Is religious freedom a bad idea?

[Dee_Dee_King]

And there were some other things. The government perfectly has the right to squash this nonsense. Since it profoundly intersected with the Church, a crusade could fittingly be waged. Which is awesome.

yep, the cathars were pretty warped. but in today’s multicultural relativistic mindset, what the church sanctioned was tatamount to genocide. cathars were an example where religion directly affected peoples understanding of the natural law just like in islamic and hindu countries where people unduely suffer on account of the dominant religion.

i think unless a country recognizes Christ as King in a public and manifest manner, there will never be peace. charity ideally is what drives people to fight and possibly lay one’s life down for a friend. remember Jesus warns us that cowards will not go to heaven.

americans hold absolute religious freedom as an ideal. to me, we should fight over religion. a catholic puts religion and politics first, everything else doesn’t really matter. i don’t see how we can defeat the islamic fundamentalists when we fight for a distorted idea of freedom. they wrongly fight for the right reasons, we rightly fight for the wrong reasons. we should be converting the mohammedeans, and not just killing them. and use force where possible.

 

[simple_soul]

Well, once again, Christ certainly said to preach the Gospel. Some people say that preaching the Gospel to people (esp. those who don’t want to hear it) is “forcing religion on them.” But Christ would certainly approve of such “force.” Would you agree?

Dear Areopagite,

I am trying to understand if I can agree with you or not so please bear with me.

Yes Jesus Christ certainly said to preach, but how did He instruct us to preach through His words and through His example? Whether it was implicitly or not.

Always praying and pondering

 

[Areopagite]

Dear Areopagite,

I am trying to understand if I can agree with you or not so please bear with me.

Yes Jesus Christ certainly said to preach, but how did He instruct us to preach through His words and through His example? Whether it was implicitly or not.

Always praying and pondering

I may be misunderstanding you, but I would answer that Christ told us to preach both with words and through example. Does that answer your question?

 

[aspawloski4th]

dignitatis humanae from vatican ii teaches that religious freedom is demanded according to our human dignityif this document is specifically directed towards communist and muslim countries, then i sort of understand. but we have fraud religions like mormonism and scientology which prey on people. we know that catholicism wouldn’t have spread if not for the kings forcing his kingdom to be catholic. many of us would probably still be pagan if we weren’t forced to be catholic. we know that the truth doesn’t always get through to people because of the effects of original sin. hence the fact that the protestants are still here and probably growing, along with islam, mormonism, scientology, jw’s… etc.

my point is that if catholicism is the truth, then the state which recognizes it to be the truth shouldn’t allow absolute religious freedom. they should try to convert all to catholicism. it’s the only faith which recognizes the entirety of the natural law.

Somebody is forgetting that God gave humans freewill.

 

[simple_soul]

I may be misunderstanding you, but I would answer that Christ told us to preach both with words and through example. Does that answer your question?

Dear Areopagite,

I am sorry but no this does not answer my question.

I know it is by our words and examples. I believe what I am trying to understand is how Jesus Christ taught us to use our words and actions/examples to preach about Him.

Always praying and pondering,

 

[Areopagite]

Dear Areopagite,

I am sorry but no this does not answer my question.

I know it is by our words and examples. I believe what I am trying to understand is how Jesus Christ taught us to use our words and actions/examples to preach about Him.

Always praying and pondering,

Well, He didn’t give us any set formula on how to preach about Him. Unless of course, I am grossly overlooking something (and perhaps I am). Obviously, He said to preach the gospel in love. I might be misunderstanding your question. What kind of answer are you looking for? It could be answered many different ways.

 

[simple_soul]

Well, He didn’t give us any set formula on how to preach about Him. Unless of course, I am grossly overlooking something (and perhaps I am). Obviously, He said to preach the gospel in love. I might be misunderstanding your question. What kind of answer are you looking for? It could be answered many different ways.

Dear Areopagite,

I do not know if you are grossly over looking something or not. The reason I am asking this question is after reading some of the things posted on this thread it started to make me wonder if I had grossly missed something.

Do you mind elaborating for me how Jesus Christ taught us to preach the Gospel in love through our actions and words?

This might be a good place to start from.

 

[Areopagite]

Do you mind elaborating for me how Jesus Christ taught us to preach the Gospel in love through our actions and words?

I wouldn’t mind at all. However, once again, I would ask you to be a bit more specific with your question. There’s a million ways that this could be answered (I think). I’m not quite sure what kind of answer you’re looking for.

