Separation of Church and State: Good or Bad?

[minkymurph]

Russia is more secular than it was under the Soviet Union?

Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds?

I could pick any number of posts to reply to, but I picked this one.

It is necessary to separate marxism, atheism and secularism as these terms often get confused. A secular state and a marxist state are two different things. Secular states, to my knowledge, are in favour of capitalism to varying degrees. There are secualrists who are right wing, secularists who are left wing, and many shades of grey in between. There are atheists who are right wing, atheists who are left wing, and atheists who are many shades of grey in between.

A problem I see with dialogue between Atheists and Deists, is neither seem to be able to engage in dialogue in a productive way for the following reasons; neither can respect each others poing of view, neither can see the value of what each other says simply for what it is, neither seem to be able to de-personalize the topic of discussion, neither listen to what each other is actually saying but interpret it accordingly, both approach dialogue from an ‘I’m right’ perspective, both approach dialogue from an ‘I’m going to convince you of what I think’ perspective, neither seem to be able to see their own limitations and flaws but can readily see each others, and neither seem to be able to restrain their emotions.

Oooh, I sound so pious! Not so, I openly admit to being guilty of these things myself.

What I would say is the Religious world needs to see that atheists have some very valid points to make and are not necessarily wrong simply because they are an atheist. Atheists need to do the same, and not dismiss what someone says simply because they believe in God.

Of course, it all depends on what you want to acheive. Some people just like arguing for its own sake.

 

[JSSebastianoP]

Do you have anything to back up this extraordinary claim?

Perhaps I should rephrase. Socialism (of which National Socialism is a type) is an offshoot of Marxism, no?

Hitler copied much from Mussolini but the two ideologies were rabidly opposed (read Mussolini’s autobio, and his article on the essence of Fascism, for example).

The two were both nationalist and expansionist, as were the Military Shinotoists in Japan, and so their alliance came about. But economically, the systems were different. Corporatism (a Church-sponsored ideology, altough not run with subsidiarity as She would have wanted) vs. Socialism. Need I expound more.

Pax,

Sebastiano

 

[minkymurph]

Perhaps I should rephrase. Socialism (of which National Socialism is a type) is an offshoot of Marxism, no?

Hitler copied much from Mussolini but the two ideologies were rabidly opposed (read Mussolini’s autobio, and his article on the essence of Fascism, for example).

The two were both nationalist and expansionist, as were the Military Shinotoists in Japan, and so their alliance came about. But economically, the systems were different. Corporatism (a Church-sponsored ideology, altough not run with subsidiarity as She would have wanted) vs. Socialism. Need I expound more.

Pax,

Sebastiano

As far as I see it, National Socialism and Russian Marxism were two forms of dictatorship. There’s little difference in the two other than Stalin and Hitler went about aquiring power for themselves through alternative ideologies. However, I would have to disagree that National Socialism is an offshoot of Marxism. National Socialism was Hitlers ideology that had little to do with Marxism. National Socalism was a form of Facism. Mussolini was perhaps the only Facist who wrote on it as and ideology, but it was written from his own fanciful ideas. Don’t think Franco ever got into it other than from an ‘I want power’ perspective, which is what dictatorship, irrespective of who the dictator is, is all about.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

For example Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are both Islamic states. Saudi cuts your hand off for stealing, and if you’re alone with a woman in a room you may as well be up to no good, because you’re guilty of rape anyway, which means death the very next day. Consequently Saudi has very little rape, 1 in 4 women in America are raped.

That is vile nonsense.

The number of REPORTED rapes in Saudi Arabia is so low because Saudi women cannot trust the court system. Which is far more likely to punish (and execute) them than their attackers. Due to the fact that the way their legal system works a woman who accuses a man of raping her but fails to prove it in court, has nevertheless effectively confessed to adultery/fornication, and can be (and in practice frequently is) executed for that crime.

Here is an Amnesty International report on the Saudi system you so admire:
amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE230292008&lang=e

As I have said before, I am disturbed by how much love there is in this thread for these kinds of misogynistic and murderous Muslims.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Great post

Freedom of religion can and will only go so far. All but the most blinded defenders of it would refuse that right to certain groups based on how vile they find that group’s practices. In essence, there is no such thing as “freedom” of religion and never has been.

I believe that everyone living in a former communist dictatorship (such as virtually all the people of Russia and Eastern Europe) would disagree with you.

If you cannot see the difference between outlawing all religions, and allowing most believers to practice their faith freely (as long as it violates no secular laws) that is your problem.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

I just want to add a few simple words.

