My recent post questioning unwavering support for the State of Israel generated a lot of discussion, much of which was off topic, involving religious tolerance, confessional governments, and whether or not anyone has a natural right to be wrong. Being off topic doesn't make the discussion irrelevant or uninteresting, though. So, in order to "purify" the original comment thread and continue the other conversations, I've moved the distracting comments here.
The tangential conversation began when the Waffling Anglican said,
"Christianity demands, IMHO, religious tolerance, respect for justice, liberty, and human dignity. Modern or not, I think a very strong case can be made that those values are products of Christianity, and intrinsic to the practice of true religion."
Funky Dung
Comments 68
"Christianity demands, IMHO, religious tolerance, respect for justice, liberty, and human dignity. Modern or not, I think a very strong case can be made that those values are products of Christianity…"
Justice, dignity, and a measure of liberty I can agree with. But religious tolerance? I must admit that I'm confused by this one. Once upon a pre-conciliar time, it was considered absolutely axiomatic that "error has no rights." Since II Vatican, however, theologians have tended to minimize this traditional Christian principle in favor of wishy-washy religious liberality; sadly, Catholics today think that the Church has always been a-okay with the current religious indifferentism.
Before I continue babbling about how much religion today sucks, I'll get down to the point.
"…and intrinsic to the practice of true religion."
While I cannot speak, with any measure of authority, to the Church of England, the Catholic Church has traditionally taught that, while error has no rights, erroneous people do. While it is the typically considered the duty of the state to root out error, and so be intolerant, religious tolerance is permissible under exceptional circumstances. The reason this is relevant to our discussion is that, by calling religious tolerance a mark of true religion, you've effectively excluded Catholicism (and, I daresay, the Church of England, throughout most of its history) from this big tent of "true religion;" this is quite a commitment.
+0
Posted 24 Jul 2006 at 7:02 pm ¶Tom, on occasion you make me seem like the rational one.
This is perhaps to be avoided.
+0
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 12:09 am ¶"While it is the typically considered the duty of the state to root out error,"
I'm not sure that it has normally been considered the duty (or even a fitting role) for the state to root out error. While I usually put almost anything in the hands of the state (I do have fascist leanings now and again), I'm not sure that the state should greatly concern itself with the privite beliefs of its citizens. However, even if it does concern itself, I don't think the state should openly proselytize (even for Catholicism). If for no other reason than I put the state in charge of roads and they come up the Cranberry Connector.
Oh, what jokes would Pennsylvanias tell if it weren't for PennDOT?
I suppose we'd have to go back to making fun of West Virginians and New Jerseyites.
+0
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 12:29 am ¶The traditional teaching of the popes has been that confessional states have a duty to root out error, though they are exempted from this duty when the common good would be detrimentally affected.
"I’m not sure that the state should greatly concern itself with the privite beliefs of its citizens."
States have no obligation to legislate against heretical private beliefs; rather, it is the public expression of error, to the detriment of Catholic piety, to which the obligation applies.
One more thing that I'd like to bring up is the confusion of toleration and right. Traditionally, the Church teaches that there exists no right to belong to a faith other than the true one, and therefore, there is no right to religious freedom. However, religious *tolerance* is permissible in certain states due to necessity.
+0
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 6:03 am ¶Tom, I don't understand what you are trying to say about the State's duty regarding the private practice of a false faith.
On one hand,
"States have no obligation to legislate against heretical private beliefs."
On the other,
"Traditionally, the Church teaches that there exists no right to belong to a faith other than the true one, and therefore, there is no right to religious freedom."
Perhaps people do not have a strict "right" to believe a false faith, but their freedom of conscience does forbid the use of force, even by the State, in attempting to convert them. However, maybe you were only speaking about the public propagation of error in that latter quote? Here, "religious *tolerance* is permissible in certain states due to necessity."
+0
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 7:35 am ¶Wow. That's the Church that scares the hell into me.
+0
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 8:49 pm ¶tom
"States have no obligation to legislate against heretical private beliefs; rather, it is the public expression of error, to the detriment of Catholic piety, to which the obligation applies.
One more thing that I’d like to bring up is the confusion of toleration and right. Traditionally, the Church teaches that there exists no right to belong to a faith other than the true one, and therefore, there is no right to religious freedom. However, religious *tolerance* is permissible in certain states due to necessity."
i don't doubt you, but can you cite documents that state these points?
+0
Posted 25 Jul 2006 at 10:46 pm ¶Wow! In that case I would rather live in an Islamic fundamentalist state than a Catholic one. While Islam agrees that there is no right to religious freedom, it does at least teach that tolerance, at least of Christians and Jews (People of the Book) (as long as they are not considered former Muslims), is required and not just a concession to necessity. It is a good thing that there aren't actually any Catholic states left, except presumably the Vatican City, where this intolerance might be enforced.