Once again though, I don’t think Christ did elaborate very much on how to preach the Gospel. This indicates, I would imagine, that there are many ways to do it. It’s largely how the Holy Spirit moves you. Right?

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

1. We have to insist upon the limits of religious freedom referred to earlier, whereby it is an abuse of that freedom if the state, under the guise of religious freedom, tolerates sects which deny the existence of a personal God, or which jeopardize morality. Such conduct stands in open contradiction to the obligations of civil authority, first of all by virtue of the origin of civil authority. Ultimately, all authority comes from God, and therefore, there can be no more flagrant abuse of that authority than to tolerate the denial of God. Secondly, the ultimate goal of civil authority sets certain limits. That goal is to preserve peace and justice on earth, and neither of these is possible without morality; and morality is impossible without fear of the Lord.

i think this article clears things up.

 

[simple_soul]

I wouldn’t mind at all. However, once again, I would ask you to be a bit more specific with your question. There’s a million ways that this could be answered (I think). I’m not quite sure what kind of answer you’re looking for.

Once again though, I don’t think Christ did elaborate very much on how to preach the Gospel. This indicates, I would imagine, that there are many ways to do it. It’s largely how the Holy Spirit moves you. Right?

Dear Areopagite,

Please understand I am not asking you to answer this question how I want it answered. I am asking this because I am trying to hear how you would answer it. If you believe there are a million ways that could answer it would you mind trying to condense it to the best of your ability and then maybe we can start from there?

Always praying and pondering,

 

[chaunceygardner]

Now, the first thing to help resolve this question is how one defines “force.” It can be defined in different ways.

Some people say that simply preaching the Gospel is “forcing” one’s religion on people. In that sense, at least, I would say that “forcing one’s belief” is perfectly fine. No?

On the other hand, you can force belief in someone by torturing them. That is a kind of force that would be in conflict with Christianity.

So, there are different ways to use the word “force.” So the answer to the question “Should Christians force their religion onto people?” is a complicated question, due to the ambiguity of the word “force.”

That’s what I think.

The word “force” is not ambiguous at all. When used as a verb, as in “to force” someone or something, it means to “exert violence, compulsion or constraint”. But when used as an adjective, as in “she made a forceful argument”, it means “persuasive” or “convincing”, and may also imply “moral authority”. So your example of preaching the Gospel with force has the second meaning, not the first, as there is no compulsion or violence involved in the process. And you are correct that “force” as a verb when applied to beliefs would be in conflict with the Gospels.

But wait, in talking about the Cathars of the 13th century, you say “Since it profoundly intersected with the Church, a crusade could fittingly be waged. Which is awesome.”

A crusade, by the way, which resulted in the indiscriminate and awful deaths of thusands, including many, many “good” Catholics, is “awesome”?? Only if you have no respect for life, for justice, for freedom, for morality, or for the Gospel of Jesus.

So which is it, since you are obviously contradicting yourself by saying that violent force is in conflict with Christianity and then lauding the Church for slaughtering those who wouldn’t accept it’s teachings? Or are you saying that the Catholic Church is not Christian?

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

A crusade, by the way, which resulted in the indiscriminate and awful deaths of thusands, including many, many “good” Catholics, is “awesome”?? Only if you have no respect for life, for justice, for freedom, for morality, or for the Gospel of Jesus.

didn’t Christ say he brings a sword and not peace? besides, your understanding of the crusades is very pacifist. it was a war in self defense.

to the extent we allow religious freedom is a subjective thing. obviously jews and protestants are much different than pagans, mormons, scientologists… etc. the problem is that we live in a multicultural relativistic society. while it might be just to prohibit paganism or mormonism, it may cause more evil in the long run. so we are forced to tolerate these false religions. this is much different than saying that a diversity and non prohibition of religion is good in of itself.

and we do force our religion on our children and subjects. that’s life. i will use physical force to get my children to go to church.

 

[simple_soul]

didn’t Christ say he brings a sword and not peace? besides, your understanding of the crusades is very pacifist. it was a war in self defense.

to the extent we allow religious freedom is a subjective thing. obviously jews and protestants are much different than pagans, mormons, scientologists… etc. the problem is that we live in a multicultural relativistic society. while it might be just to prohibit paganism or mormonism, it may cause more evil in the long run. so we are forced to tolerate these false religions. this is much different than saying that a diversity and non prohibition of religion is good in of itself.

and we do force our religion on our children and subjects. that’s life. i will use physical force to get my children to go to church.

