Theocracy is most normal

[Mirdath]

We are very much in agreement. Although the atheistiic minority should not be allowed to supplant the religiously-derived morality of the majority with relativism.

This, I’m afraid, is a strawman. Non-theists are not necessarily moral relativists, and theists are not necessarily moral absolutists.

And what do you propose to do about conflicting moral codes derived from religion? Shall the majority rule, no matter what? If the largest religious group in the nation is Catholic, outlaw abortion – until the Episcopalians overtake it in numbers?

Remember that minorities have rights too, and these must be protected as much as those of the majority.

 

[hamba2han]

Warfare against armed combatants is not murder.
What false witness?
We buy the oil at market value.
I am not in Iraq. If you mean why is the US in Iraq, then you need to examine why Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1991 and was poised to invade Saudi. After the first Gulf War, a ceasefire agreement was reached. Saddam’s regime was in material breech of that ceasefire for 12 years. In international law this is causus belli to resume an already declared war.

What false witness, you ask?.. Does not stating and testifying by your political and military leaders that Saddam had WMDs not qualify as bearing false witness?

Oh yeah, one more thing… Does not the Bible say to turn the other cheek?

 

[quantumDeus]

This, I’m afraid, is a strawman. Non-theists are not necessarily moral relativists, and theists are not necessarily moral absolutists.

And what do you propose to do about conflicting moral codes derived from religion? Shall the majority rule, no matter what? If the largest religious group in the nation is Catholic, outlaw abortion – until the Episcopalians overtake it in numbers?

Remember that minorities have rights too, and these must be protected as much as those of the majority.

It is not fully a strawman. It is a generalization, regrettably. The generalization should more rightly say human moral relativist, among which there is a significant population of atheists. Setting that aside, secular moral relativism has been inculcated gradually in the US since 1962, with certain groups actively working to undermine it. Hence the “freedom from religion” statement. I do urge you to read George Washington’s farewell address to the nation. I believe it can be found at www.gpo.gov or at www.loc.gov.

I said that the law is derived from a certain moral ethic (US law having been greatly influenced by Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Law, which in turn was an expression of biblical law in modern terms), I in no way endorse a state religion. Yes, minorities need to be protected under the law, but that does not give minorities the right to enforce their will over the majority. This includes legislating from the bench.

At the rate people are leaving the Episcopal Church and the rate of growth of the Catholic Church, a simple chart would show the mathematical improbability.

 

[Mirdath]

Setting that aside, secular moral relativism has been inculcated gradually in the US since 1962, with certain groups actively working to undermine it. Hence the “freedom from religion” statement. I do urge you to read George Washington’s farewell address to the nation. I believe it can be found at www.gpo.gov or at www.loc.gov.

There is little I can say to that, other than that I think the great man is in error here. Principles of right action, even the universal application of these principles, are not the handmaids of religion but of society.

He says: reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. Such reason seems to me undeveloped; he dismisses the possibility without truly considering it. To be fair, he was delivering this address only a few years after Kant published the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, and perhaps had not read it yet; but he was speaking a good century and a half after Hobbes’ Leviathan – ample time to have read even such an aptly-named tome.

As to experience, the only example of such a state at that time was the French Reign of Terror – hardly the best example!

The old conservative saw is ‘the government that governs least governs best’, and it is quite evident in the structure of the United States – granting all powers except those specifically given to the government to the states and people, for instance. A religious government, by its very nature, violates this principle in its enforcement of religious morality. One cannot be a true conservative and a true theocrat simultaneously.

Yes, minorities need to be protected under the law, but that does not give minorities the right to enforce their will over the majority. This includes legislating from the bench.

What if that will is only for equality, as in the civil rights movement of the 20th century? Would you revoke Brown vs. Board of Education as an example of ‘legislating from the bench’?

At the rate people are leaving the Episcopal Church and the rate of growth of the Catholic Church, a simple chart would show the mathematical improbability.

I am speaking hypothetically. Indulge me, if you would

 

[Allweather]

This, I’m afraid, is a strawman. Non-theists are not necessarily moral relativists, and theists are not necessarily moral absolutists.

And what do you propose to do about conflicting moral codes derived from religion? Shall the majority rule, no matter what? If the largest religious group in the nation is Catholic, outlaw abortion – until the Episcopalians overtake it in numbers?

