virtue. God gives us Free Will. We are free to commit adultery. It does not mean we have the RIGHT to commit adultery. Choosing a false religion is NO different. Either way you are lost without repentance or conversion. And it is NOT up to us to question it. On the last day, His justice will be apparent. Until then we have to simply trust God, not second guess him with legalistic, philosophic speculations.

 

[mchale]

I don’t think we’re really connecting. I don’t advocate forced conversions at the hand of the State. But when we talk about the poisioning of the culture, understand that it is essentially tolerated because the State claims not to be able to make value judgements precisely because of the notion that Church State separation is good. Do you think in Catholic Spain (and Catholicism was the State Religion in Spain until Vatican II) would allow abortion, pornography, or tolerate homosexuals tossing condoms on altars? Again, I’m not saying lock up the Jews or the Protestants, I’m saying that Catholic morality should be the foundation of any just law and that the Church should have legal protections. Yes, Nativity scences should be allowed in the public square and no, menorahs should not be. Look, there is “wisdom” as you say in false faiths, but wisdom will not save you. Wisdom is not a Divine Virtue. God gives us Free Will. We are free to commit adultery. It does not mean we have the RIGHT to commit adultery. Choosing a false religion is NO different. Either way you are lost without repentance or conversion. And it is NOT up to us to question it. On the last day, His justice will be apparent. Until then we have to simply trust God, not second guess him with legalistic, philosophic speculations.

Let me start by saying that I think you are far more confident in Government being right than I am. Lets say we were to reestablish the Catholic Church as the state religion of every country in Western Europe and Latin America and Establish it as the State Church of the USA and Canada. There is no way to know that in 200 years that the State Churches in those nations will still be Catholic. As someone who has studied history extensively, and especially the history of my family’s native Ireland; I have seen the results of what happens when the union of Church and State goes wrong (Specifically, the extreme oppression the Irish experienced in their own country at the hands of the Protestant English). In an ideal world, sure, a Catholic State would be great, in practice…

The second aspect is that often Catholic States have not been at all tolerant of religious minorities. Because naturally, governments are ruled by men. Even the Church government can be corrupt (we are only promised protection from error in belief, not in administration). I fully agree with the notion that power tends to corrupt.

I would also object to the notion that Judaism is a false religion; an incomplete (as far as our belief is concerned) religion yes, but it is still the faith that is based on the Law that Moses was given. That they didn’t recognize Jesus as God and Messiah means they did not recognize the fullness of Truth, but not that their beliefs became false. Further, as Catholics, we should be able to appreciate and indeed venerate the Jewish Traditions we have left behind. The miracle the Jews celebrate with the Mennorah is still a miracle from God.

Finally, I think if you will look at history some more, you will find that the Church has often suffered greatly in Catholic Countries. Long before England became Protestant, English Kings had killed Catholic Clergy and butted heads with the Pope.

–
Bill

 

[BlaineTog]

Choosing a false religon is largely an intellectual issue, whereas choosing adultery is largely an action of the will. You could be legitimatelly confused. You could have been born into a different religion, and if that religion isn’t incoherent on its face, it probably has just as coherent an explaination of life as Catholicism, at least from your perspective. You could sincerely believe that your religion is correct, whereas it is always incincerity to call adultery acceptable.

The fact of the matter is that choosing a religion you didn’t grow up in as the correct religion is hard. It took C.S. Lewis years to come to Christianity, and he didn’t even get all the way to Catholicism, and he was given the handicap of growing up in Christianity (a nominal Christianity, but still), and of knowing a bunch of very smart Christians. And a government picking Catholicism as opposed to any of the other religions would be equally hard, and therefore equally unlikely.

 

[mulligan59]

Let me start by saying that I think you are far more confident in Government being right than I am. Lets say we were to reestablish the Catholic Church as the state religion of every country in Western Europe and Latin America and Establish it as the State Church of the USA and Canada. There is no way to know that in 200 years that the State Churches in those nations will still be Catholic. As someone who has studied history extensively, and especially the history of my family’s native Ireland; I have seen the results of what happens when the union of Church and State goes wrong (Specifically, the extreme oppression the Irish experienced in their own country at the hands of the Protestant English). In an ideal world, sure, a Catholic State would be great, in practice…

The second aspect is that often Catholic States have not been at all tolerant of religious minorities. Because naturally, governments are ruled by men. Even the Church government can be corrupt (we are only promised protection from error in belief, not in administration). I fully agree with the notion that power tends to corrupt.

I would also object to the notion that Judaism is a false religion; an incomplete (as far as our belief is concerned) religion yes, but it is still the faith that is based on the Law that Moses was given. That they didn’t recognize Jesus as God and Messiah means they did not recognize the fullness of Truth, but not that their beliefs became false. Further, as Catholics, we should be able to appreciate and indeed venerate the Jewish Traditions we have left behind. The miracle the Jews celebrate with the Mennorah is still a miracle from God.

Finally, I think if you will look at history some more, you will find that the Church has often suffered greatly in Catholic Countries. Long before England became Protestant, English Kings had killed Catholic Clergy and butted heads with the Pope.

