Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[AcolyteLector]

That IS a theocracy.

So, you’d consider the government of, oh say… Benjamin Disraeli to be an example of a ‘Christian theocracy’? Because a lot of people would consider you an idiot for thinking that… just saying.

 

[AcolyteLector]

You amuse me.

Nazism glorified Germany’s past (including its pre-Christian pagan past), and what could be more conservative and right-wing than glorifying than past?

Now I’m sure you would dismiss this as mere propaganda, but consider this. Class struggle and the redistribution of wealth are key features of Marxism, yet the Nazism got along quite well with German big business, especially those linked to the war industry.

If you’d kindly follow the flow of conversation, maybe you’d learn something, huh?

Where does my statement mention a single thing about atheism? It doesn’t. My point was that National Socialism was Marxist/socialist. You can’t deny this.

The question of whether National Socialism was atheist is more difficult.

You are very right that I will dismiss that as propaganda. There is a difference between ‘glorifying the past’–which was important to the NSDAP insofar as they were nationalists–and actually working towards rebuilding that past. Nazi Germany was thoroughly modern: with its autobahns and rocket programs, you’ll have a hard time disagreeing with me. It wanted to launch into the future, but–for propaganda purposes–it maintained Classical and German themes in its facade. Making it superficially Classical and German.

A good example of this artistic style in a context that isn’t Nazi would be the following: simply because Wagner set his ‘Lohengrin’ in Medieval Brabant doesn’t negate the fact that the entire opera is about the setting aside of class and family origins. Lohengrin is the champion of bourgeois values, despite the setting.

In terms of the relationship between Nazism and Industry: you should read Manchester’s ‘The Arms of Krupp’–its an excellent portrait of the Krupps and their relationship with the German state. Needless to say, all of these businesses were under the government’s thumb… the government wanted them to stay virile, but just enough so as to keep producing at the levels they’re accustomed to.

All of these businesses became instruments of the state, and the success of War Crimes restitution claims against them demonstrates their link to the Party.

Ultimately, it is not the means or the result achieved that we look to in order to find what ideology inspired a movement. Its the motive. Examine the biographies of the famous Nazis, and you’ll discover that those who weren’t careerists or toadies were almost exclusively socialists and atheists. Simple fact.

 

[AcolyteLector]

Pointing to ancient prejudices proves nothing.

The Jews of ancient Israel would no doubt be horrified by the rights we give women and the fact that we have made it illegal to stone naughty children. But that doesn’t mean such modern developments are bad.

Where in my original statement did you find this?

If you’re not fit to grapple with the facts, get out of the thread.

 

[AcolyteLector]

The extent to which the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church–whose heart is beating throughout the world–and the ‘Papal States’–who no one remembers except when they need facts to calumniate the former–can be identified as one coherent institution is debatable.

And my use of ‘debatable’ here is as a polite stand-in for ‘IMPOSSIBLE’ or ‘ill-advised, lest you desire to make yourself look like a total fool’.

---

Your juvenile insults make me laugh

The Roman Catholic Church directly administered and ruled the PAPAL States, and the Pope was the official head/monarch of the nation. Sounds like part of the Catholic Church to me.

You ineptitude at dealing with historical fact makes me despair of having these conversations.

Do you really believe that the RCC of today is simply a successor state to the Papal States? Do you think that the spiritual jurisdiction of the RCC is in anyway connected to the Papal States?

The Church that we have inherited today, has long since repudiated these ties. It made a decision, liquidated the temporal property (except what was necessary to exist) and invested itself solely in spiritual authority. The Papal States are a historical oddity–it is not the same coherent institution, as I said.

 

[AcolyteLector]

I did not say that serfdom was the same as slavery.
But it seems more than fair to call them both forms of servitude.

Much like chattel slavery and indentured servitude (both of which existed in colonial America).

Yeah, exactly. You said that the enslaved status in Colonial and antebellum America was comparable to serfdom, insofar as they were both forms servitude.

But this is like saying that a centipede and a quadruped are both comparable for the purposes of a study… lets say in biology…, because they’re both ‘many-limb-ed’.

Because such a comparison admits so much distance and diversity between the two extremes, the term becomes useless. Will you next compare an au pair worker with chattel slavery… insofar as they are both forms of ‘servitude’?

 

[AcolyteLector]

I don’t deny any of that.

But the person I was replying to claimed that the Church/Pope has never had temporal authority. It was such an obvious untruth I felt compelled to respond.

Alright, fair enough.

But is the essence of this office–as we in the RCC of today regard it–an office of temporal authority or of primarily spiritual authority?

Yes, the Papal States might have existed… but the best question is whether this was an aberration or a norm for the Vatican?