I voted “No”, because I do not want state and religion to be seperate. Religion takes such a back seat in this country it makes me very sad. I feel that I would be more confident, secure and happy in my religion if it was more acceptable to be religious in the UK. I have heard collaegues of mine mocking a Catholic, joking that you shouldn’t swear in front of them because “He’ll make you pray the rosary to repent if he catches you swearing! Hahahaha!” I didn’t feel able to reprimand them because every single member of staff was laughing and making other such comments.

If you are so insecure in your own beliefs (that you easily bow to peer pressure) you should not advocate using state authority to impose them on others.

 

[LemonAndLime]

If you are so insecure in your own beliefs (that you easily bow to peer pressure) you should not advocate using state authority to impose them on others.

I am not insecure about my own beliefs. I am however, insecure about the effect my own beliefs will have on others - when I dislosed my religion to some colleagues on a ward I used to work on, I was mocked. If they don’t ask, I don’t tell. I find it difficult to talk about my beliefs to people who have no understanding or respect for them. Perhaps people would respect and understand my faith more if they knew more about it, and how important it should be.

Also, since when I did advocate state authority imposing on others? In the USA, faith is openly discussed by politians without the non-religious feeling like they HAVE to go to Church, and HAVE to be religious.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

A doctrine need not be definitively defined in order for it to be considered infallible; it merely needs to be consistently taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium over a long period of time. Moreover, I didn’t give every statement from those popes on the issue, as there were at least another 15 encyclicals I could have cited on the issue. As to the doctrinal status of the Church’s rejection of the separation Church and state, please read the following:

"Many believe in or claim that they believe in and hold fast to Catholic doctrine on such questions as social authority, the right of owning private property, on the relations between capital and labor, on the rights of the laboring man, on the relations between Church and State, religion and country, on the relations between the different social classes, on international relations, on the rights of the Holy See and the prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the Episcopate, on the social rights of Jesus Christ, Who is the Creator, Redeemer, and Lord not only of individuals but of nations. In spite of these protestations, they speak, write, and, what is more, act as if it were not necessary any longer to follow, or that they did not remain still in full force, the teachings and solemn pronouncements which may be found in so many documents of the Holy See, and particularly in those written by Leo XIII, Pius X, and Benedict XV.

"There is a species of moral, legal, and social modernism which We condemn, no less decidedly than We condemn theological modernism (Pope Pius XI, Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio, nos. 60-61; 23 December 1922).

Pope Pius XI said that the Church’s teaching on the relationship between the Church and State remained in full force and that those who opposed it were guilty of social modernism, which he condemned no less than he condemned theological modernism (in Pascendi and Lamentabili Sane Exitu). I’d say the doctrine is at the very least theologically certain (if not infallible based upon the ordinary and universal magisterium), one that no Catholic can reject.

I personally believe that it would be best for the U.S. Constitution to be amended in order to establish a concordat with the Vatican, and so that the U.S. can publicly give God due worship, as He is the King over both men and nations.

If you can reject younger doctrines in favor of older ones then why forbid things like married priests. After all, the doctrines requiring priests to be unmarried and celibate are not as old as the ones that allowed it.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

No political entity should have the power to move a bishop, to decide what is better for the spiritual needs of the people. Our shepherd is the Pope, and G-d made it the pope’s duty to look out for the spiritual needs of the people.

If a Bishop commits a serious crime (which has happened in the past and will likely happen again) law enforcement should arrest him like anyone else, and if convicted the Bishop should serve time in prison like anyone else.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Yes, I fully agree with you that I do not want our country’s president or Congress to decide on any of the appointments of bishops, as that is not within their sphere of power (it instead belongs to the Church).

The State should protect, support and promote the true religion, but understand that I am not advocating for any kind of theocracy. The State and the Church have separate powers, but the State should have a relationship with the Church whereby its laws are based upon God’s laws, and the Church is promoted as the true religion.

That IS a theocracy.

 

[minkymurph]

For example Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are both Islamic states. Saudi cuts your hand off for stealing, and if you’re alone with a woman in a room you may as well be up to no good, because you’re guilty of rape anyway, which means death the very next day. Consequently Saudi has very little rape, 1 in 4 women in America are raped.

That is vile nonsense.

The number of REPORTED rapes in Saudi Arabia is so low because Saudi women cannot trust the court system. Which is far more likely to punish (and execute) them than their attackers. Due to the fact that the way their legal system works a woman who accuses a man of raping her but fails to prove it in court, has nevertheless effectively confessed to adultery/fornication, and can be (and in practice frequently is) executed for that crime.

Here is an Amnesty International report on the Saudi system you so admire:
amnestyusa.org/document.php?id=ENGMDE230292008&lang=e

As I have said before, I am disturbed by how much love there is in this thread for these kinds of misogynistic and murderous Muslims.