–
Bill

Still not connecting and perhaps it is my fault. Firstly, when I say something is not a “right”, I don’t mean it in the sense of any thing a government recognizes, I have no faith in government at all.
I mean in the sense of what Heaven will approve of or disprove of and that is ultimately the only sanction that matters. Secondly, when I say that we “should” have a Catholic World, it doesn’t mean that I think we ever “could” have one. I’m not issuing a call for action, I’m simply trying to cut through this moral / intellectual fog we are under when we try to harmonize God’s Laws with Human Respect. They are not compatible. I also know that even in the Catholic world, the pre-reformation Christendom of old, it was far from utopia. This is because men are flawed, prone to wickedness, power corrupts. BUT, in that world, many more simple souls were saved. They were not lead to temptation as now. Ultimately, our goals should be to save souls. And you are right about the Irish. Cromwell, and Elizabeth I, probably the two most wicked people who ever lived. So what? They were wicked precisely because they opposed loyalty to the Church. The Church of England was ultimately created to make the Church subservient to the State, not the other way around.
[Edited by Moderator]

 

[Kaninchen]

The Jews are in fact by their nature and their belief, the enemy of the true faith. This is just basic logic, but it was also the teaching of Augustine, Aquinas, St. John Crystusum, and about two dozen other Doctors and Popes.

By our “nature”?

Good grief.

 

[vern_humphrey]

By our “nature”?

Good grief.

That one floored me, too – apparently the poster believes the Jews are a different species, perhaps with feathers instead of hair?

We all have one nature. And the Catholic Church’s official position is:

The Church and non-Christians

839 “Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.”

The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, “the first to hear the Word of God.” The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God’s revelation in the Old Covenant. To the Jews “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ”, “for the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable.”

840 And when one considers the future, God’s People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

(From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.)

 

[mulligan59]

That one floored me, too – apparently the poster believes the Jews are a different species, perhaps with feathers instead of hair?

We all have one nature. And the Catholic Church’s official position is:

(From the Catechism of the Catholic Church.)

It is not opposed to any rule of the English language to use the term “nature” to describe attributes which are intrinsic to something, be it a creature or a philosophy. One may say “By its nature Communism attempts to deconstruct the family”. By the “nature” of what they believe, the Jews are enemies of Christ… The Talmud is quite explicit in its opinion of Christ. The Saviour came, the Jews, or more precisely those who remained Jews, rejected him. This is why Christ wept for Jeruselem on Palm Sunday, for they did not “recognize the hour of their visitation”. The new Catechism from which you quote is gobbly gook and contradicts 1900 year old dogmas. It is heretical. But I know this discussion is “banned” on this site, so I’ve tried to avoid it. But to jump on the word “nature”, I don’t think you guys are arguing in good faith.

 

[geekborj]

Democracy as the enemy of the faith? The Church is a monarchical structure. Christ is the King of kings. Is democracy un-Christian? Christ made Peter the head of the Church. He did not say you 11 faithful apostles you are rocks and I shall build my church upon your democratic agreement. Democracy asserts that all people are equal in much more than just dignity. Isn’t this against Church teaching? Why should a state trust its governance to the average person? Does not a state have responsibility to God before the people? Democracy has led to horrible evils. The concept of democracy spawned the concept of communism. Since communism (in its idealistic form) is a democracy with no private property. Democracy led to the execution of kings and countless numbers of other people. Democracy led to legalized abortions. Where will democracy lead us next? Some might say that it is the best system around. The modern liberal democratic state has been around for only 221 years. I am tracking from 1787, the year the US constitution was adopted. Then there was the French Revolution which was vehemently anti-Catholic. The revolutions throughout the 19th century, and then the Russian Revolution. What good has come from liberal democracy? Is democracy leading to a renewal of anti-clericalism? Is it making people think they are just as high as the priest? Does it make people not respect the bishops anymore?

Misguided democracy is evil. That’s for sure. Democracy guided by the Love as preached by the Catholic Church should make this Democracy work, without the wickedness of human heart.

Again, it just proves that human is not capable of understanding this Love nor not good at expressing it at all!

 

[I_thirst_4_YOU]

How about in dealing with controversial topics like Abortion and homosexuality?

Democracy has lead us down the wrong path where the Church would take the hardline stance against these two injustices.

Is the separation of Church and state then a good thing?

 

[AndyF]

pjn:

No danger really, and especially desirable in Justice. Democracies are born where a void needs to be filled. Voids appear when responsibility is shirked, when rulers become full of themselves, become desensitized to the effects they cause, where an autocrat’s institution fails to perform it’s role. Man naturally and without animosity of any kind are drawn to replace what doesn’t work, and he would naturally have it ruled by a majority of his kind for security reasons and to ensure the axiom that the majority most likely contains the correct choice.

We need to step back for an answer. Could it be that what is lacking is a foundational norm for universes that contain beings created by creators.? The creator decides what is a norm. In one ideal, we could gauge a measure of our relation to the creator if there were parallel universes with many creators. For the sake of argument, given many universes, perhaps 2 have divine judicial systems where deity is willing to become a tabula rasa overseerer of justice dispensed to individuals where deity is a victim. In this system deity is willing to show is love by allowing measure of imperfection in Justice. So in this creational case deity allows democratic means, and allows Justice, which really belongs to the judged.