 

[AcolyteLector]

My husband has been working in Saudi for the last year. He goes to Bahrain during their ‘Sabbath’ and he says women go into to the toilet in Burkhas and come out in make up and jeans like butterflies emerging from a crysalis. On the way back they change into Burkhas. The sad thing is, a lot of them go mad in Bahrain because they are so repressed. This is the consequence of using external control measures as a means to ensure adherence to one’s religion. It is not embraced as a fulfilling way to live; but feared.

I would have to question your last comment. I would say that you do not think all Muslims are misogynistic and murderous. That would not be a rational view based on evidence. I’m guessing your referring to a particular type of Muslim. Turkey is a Muslim country and I believe it’s great for a holiday. There are also atheists who are a particular type of atheist, and we shouldn’t tar all with the same brush.

You are correct, I know that not all Muslims are like that.

I was referring specifically to Muslims that embrace a brutal and misogynistic form of Sharia law.

I actually have an aunt who converted to Islam (of the more liberal kind).

Maybe this is an overly personal question, but what sort of job does your husband have… out of curiosity?

 

[Timothy17]

So, would you say the term ‘Fascist’ was invented and defined by communists, and neither Mussolini or Hitler would have described themselves as Fascist?

Though I love history immensely I must be candid and say that I never once recall either of those two men referring to themselves as Fascist or even using words like Fascistic or Fascism, but though something in my gut tells me in the case of Mussolini especially this may not be so, but I can’t produce from my memory an example to justify this suspicion.

To answer your question succinctly, yes.

Fascism even then, but absolutely, and most certainly today, means whatever the intellectual and cultural descendants of that term (communists and their intellectual college), whether directly or indirectly (as in by adoption) desire it to be and mean. Similarly, the term “Nazi” has been so abused and wildly defined that even today many intellectuals who would otherwise or in times past have been keen to use that term are abhorred by it, and find it to be both crude and meaningless. Oddly at least, or suspect at worse, is the fact that this trend of disregarding the label of Nazi as being meaningless began during (from my memory) the Bush administration when, perhaps for once, the term was, though even then rarely, arguably used accurately to criticize certain policies and actions of that administration as being at least akin or similar to practices of the historic Nazi party. Nonetheless, it has been so demonized and yet so generalized that it is difficult to carry on any civilized debate wherein any one party is wont to use that term ; therefore, and lately especially, those who toss it out are looked down upon, even if they are perhaps one of those extraordinarily rare sorts of persons who are competently well enough learned and studied to accurately apply it.

Pax,
Tim

 

[JSSebastianoP]

I probably have overly-expanded the term. However, it depends on one’s understanding of the term ‘Fascist.’ To explain, Franco is described as a Fascist dictator but was not a Fascist in the sense Hitler was.

As far as my understanding goes, Fascism never really meant anything specific. It meant whatever people like Hitler wanted it to mean.

Ummm - the term “fascist” refers to the political ideology first articulated by Gabriele D’Annunzio but that more fully came into its own by the development of Mussolini.

Can you expand on why you state Hitler was not a Fascist and how the economic foundation of the Third Reich was inherited from Marx? To my knowledge, a feature of socialist economic policy is collective ownership. Hitler was not against private ownership. That’s not to say he may have borrowed Marxist ideas; but I wouldn’t describe his economic policy as socialist.

Okay. Fascism is basically a Corporatist, Statist and Nationalist ideology with strong anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-socialist, and anti-communist tendencies. Because Mussolini was the one who took the term to its political height, his words that fascism has no basic doctrine other than the broad tenets listed above and that fascism is primarily organic and Italian have considerable weight.

Perhaps I may have misspoke somewhat but nazism has dramatic Marxist overtones. (sodahead.com/united-states/was-hitler-a-marxist/blog-355537/

Fascist was a term used by communists to bash and slur their enemies even before WWII. It was always a malicious slur, which is why it’s so hard to find people who, in the relevant time period, were self-proclaimed “Fascists.”

Source please? This is completely wrong. The Italian fascists took the term with pride.
The fascist song has lines “All’armi! All’armi! All’armi o Fascisti, Terror dei comunisti. (To arms! To arms! To arms O Fascists, terror of the communists!) … finchè la gloria di noi Fascisti in tutta Italia trionferà. (That the glory of us Fascists will triumph in all Italy”
The Italians took that name to break away from the socialism and liberalism which had been plaguing Italy. A fasces is a group of sticks bound together, an ancient Roman symbol, and the term fascist, before it was used by the reds as a slur was a proud symbol of Italianity.

in the sense that fascist meant nothing except someone communists deeply hated ; i.e., anyone overtly or effectively opposed to communism.

While anti-communism is a tenet of Fascism, it is not the only tenet.