Hmmm, I did not know that when Jesus Christ said that He came to bring the sword and not peace in Matthew that He was saying to actually pick up a sword and start killing everyone that was against you when you decided to pick up your cross and fallow Him.
I am really going to have to run this one by my spiritual adviser.

I apologize Chauncey but I had to interject here. I did not realize that some people actually believe that one needs to kill people in order to pick up their crosses and fallow Him.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Areopagite:

here’s an example of a papal sanctioned forced conversion lead by a catholic priest. job well done! No more Cathars.

DeeDeeKing:

Catholic Europe eradicated, through force, heresy. It worked then it can work now.

One of the main examples that both "DeeDeeKing" and “Areopagite” have used in defending the value of forced conversions is the Cathars, also called the Albigenses. Let’s take a look at what happened and why. I will mostly quote passages from the Catholic Encyclopedia (CE) rather than other sources which might be biased against the Catholic Church.
DeeDeeKing:

Cathars were an example where religion directly affected peoples understanding of the natural law just like in Islamic and Hindu countries where people unduly suffer on account of the dominant religion.

Areopagite:

Catharism was one of the most unnatural heresies the Church has ever seen.

Most if not all the info we have on the Cathars is from what those that opposed them wrote. The “beliefs and practices” that *“Areopagite” *listed are likely exaggerations or mis-interpretations of what is actually true. It IS true that they espoused what could be labeled Gnostic beliefs and held some other “non-orthodox” ideas, but they were not dangerous. Except perhaps to the power and control that the Catholic church tried to maintain over its “subjects”.

Historian Will Durant described the Cathari (a/ka Bulgari and Albigenses) as favoring the “return to primitive Christian beliefs and ways”. They saw the Sermon on the Mount as the “essence of their ethics”, which included loving their enemies, caring for the sick and poor, always keeping the peace, not allowing the use of force. They believed that “one should quietly trust that in the end God would triumph over evil.” Sounds basically quite Christian. Many people became followers, but they appeared to live in harmony with the traditional Catholics in their communities.

Many of the nobility and leading citizens of the area embraced their beliefs. That and the fact of “their contempt for the Catholic clergy, caused by the ignorance and the worldly, too frequently scandalous, lives of the latter”, as the CE puts it, got them into trouble with Rome.
DeeDeeKing:

I believe the cathars were killed as an act of war because they were considered enemies of the state and not because they didn’t convert per se. killing innocent people is always wrong, killing in self defense isn’t. They saw the cathars as undermining society and therefore were killed out of self defense.

Areopagite:

The government perfectly has the right to squash this nonsense. Since it profoundly intersected with the Church, a crusade could fittingly be waged. Which is awesome.

The Church attempted to “convert” the Cathari. Per the CE, “Ecclesiastical authority, after persuasion had failed, adopted a course of severe repression, which led at times to regrettable excess.”

“The civil magistrates gave them the choice between the Cross and the stake. For the most part, they preferred death to conversion.” (CE)

They preferred death. Like the persecuted Christians of the early church, they stood fast for their faith. Since the Cathars refused to convert, and their Catholic neighbors supported them, “the crusade now degenerated into a war of conquest.” (CE)

DD posted this:

In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars.”

Why, if the Cathars were so terrible and evil, would their Catholic friends and neighbors stand beside them and protect them, to the point of losing everything they owned and their own lives?? Could it have been because the Catholics of Béziers didn’t consider them as bad or as heretics, but just fellow Christians like themselves trying to follow the Gospel?

In this infamous attack led by Arnaul Amalric, a Cistercian monk, a soldier was reported to have asked how they were to distinguish the Catholics in the town from the Cathar enemies: Almaric is reputed to have said (per the CE) “the monstrous words: ‘Slay all; God will know His own.’" Cathari or Catholics, guilty of heresy or innocent, old people or babies, it didn’t matter; they killed….them….all.

So after the “dreadful carnage” (CE), almost 20,000 people had died, according to Amalric’s own report. As the CE says: “The death penalty was, indeed, inflicted too freely on the Albigenses.” And, I would add, on Catholics and anyone else who happened to be in the way.

Was there an incentive for the attackers besides ridding the region of heretics? Sure. As reward for their efforts, they would receive the land and possessions of all those they killed. **Mercenaries for Rome! **

Even Pope Innocent III recognized the whole affair as misguided, saying that the crusaders “appropriated the holdings of men never guilty of heresy and robbed and murdered like savage buccaneers.”

