I'd love your thoughts on this simple question

[Izdaari]

Would you want to live in a country which conformed all of its laws to your particular religion? In the example, there are people in the country who are NOT of your religion, but obviously would be subject to whatever laws are in place.

No, I wouldn’t like that.

I prefer living in a pluralistic country with freedom of religion, and I vote accordingly (most often for the Libertarian Party).

OTOH, I’m Episcopalian. Since we’re extraordinarily tolerant, an Episcopalian theocracy would be very mild and easy to live with.

 

[LEMAITRE]

Would you want to live in a country which conformed all of its laws to your particular religion? In the example, there are people in the country who are NOT of your religion, but obviously would be subject to whatever laws are in place.

A ‘christian country’, are you KIDDING? how would the Protestants agree with the Catholics, let alone Protestant v Protestant.

No way, living my faith in whatever melting pot I am in is what excites me, it’s a form of evangelising non-Christians. I would not be comfortable in a religious state with 1billion me’s running around. Besides some of my loved family and friends are not Catholic and I want them around me.

What would happen to the ones who do not submit or question?

 

[vames]

Would you want to live in a country which conformed all of its laws to your particular religion? In the example, there are people in the country who are NOT of your religion, but obviously would be subject to whatever laws are in place.

No. Some say that “the law wouldn’t be based on a particular religion, but on God’s law / the Truth”. But the lawmakers and law enforcers would still be some particular guys. Give secular power to any bunch of guys who tell you they have monopoly over the Truth and you will have people prosecuted as a result of the decisions of an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.

 

[stevekehl]

Would you want to live in a country which conformed all of its laws to your particular religion? In the example, there are people in the country who are NOT of your religion, but obviously would be subject to whatever laws are in place.

I would not. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Would I want the laws of my country to reflect the moral convictions I have, of course. But making this country a theocracy is not the answer. Punishing people for missing church (gotta have a note from your doctor to prove you were sick and couldn’t make church)? I’ll take America warts and all.

 

[exnihilo]

That is a very broad question. By conforming to the religion what do you mean? One problem I see is that the modern mind believes the state should enforce all morality. I believe prostitution to be immoral but I could agree to it being legal. I believe talking back to your parents to be immoral but I do not think the state should punish children for this crime.

There is also the issue of punishment. An act being illegal is one thing but the severity of the punishment is another. I would consider it wrong if the state made murder illegal but for a punishment only sentenced people to prison for one day. I think most people would agree that a state could be wrong in not sufficiently punishing serious moral violations.

I would say I want to live in a country that properly punishes serious violations of morality, which are informed by my religion. I would not want them punishing lesser violations. But then we have the issue of how do we determine what is serious? The sad fact is in our modern culture what formerly were serious acts of immorality are now considered no big deal.

I would like to live in a country where the law is based on God’s law. This country was founded that way, as were most other countries of the world. Every society’s laws or mores are initially based on that society’s concept of a supreme being. This is natural and universal. This is how a society remains a society. When this changes, society disintegrates. (see: government gridlock, fiscal cliff, mall shooting, etc.)

I agree. Where does morality come from is philosophical question. Even in modern anti-Christian America there are claims of morality made by the state and godless voters. Where does this morality come from? How do we apprehend this morality? If we can’t agree on answers to these questions any argument over the specifics of morality is pointless. But every state is imposing some morality on its subjects. So it is never the case that the government ignores the moral law. The perceived or proclaimed moral law is the basis for all the state’s laws. I see no reason to exclude my religious beliefs because they are supernatural when all morality is supernatural.

 

[seeker57]

Would you want to live in a country which conformed all of its laws to your particular religion? In the example, there are people in the country who are NOT of your religion, but obviously would be subject to whatever laws are in place.

You are kidding, right?

History is replete with examples of countries with a state religion.

At the moment, there are a number of Islamic states, including Iran, that have state religions. Christians. Jews, and those of other faiths don’t fare well in those climes.

Many Jews could tell you about a history replete with slaughter, racial cleansing and forced migration of entire populations - all caused by Christians who didn’t like the “Christ killers.”

When the Spanish conquered what is now the U.S. Southwest, they forced the conversion of the native peoples to Catholicism. Of course, the natives revolted and blood was shed on both sides.
Some were more ingenious and simply installed their own religious totems under Catholic altars to allow them to worship their traditional faith while being forced to be Christian. So, the priest was praying to his Jesus, while his “flock” was praying to what the priest would have considered idols.

Therein lies the point. Conforming secular law to religious tenets is going to be unworkable for someone.

Put another way, would Catholics like to live under Sharia law, the law established by Muslim clerics?

I rather have my doubts.

Peace,

Seeker

 

[RocketRM]

I would not.

The Church needs to remain outside of the organs of governmental power. Only then can it remain pure and focus solely on Christ.

Best thing that has happened to the Church was the lost of it’s temporal powers (i.e. Papal States, Prince-Bishops, etc.)

That being said, I have no problem with Church and it’s members, in a democratic society, lobbying governments and voting based on conscience and morality (i.e. pro-life, etc.) but I would certainly not like a theocratic government, even if it was my Church.

 

[PGNewton]

No, for one very simple reason.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Governments are creations of man, and as such subject to corruption, greed, and the lust for power. The laws of men are fallible, corruptible, and at times merciless.

The laws of God, are infallible, not subject to corruption, and merciful. They are absolute in and of themselves.

Governments and God are therefore mutually incompatible. What God creates, man corrupts.

That sounded a bit cynical didn’t it? lol

 

[peter26]

Sounds good to me. Let’s also bear in mind the fact that if the laws truly reflected the Christian faith, there would be no room for corruption. I’ve long believed that the separation of church and state is a slippery slope to darkness. The church should either be the state or be above the state if the law is to be just.

 

[fred_conty]

It would be a mixture of good and bad as it has been in past history.

A conversion of heart has to take place not necessarily a conversion of laws.

I think this is what Jesus meant when he said you are the leaven in the bread.

Just some thoughts.