Remember that minorities have rights too, and these must be protected as much as those of the majority.

I agree, and this is one reason I can’t go along with the religious right’s expression of itself in modern American (Republican Party) politics. I’ve spent a lot of time in recent years debating fundamentalists in various places. All of these have been rightwing Republicans who claim that everyone else in the country is a dirtbag who doesn’t deserve recognition. My overall response to this is that homosexuals, atheists, muslims, liberals, and whatnot, are taxpaying citizens, too, and have every right to live here by virtue of their citizenship. If there were only a single religion, then it’d make sense to have a theocracy. But since there are hundreds of competing religions (which includes the secular religions) there is no way we can have a theocracy. I think the American Founders recognized this when they designed a gov’t which was secular, and protected religions and gov’t from each other.

The rightwingers bemoan the absence of prayer in the public schools. I say to them, fine, let’s have prayer in the public schools. And when YOUR children are praying the Rosary with mine, we’ll see how tolerant you really are of religions other than your fundamentalist own. The truth is, these fundamentalists are not interested in fostering “religion” in the broad sense, but rather their own narrow religious viewpoints, and I’m sure we’d know that in the firestorm that would attend the praying of Rosaries in the public schools.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

The wording of ‘thy kingdom come’ indicates that it isn’t here yet, doesn’t it? As for the will of God being done on earth and heaven alike, that is no call to theocracy but an exhortation to behave according to God’s commands – which nowhere say ‘thy government shall be headed by the pope’.

Why? Why can’t it be headed by a Catholic king in union with the Pope? St. Peter was given more than one key.

CDL

 

[GregoryPalamas]

This is one Jew who does not share that belief. When the Messiah comes, ok. Until then, I’ll pass.

That’s what I wrote. Still it means that Theocracy is most natural.

CDL

 

[Catholic90]

What false witness, you ask?.. Does not stating and testifying by your political and military leaders that Saddam had WMDs not qualify as bearing false witness?

Oh yeah, one more thing… Does not the Bible say to turn the other cheek?

Saddam WAS a weapon of mass destruction. The mass graves that he is responsible for is evidence of that. Saddam was a very evil man who had to be stopped from murdering his innocent civilians.

Turning the other cheek does mean lying down and being a doormat for bullies (terrorists).

 

[GregoryPalamas]

Add this Catholic. I do not want to live in a theocracy. I believe in freedom of religion. For everyone. I think the US government, founded on our constitution, is as good as any government on Earth is gonna ever be. And I am blessed to live here in the US!

So you don’t believe in a kingdom ruled by God?

CDL

 

[Mirdath]

Why? Why can’t it be headed by a Catholic king in union with the Pope? St. Peter was given more than one key.

In a perfect world, it could be so and work fine. This is not a perfect world.

Catholic autocracies in union with the pope have been tried. What did we get? Serfdom; persecution of other faiths; treatment of women as chattel; wars against Muslims, Manichaeans, Albigensians, and others; corruption; the list goes on and on.

Do you honestly want to return to that? To live in a hovel, to till the soil all day only to have most of the harvest taken by your lord, to give up your literacy and your rights as a free man, to lose more than half your children at birth, to die before you reach forty? Or is it rather that you would prefer to be a noble of the time, building yourself up on the backs of others? It is not very likely that you would be of noble birth.

Peter may have been given multiple keys, but they are still keys to the kingdom of God – which I have pointed out is said in the bible itself to be not of this world. It is no justification for theocracy.

 

[GregoryPalamas]

In a perfect world, it could be so and work fine. This is not a perfect world.

Catholic autocracies in union with the pope have been tried. What did we get? Serfdom; persecution of other faiths; treatment of women as chattel; wars against Muslims, Manichaeans, Albigensians, and others; corruption; the list goes on and on.

Do you honestly want to return to that? To live in a hovel, to till the soil all day only to have most of the harvest taken by your lord, to give up your literacy and your rights as a free man, to lose more than half your children at birth, to die before you reach forty? Or is it rather that you would prefer to be a noble of the time, building yourself up on the backs of others? It is not very likely that you would be of noble birth.