Hence Hitler logically must have been a “fascist” because he persecuted communists and attacked the communist heartland of Russia.

Pardon? What about Corporatism? This is a key tenet of fascism lacking in Hitler’s ideology.

So any self-proclaimed “fascist” simply meant someone who equally hated or opposed communism/communists. Hence fascism even to this day is mostly used against right-wing persons and parties and seems inapropriate or illogical to apply to the left. It’s “their” word : they monopolized it and gifted to themselves the right and privilege to determine who is or is not a fascist.

No…
It has significant connotationa attached to it… And while used by the left as a slur on the right, that is totally inaccurate. Fascism was neither right nor left…

So, would you say the term ‘Fascist’ was invented and defined by communists, and neither Mussolini or Hitler would have described themselves as Fascist?

No. Hitler would not have described himself as fascist; he was a nazi. Mussolini was a Fascist and proudly described himself as such.

 

[minkymurph]

Though I love history immensely I must be candid and say that I never once recall either of those two men referring to themselves as Fascist or even using words like Fascistic or Fascism, but though something in my gut tells me in the case of Mussolini especially this may not be so, but I can’t produce from my memory an example to justify this suspicion.

To answer your question succinctly, yes.

I couldn’t produce from memory anything to justify that suspicion either and I couldn’t argue with you on who started using the term first and how they defined the term.

I also share your love of history.

Fascism even then, but absolutely, and most certainly today, means whatever the intellectual and cultural descendants of that term (communists and their intellectual college), whether directly or indirectly (as in by adoption) desire it to be and mean. Similarly, the term “Nazi” has been so abused and wildly defined that even today many intellectuals who would otherwise or in times past have been keen to use that term are abhorred by it, and find it to be both crude and meaningless. Oddly at least, or suspect at worse, is the fact that this trend of disregarding the label of Nazi as being meaningless began during (from my memory) the Bush administration when, perhaps for once, the term was, though even then rarely, arguably used accurately to criticize certain policies and actions of that administration as being at least akin or similar to practices of the historic Nazi party. Nonetheless, it has been so demonized and yet so generalized that it is difficult to carry on any civilized debate wherein any one party is wont to use that term ; therefore, and lately especially, those who toss it out are looked down upon, even if they are perhaps one of those extraordinarily rare sorts of persons who are competently well enough learned and studied to accurately apply it.

Pax,
Tim

Fair comment. The terms ‘Nazi’ and ‘Fascist’ have been bandied wildly about. However, we’re still no farther forward in defining what it actually is.

 

[AcolyteLector]

Can we please end the ‘What is Fascism Subthread’? Or at least summarize the points and views?

 

[minkymurph]

Ummm - the term “fascist” refers to the political ideology first articulated by Gabriele D’Annunzio but that more fully came into its own by the development of Mussolini.

Okay. Fascism is basically a Corporatist, Statist and Nationalist ideology with strong anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-socialist, and anti-communist tendencies. Because Mussolini was the one who took the term to its political height, his words that fascism has no basic doctrine other than the broad tenets listed above and that fascism is primarily organic and Italian have considerable weight.

That would be pretty close to what I would understand it to be.

 

[minkymurph]

Can we please end the ‘What is Fascism Subthread’? Or at least summarize the points and views?

Yep.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Can we please end the ‘What is Fascism Subthread’? Or at least summarize the points and views?

Yes. Sorry.

 

[minkymurph]

Maybe this is an overly personal question, but what sort of job does your husband have… out of curiosity?

Not overly personal because of the answer. He’s an engineer. He worked in a plant here that manufactured bits for drilling for oil that has now been shut down. The plant was owned by an American company who have decided to relocate their plant to Saudi for economic reasons.

 

[Timothy17]

Ummm - the term “fascist” refers to the political ideology first articulated by Gabriele D’Annunzio but that more fully came into its own by the development of Mussolini.

But so broad and general was this ideology that you have a difficult time even defining it without using very broad ideas that correlate almost entirely with capitalism on one hand (corparitism) and or even communism (statism) itself. I still assert that it becomes most disctint and telligible when contrasted to communism.

Okay. Fascism is basically a Corporatist, Statist and Nationalist ideology with strong anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-socialist, and anti-communist tendencies.

Yes, that is the usual, but certainly not agreed upon, definition, and that is nonetheless simply a long way of saying anti-communist. Please note that the oddity that Corporatist and Statist at once taken together is virtually no different than communism. Statism is generally the opposite of a free market system ; that is, a planned and controlled economy. Corporatist Statism would be a perfect stepping ladder to state socialism by beginning with a corporate oligarchy granted state secured monopolies over their industries and then proceeding to acquire immediate or direct control of those corporations.