Democracies are sometimes born out of autocracies/monarchies. Why is this?

Because man has an inherent understanding of how beings should treat other beings, regardless if his behavior is good or bad. These single rule governments are dependent on the ruler’s capability and willingness to be a good ruler. The weakness is a self centered attitude that is assisted by the royal entourage and those seeking favor. This sense of fair play cannot be affected by extreme punitive measures and effect little in making the subject conform and forget this basic creational instinct.

Deitical systems and those where super human powers are involved present unique circumstances where self preservation and the imposed reality where awareness cannot be tuned out becomes the paramount end. All endeavors must finalize in the appeasement of deity, correctness,conflicts of interest,accuracy and truth take second stage to this endeavor.

I think a deitical democratic system would work. The one microsecond dispatch is no more in this system. Certain norms would need to be in place if it is to be an incorrupt and honourable system.

1/ The celestial court would need to prove itself worthy of judging by showing historic entity cases and the outcome. All entities that exist in form or take on a form and have a conscience or collective conscience are subject to it.
2/ Form is any form,spiritual,material,plural entity or combined.
3/ Forms receive punitive measures in the form they offend.
4/ The celestial court will provide a defense attorney without a conflict of interestand with the use of his knowledge, willing to fight to the end for his charge, to exploit,reveal every and any technicality to his advantage.
5/ At the request of the defense, the celestial court will provide references from it’s vast pool of knowledge and case studies.
6/ The judge will present neither the offense nor the defense and he also will not be impeded by a conflict of interest.

These are just 6, you get the drift. Unreasonable? There is not one iota of unreasonableness in the list. All democratic justice systems are implemented with the desire to have these standards, and nations would be in envy to have these base constructs. If they are good here, they are good everywhere, since good finds it’s source in God.

AndyF.

 

[PoliSciProf]

I’m not saying we should burn the synagogues tomorrow, but neither should they be allowed to poison the culture. And as you seem to agree, they have poisoned the culture. You have to understand what the Church has traditionally taught in this respect. Read Pius IX, Leo XIII, St. Pius X. Yes, we should work for a Catholic World.

The above quote reflects what I was taught in the course of my 12 years of Catholic schooling (mostly pre-Vatican II). I remember, however, the Spanish authoritarian Franciso Franco being offered as an example being given of what a good Catholic leader ought to be. We were told that while he had faults (!), he preserved the Church and its values. This is the crux of the problem of this thread. The Church did need to find both a practical and a theological raprochment with modern liberalism without, of course, compromising its moral teachings. And it did,with the grace of the Spirit. The key figure in this raprochment was the great Jesuit theologian John Courtney Murray. Murray’s work on this issue was (and still is) often misunderstood by those within and outside of the Church. This led to restrictions on his writing and lecturing in the 1950s. He was rehabilitated and was invited to Vatican II where he made important contribubtions to Dignitatis Humanae, the Council’s statement on religious freedom. There are many good web sites on Murray. Those who want to pursue Father Murray’s thought further might consider the following:
johncourtneymurray.blogspot.com/
ewtn.com/library/HUMANITY/FR87203.TXT
ratzingerfanclub.com/liberalism/murray_contraception_abortion.html

 

[elt1956]

Democracy as the enemy of the faith? The Church is a monarchical structure. Christ is the King of kings. Is democracy un-Christian? Christ made Peter the head of the Church. He did not say you 11 faithful apostles you are rocks and I shall build my church upon your democratic agreement. Democracy asserts that all people are equal in much more than just dignity. Isn’t this against Church teaching? Why should a state trust its governance to the average person? Does not a state have responsibility to God before the people? Democracy has led to horrible evils. The concept of democracy spawned the concept of communism. Since communism (in its idealistic form) is a democracy with no private property. Democracy led to the execution of kings and countless numbers of other people. Democracy led to legalized abortions. Where will democracy lead us next? Some might say that it is the best system around. The modern liberal democratic state has been around for only 221 years. I am tracking from 1787, the year the US constitution was adopted. Then there was the French Revolution which was vehemently anti-Catholic. The revolutions throughout the 19th century, and then the Russian Revolution. What good has come from liberal democracy? Is democracy leading to a renewal of anti-clericalism? Is it making people think they are just as high as the priest? Does it make people not respect the bishops anymore?

My take on this is the fact that in a Democracy no one is being told what chruch to go to, religion to believe in, who to vote for. I cannot imagine living in a nation that has a religious as head of the government. Look at the Muslim countries. Would you want to live in a land that lets extremists run the government? What about the Spanish Inquisition in Europe, especially in Spain. Would you have wanted to live at that time? I, for one, am very happy we have separation of church and state. Our Democracy here in the United State states is called the Great Experiment. It exists no where else in the same form. It is not Democracy per se that is causing the difficulties we now face. It is the people’s disinterest in it. Peace.