**This is the kind of world that our friends “*DeeDee” *and “Areopagite" long for again. "DeeDee” said if it worked in Europe then, “it can work again now.” "Aeropagite" called all this “fitting” and “awesome”. **

But I pray that will never happen, and if necessary, will stand beside those who some would cut down in the name of religious “orthodoxy”. It is what our love of God and faith in the Gospel would call us to do. Remember this when someone wants to take your freedoms away: The people in power “killed them all”.

 

[Areopagite]

Please understand I am not asking you to answer this question how I want it answered. I am asking this because I am trying to hear how you would answer it. If you believe there are a million ways that could answer it would you mind trying to condense it to the best of your ability and then maybe we can start from there?

I gotcha. Well, here’s what I would say is required for good preaching:

• One must have strong faith and be virtuous, if one intends to give faith and virtue to others (you can’t give what you don’t have, as the saying goes)
• One must be attentive to the movements of the Holy Spirit, for it is God who ultimately converts people, not you. If you think that it’s YOU who ultimately are the one to make a person see God, then your missionary efforts will fail.
• One must take into account one’s audience, for each person must be dealt with according to their manner in life. Despite this fact that the faith must be expressed differently to different people, one must keep in mind that it is the same faith for everyone (same message, but different ways to give that message)
• One must recognize commonality between you and the person you are evangelizing, but also notice the differences
• One must no how to respond well to arguments against the faith, knowing that faith and reason do not contradict each other
• One must be familiar with Scripture
• One must be faithful to the teachings of the Church, and be humble to the fact that you might not know all the teachings (and hence be willing to seek guidance on certain issues that arise)

Those are some things. Now, of course, even if you lack some of these things, God could give you the gift to preach well nonetheless.

I hope that answers your question to some extent.

 

[chaunceygardner]

didn’t Christ say he brings a sword and not peace? besides, your understanding of the crusades is very pacifist. it was a war in self defense.

Oh, I’m sorry, I must have mis-read my Church history. I thought it was the Western Church headquartered in Rome that recruited Crusaders to attack Palestine. And sack Constantinople, killing many, many Christians and destroying priceless church relics in the process. Exactly what were they defending the people of France, Italy and England against? I seem to have missed that.

And exactly how many heretics did Jesus kill with a sword? I seem to recall that He told Peter to put his sword away. Maybe, just maybe, Jesus was speaking figuratively here, that Christians would have to “fight” (spiritually, not physically) for their faith.

and we do force our religion on our children and subjects. that’s life. i will use physical force to get my children to go to church.

What happens on the day they become bigger and stronger than you and physical force no longer works? Yours must be a warm, loving, Christian household. Instead of a rec room in the basement, do you have a torture chamber? If anyone knows this family, they may want to call Social Services.

(My apologies to everyone else for being so flip about this, but this is not a “poster family” for the Catholic Church.)

 

[AntiTheist]

This thread is pretty interesting because this Dee Dee King chap is showing us what happens when a person actually follows through on the premises of his faith.

I mean, if you seriously believed that you had “the truth” that people will be damned without, then it would make sense to spread that “truth” by any means necessary. We are seeing, on this thread, the fullest implications of such a worldview.

Scary, scary stuff.

 

[chaunceygardner]

This thread is pretty interesting because this Dee Dee King chap is showing us what happens when a person actually follows through on the premises of his faith.

I mean, if you seriously believed that you had “the truth” that people will be damned without, then it would make sense to spread that “truth” by any means necessary. We are seeing, on this thread, the fullest implications of such a worldview.

Scary, scary stuff.

Yes, very scary, but hopefully not a view shared by too many others. But don’t blame it on following through on the “premises of faith”, as the route that our friend “DeeDee” is taking is NOT one that any Christian faith (or any other I am aware of) would espouse. It is really the person here, not the religion, that is screwed up and on a scary path.

 

[AntiTheist]

Yes, very scary, but hopefully not a view shared by too many others. But don’t blame it on following through on the “premises of faith”, as the route that our friend “DeeDee” is taking is NOT one that any Christian faith (or any other I am aware of) would espouse. It is really the person here, not the religion, that is screwed up and on a scary path.