Source please? This is completely wrong. The Italian fascists took the term with pride.
The fascist song has lines "All’armi! All’armi! All’armi o Fascisti, Terror dei comunisti. (To arms! To arms! To arms O Fascists, terror of the communists!)

Notice the direct and immediate juxtaposition to communism. It’s most easily described and defined as anti-communism ; naturally, communists would then have the greatest vested interest to slurry and pollute the name of title of their opponents in order to discredit them. I stand by my general rule that fascism simply meant anti-communist in its most concrete sense, and the word was mostly used by communists to slander their opponents.

A fasces is a group of sticks bound together, an ancient Roman symbol, and the term fascist, before it was used by the reds as a slur was a proud symbol of Italianity.

Yes, I am very well aware of this. That a group of sticks bound together as a symbol of Roman power translates into an actual ideology does not actually follow. The fixing point for fascism was still its anti-communism.

While anti-communism is a tenet of Fascism, it is not the only tenet.

Sure, and anyone can so broadly define or restrict the term and its “tenets” to conveniently ensnare just about any person in it. Ultimately, the central point and meaning of fascist is anti-communist, whether being used as a slur or even voluntarily used as a descriptive ; that even in such a case it still essentially means (proudly) anti-communist, I maintain.

Pardon? What about Corporatism? This is a key tenet of fascism lacking in Hitler’s ideology.

Now you have me confused. Stalinist Russia and the communists certainly claimed Hitler was fascist. Even to this day in the English speaking world most people presume Hitler was a fascist.

It has significant connotationa attached to it… And while used by the left as a slur on the right, that is totally inaccurate. Fascism was neither right nor left…

This is a widening grey zone in the definition that only gives weight to my assertion that fascism is very much meaningless outside of an (anti-) communist defining context. The slurs maleability makes it all the more useful as a hostile slur. I maintain that fascism and fascist was most widely used historically by communists against their real or imagined threats and opponents, and when it was used or adopted by others it meant virtually nothing except being anti-communist. It’s the anti-communist element that is the centering point ; the Sun around which all the other tenets orbitted.

No. Hitler would not have described himself as fascist; he was a nazi. Mussolini was a Fascist and proudly described himself as such.

I agree, but the communists certainly styled Hitler as a fascist.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

Can we please end the ‘What is Fascism Subthread’? Or at least summarize the points and views?

Yes.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

Wherever the state supports a particular religion, abuses occur against other religions. That is wrong, by the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Take Great Britain as an example. There, the Anglican Church is the state religion. No person that is a Roman Catholic may ascend to the Throne, by law. That is discrimination. A minor thing, that doesn’t affect most Catholics, but it is still discrimination. There are many other minor discriminations, not the least of which is that the government pays Anglican Ministers, but not Catholic ones. That means that Catholics are taxed, to pay for the ministers of another religion, but then have to support their own clergy from their own funds, on top of those taxes.

Much better that the government have total and complete freedom of, and freedom FROM, religion. That way, ones religion is truly a matter of choice.

 

[FirstCalled]

In case no one has mentioned it, there is no separation of Church and State in the U.S. Constitution.
It say Congress shall pass no law establishing a State(as in U.S.) religion. However, individual state can and have had their own state religions.
Also, this was limited in scope, it was precisely for what I said above, and has been used incorrectly to ban mangers from City Halls, etc. when that is in fact a violation of free speech and religion.
We have the right to religion, not free from it, at least here in the U.S., if you have a problem with that, go somewhere else.

 

[Timothy17]

Wherever the state supports a particular religion, abuses occur against other religions. That is wrong, by the teachings of the Catholic Church.

I understand here your thinking if we presume all religions are the same, but is Catholicism truly the same as any other religion ? And what are we to make of Our Lord’s words, as when he said,

[33] No man lighteth a candle, and putteth it in a hidden place, nor under a bushel; but upon a candlestick, that they that come in, may see the light.
The Gospel according to Saint Luke, XI, xxxiii

For example ? It would therefore seem to me that if we Catholics imagine the Light of our Faith (Who is the very Light of the World) is something that ought to be hidden, suppressed, or in any other way reduced (such as to equality or similarity to any other religion), then perhaps we, ourselves, need to get to know our Light at least a little bit better ? Because I believe, and I am sure you do also, that our Lord spoke the Truth when he said those words. Personally, I see no issue with formal or official commendation of Catholicism - or even simply Christianity - by the state. This religion is good, and is not like the others. This religion has the Truth, and the Light, and the Life, and Salvation, etc. It would, therefore, seem to me to be virtually immoral to - in any way - suppress that very Life-giving Truth, or present it as being not what it (in actuality) is - or as if not having the goodness that it truly contains ; nonetheless, such things must be tempered by the virtues (prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance), especially prudence, as history attests.

Pax,
Tim