Peter may have been given multiple keys, but they are still keys to the kingdom of God – which I have pointed out is said in the bible itself to be not of this world. It is no justification for theocracy.

You have bought the whole ball of secular propaganda about the middle ages. I have not. We will have to save that discussion for another thread.

Suffice it to say, Theocracy is the natural way of God’s Kingdom. Giving unto a pagan king may be tolerable but the Kingdom of God is as much on earth as it is in heaven.

CDL

 

[Mirdath]

You have bought the whole ball of secular propaganda about the middle ages. I have not. We will have to save that discussion for another thread.

History is now ‘secular propaganda’? As you will.

Suffice it to say, Theocracy is the natural way of God’s Kingdom. Giving unto a pagan king may be tolerable but the Kingdom of God is as much on earth as it is in heaven.

Your own holy book says otherwise, and I have cited it clearly. I invite you to travel back in time to correct Jesus when he said ‘my kingdom does not belong to this world’, if you believe he was in error to say that.

 

[quantumDeus]

What false witness, you ask?.. Does not stating and testifying by your political and military leaders that Saddam had WMDs not qualify as bearing false witness?

We will not get sidetracked on the WMD issue, but needless to say, they existed prior to 2003 and there were WMD precursors found in several locations in Iraq. The media missed it for the most part because there wasn’t a big glowing neon sign that said “WMDs R Us” …

That being said, the US has a secular government and its criteria for governance and international diplomacy are not extensible to the individual citizen. If you choose that argument, then I hold you culpable for 9/11; you are a Muslim, just as bin Laden, and he chose to act as a Muslim transnationally and without benefit of national sovereignity.

Oh yeah, one more thing… Does not the Bible say to turn the other cheek?

An old Irish priest once told me, “Son, you have two cheeks, it doesn’t give them license to kick your arse.”

To underscore this, read the Vatican’s definition of Just War.

 

[hamba2han]

To underscore this, read the Vatican’s definition of Just War.

I have read the Ten Commandments and that is why I cannot understand how believing Christians in America can support the war in Iraq.

Am I wrong in thinking that Christians still believe in following the Ten Commandments?

 

[quantumDeus]

I have read the Ten Commandments and that is why I cannot understand how believing Christians in America can support the war in Iraq.

Am I wrong in thinking that Christians still believe in following the Ten Commandments?

Obviously you haven’t read NT Scripture. Jesus alludes to ues of force. In one instance he resorts to the physical in tossing the Pharisees out of the temple.

Again, I urge you to read the Vatican’s doctrine contained in the concept of Just War.

Lastly, where in the 10 Commandments is war prohibited?

 

[anthony022071]

“Anarchy” may not be the appropriate word.

CDL

That is the word the Pope used to describe it in one of his books.
I think he said “ideal anarchy”.

 

[anthony022071]

Theocracy would not be good for Christianity. It would put the faith itself in the position of a tyrannical,oppressive force,whereas Christianity is most perfect,most powerful when it is weak and being oppressed. As Jesus said to Paul : “My grace is sufficient for you,for power is made perfect in weakness.” 2 Corinthians 12,9.

 

[Ella]

So you don’t believe in a kingdom ruled by God?

CDL

Jesus, when He returns, will rule the world. Until then, I do not believe a theocracy is a moral form of government. I’ll take the US government, thanks.

 

[Greg27]

Freedom of religion, including the freedom to choose to be an atheist, is much better than a theocracy where people are punished if they do not follow the state religion.

I have to agree with this comment. Catholics in Europe during the Reformation could not worship or assemble freely and were persecuted violently by Protestant monarchs and rulers. The secularisation of politics was done by Catholic and Protestant thinkers (as well as those who were not religious) who wanted to put a stop to religious persecution and violence, by Catholics and Protestants.

No religion or faith (including atheism) should be the official policy of the state.

 

[BelFarfalla]

Oh, you obey (or try very hard to, at least) God’s commandments, do you?

Thou shall not murder.

Thou shalt not bear false witness (about the presence of WMDs)

Thou shall not covet thy neighbour’s oil (house).

What are you doing in Iraq then?

I find this very funny… you act as though Muslim through out history have been saints. What of the vast distruction and deaths the Islam brought upon innocent people for the last 1400 years?