Well, that’s just the thing. As he points out, there have been Crusades and Inquisitions in the past – were those horrible events all run entirely by people who were not of the Christian faith? Who gets to decide who’s a “real Christian” here? It’s starting to sound like a true Scotsman…

These doctrines certainly have inspired cruel and vicious fanaticism in the past, and there’s no reason that they might not inspire similar acts in the future. The doctrines sure aren’t going to change, and there’s never going to be a shortage of violent wackos willing to believe in those doctrines.

 

[Areopagite]

The word “force” is not ambiguous at all. When used as a verb, as in “to force” someone or something, it means to “exert violence, compulsion or constraint”. But when used as an adjective, as in “she made a forceful argument”, it means “persuasive” or “convincing”, and may also imply “moral authority”.

When I said it was ambiguous, part of what I meant was that it can be used in more than one way. You’re explanation here demonstrates that it can be used in more than one way, and hence is ambiguous.

Also, what does exerting “violence, compulsion, or constraint?” These can also be ambiguous terms. People argue about them and make distinctions in them all the time. It’s absolutely not clear-cut in the least.

So I’m open to the idea that some kind of violence, compulsion, or constraint might be rightly used for purposes of conversion. But once again, we have to delve into specifics. Making general remarks here will be unhelpful and could be very misleading.

One example of some kind of constraint that may be allowable (but I am open to correction on this) is something like giving higher taxes to citizens who aren’t Christian. Is this wrong? I don’t know. I have no idea. What do you think? Is this constraint? Maybe. Is it against the natural law? I haven’t thought about it enough.

But wait, in talking about the Cathars of the 13th century, you say “Since it profoundly intersected with the Church, a crusade could fittingly be waged. Which is awesome.”

A crusade, by the way, which resulted in the indiscriminate and awful deaths of thusands, including many, many “good” Catholics, is “awesome”?? Only if you have no respect for life, for justice, for freedom, for morality, or for the Gospel of Jesus.

Do you disagree at least that the idea of a crusade is awesome? Many Protestants seem to think, at least in theory, that crusades are awesome. Even secular culture admits it here and there (e.g. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). I think there is a Scriptural basis for desiring the defeat of those who oppose God (just read the Psalms … you’ll know what I’m talking about).

So which is it, since you are obviously contradicting yourself by saying that violent force is in conflict with Christianity and then lauding the Church for slaughtering those who wouldn’t accept it’s teachings? Or are you saying that the Catholic Church is not Christian?

I’m lauding the Church for slaughtering those who went against the natural law and was endangering society in a really big way. If they simply obeyed the natural law and yet did not become Catholic, then I would have a problem with the Church’s actions against them.

One of the main examples that both "DeeDeeKing" and “Areopagite” have used in defending the value of forced conversions is the Cathars, also called the Albigenses.

Once again, I said I defend the forced conversions from Albigensianism. It’s not that they needed to be punished for not being Catholic but punished for opposing the natural law in a very horrible and apparently infectious way.

Most if not all the info we have on the Cathars is from what those that opposed them wrote. The “beliefs and practices” that *“Areopagite” *listed are likely exaggerations or mis-interpretations of what is actually true.

I suppose we need to go into a historicity debate. You automatically assume that the Cathars didn’t do all those horrible things and that the Catholic sources on them are a bunch of lies. Now, we could discuss this, but I think it’s off topic. I pose the question: “If indeed the Cathars condemned marriage and procreation … and allowed sodomy and starving oneself to death for the purpose of gaining salvation, then does not the state have a right to stamp them out?” I would say yes. Don’t dodge the question by saying “No, the Cathars didn’t do that” because that’s a history discussion. Maybe the Cathars didn’t do that … but if they did (or if anyone did), does the government have the right to stop this heresy?

Historian Will Durant described the Cathari (a/ka Bulgari and Albigenses) as favoring the “return to primitive Christian beliefs and ways”. They saw the Sermon on the Mount as the “essence of their ethics”, which included loving their enemies, caring for the sick and poor, always keeping the peace, not allowing the use of force. They believed that “one should quietly trust that in the end God would triumph over evil.” Sounds basically quite Christian. Many people became followers, but they appeared to live in harmony with the traditional Catholics in their communities.

Every extremist cult has good sides to them. But if the Cathars had those evil elements (which I listed above) then who cares about what they got right?

Also, Will Durant, as praiseworthy as he is for writing the Story of Philosophy and the Story of Civilization, isn’t someone I put a whole lot credibility in (and neither do a lot of Catholics, in my experience). Durant was a fallen away Catholic … though I think at the end of his life, he came back to the Church (but maybe I need correction on this).