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.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Perhaps we could just have a Catholic Theocracy

Would atheists such as myself be the first or second group lined up against the wall and shot after your GLORIOUS revolution?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8 View Post
In a strict Catholic theocracy, people would have no rights to speak of (or to speak up).

Right to Life? Right to be born of physical relations (and not in a laboratory)?
Those are just 2 off the top of my head…

Pax,

Sebastiano

You mean the Church’s right to decide how people are born.

 

[Cat_Herder]

You mean the Church’s right to decide how people are born.

More like God’s right to determine the way people are born, and how they die. The death penalty would have to go too. So there would be no one lining you up against the wall for being an atheist.

 

[LemonAndLime]

That is vile nonsense.

The number of REPORTED rapes in Saudi Arabia is so low because Saudi women cannot trust the court system. Which is far more likely to punish (and execute) them than their attackers. Due to the fact that the way their legal system works a woman who accuses a man of raping her but fails to prove it in court, has nevertheless effectively confessed to adultery/fornication, and can be (and in practice frequently is) executed for that crime…

Just want to add - I read somewhere that the only way a woman can prove she was raped in Saudi Arabia is if there were 3 male witnesses.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8 View Post
The kind of state where everything immoral (according to the Church) would be illegal?

Not exactly. Remember, Catholics don’t believe in Sharia Law.

I always assumed that to be the case. Nevertheless there appears to be lot of admiration in this thread by so called Catholics.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Civilizations can be measured in relative terms. Compare your hilarious Monty Python-ized parody of what you think Medieval Europe was with cultures contemporary to it. It was great–even measured against the dubious parallel of the caliphates and Chinese.

Compare it even to Modern culture. You can read this surprising fact for yourself from the following tidbit which is far more eloquent than I could ever hope to put it:

Hilaire Belloc’s preface to Hoffman Nickerson’s The Inquisition

“Had you presented to the early thirteenth century the spectacle of the whole male population medically examined, registered, and forcibly drafted into a life where a chance error might be punished immediately by death or some other terrible punishment; had you shown him men, doubtful in their loyalty to the nation, condemned to years of perpetual silence, secluded from their fellow beings after being made a spectacle of public dishonour in the Courts; had you even sketched for him the universal spy system whereby a strong modern central Government holds down all its subjects as no Government of antiquity, however tyrannical, ever held them down–could you have shown a man of the thirteenth century all this, he would have felt the same repulsion and horror which most modern men felt on reading of the Inquisition, its objects and its methods.”

This, by the way, is only describing the proto-technocratic bureaucracies of c. ~1911. Not even raising the spectre of WWII and its concomitant evils.

The (1) Shoa/Holocaust, (2) the momentary incineration of Japanese civilians, and the thousands who suffered radiation poisoning for the rest of their lives, (3) the cannibalism and death marches of the Pacific theater, (4) clouds of poison gas, (5) and the clumps of German flesh and blood turned to bacon during the fire bombing of Dresden… and–of course–the despicable slaughter that they committed to earn this treatment. Let’s not even mention the Third World inflamed by this single world (i.e., European) war, and the innumerable struggles for sovereignty through guerrilla warfare, rape, and coups.

You also mention that disease (you give the example of the Black Death) was omnipresent. No, sorry, that’s not true. The great plagues came in waves. We, on the other hand, actually have truly endemic diseases (to translate epidemiological terms into plain English: ‘diseases that pretty much never go away, and remain prevalent in a certain population’): AIDS, cancer, obesity, and atheism.

[In your defense, a better argument would have been the little sicknesses: that a common cold possessed a potential killer. The high infant mortality rate would also be a more compelling example] If you did take the great plagues as an indication of a civilization’s ‘weakness’–our pandemics have been far more deadly. Some statistics show as much as a third of the world’s population having been infected by Spanish Flu (1918 outbreak), and 3% of the world’s population dying.

People will undoubtedly look back on this modern, 20th century as the most evil, barbarous era in human history. Man finally develops enough efficiency to achieve material comfort–and the story of Cain and Abel is replayed on the world stage.

I’ll take the Middle Ages any day, thank you very much. An iPod and a Constitution that can be changed whenever the ACLU gets bored are not worth it.

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.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

The Papal States engaged in wars of conquest, your statement is an obvious falsehood.

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.

 

[LemonAndLime]

AngryAtheist8, could you please reply to my post on the previous page.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Why would you have a problem with that? You are an atheist, after all.

Cute

Being an atheist simply means that I have no faith in the supernatural.