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 5:30 am ¶"Tom, I don’t understand what you are trying to say about the State’s duty regarding the private practice of a false faith."
I am saying nothing about the private practice of minority faiths in a confessional state.
"On one hand,
'States have no obligation to legislate against heretical private beliefs.'
On the other,
'Traditionally, the Church teaches that there exists no right to belong to a faith other than the true one, and therefore, there is no right to religious freedom.'"
Is there a contradiction there?
"Perhaps people do not have a strict 'right' to believe a false faith, but their freedom of conscience does forbid the use of force, even by the State, in attempting to convert them."
Of course.
"However, maybe you were only speaking about the public propagation of error in that latter quote? Here, 'religious *tolerance* is permissible in certain states due to necessity.'"
Indeed.
I'm not talking about conversion to the faith of the state; rather, merely the state's obligation to prohibit the public expression of non-state religions in a confessional state.
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 1:04 pm ¶"Wow. That’s the Church that scares the hell into me."
Why?
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 1:16 pm ¶"Wow. That’s the Church that scares the hell into me."
Why? I suspect that you assume that the Church's stance against the existence of a natural right to religious freedom is somehow violently oppressive. The Church does not teach that violence is an acceptable measure for the eradication of the public expression of non-state religions, merely that the proper course in a confessional state is the outlawing of the public expression of non-state religions. In private, one would be completely free to practice whichever religion suits him.
Is that really that scary? I wouldn't call that scary. Intolerant, defitinitely, but scary?
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 1:32 pm ¶I would consider very scary any state which attempts to legislate (presumably with the threat of enforcement action which may have to be violent) against other Christians and other faiths meeting together for public religious worship. Fortunately there is little chance that any state in the modern world will act in this way because of Roman Catholic principles - for I have not noticed an upsurge of popular Roman Catholic fundamentalism of this kind.
I note the following from today's random endorsement of this blog: Indeed. But, Tom, your position is unfortunately fuelling that bigotry by suggesting a return to the old days when Protestants were systematically persecuted in Europe and Latin America.
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 2:46 pm ¶Coming late to the argument… sorry…
Tom may not be stating it in the most cohesive way, but he's absolutely right: Error has no rights. Erroneous persons do, viz., to not be compelled to belief… and mostly because this is a near impossibility, i.e., to compel the act of belief. But it is perfectly licit and possibly advantageous to limit the spread, say, of an heresy. It thus comes down to prudential judgement of civil authorities about how best to promote the general good. In short, Hans Kung ought not be burnt at the stake for believing what he believes. But he could licitly be so dispensed if he persisted in spreading his errors.
I personally think societies would be much more healthy if "heretics" were burnt at the stake: 1) It would provide the masses with entertainment far more visceral and of profound, life-altering value than piss-poor substitutes such as Fear Factor; and 2) most critically, it would increase the quality of heresies, since only the best, brightest, and boldest heretics would be willing to go to the flames… this would in turn bring out the best and brightest apologists for the true faith.
Ooooh… that's scary. Scary is always a good argument.
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 5:59 pm ¶"…merely that the proper course in a confessional state is the outlawing of the public expression of non-state religions. In private, one would be completely free to practice whichever religion suits him.
Is that really that scary? I wouldn’t call that scary. Intolerant, defitinitely, but scary?"
Odd, I think you just described Saudi Arabia, Tom.
What ever happened to rendering unto Caesar's what was Caesar's? It's healthier for the Church that way as well–witness the thriving Christian cultures in the former domains of the Romanovs, the Bourbons, and the Tudors.
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 9:09 pm ¶Seeing as how I have a passel of comments to respond to, and can't knock them out all right away, I'll start with a quick one.
"'…merely that the proper course in a confessional state is the outlawing of the public expression of non-state religions. In private, one would be completely free to practice whichever religion suits him.
Is that really that scary? I wouldn’t call that scary. Intolerant, defitinitely, but scary?'
Odd, I think you just described Saudi Arabia, Tom."
I'm not arguing about Saudi Arabia, or any other nation that exists today, for that matter. It seems to me, from reading a few of the comments, that people aren't really arguing against my statements, but rather, against their own preconceived notions of what the denial of a natural right to religious freedom entails. Although this isn't necessarily
"What ever happened to rendering unto Caesar’s what was Caesar’s?"
I must be being very thick here — I don't understand the relevance of this quotation. Remember, Jerry, to use small words.
"It’s healthier for the Church that way as well—witness the thriving Christian cultures in the former domains of the Romanovs, the Bourbons, and the Tudors."
I can't say that either the Tudor or Romanov cases are relevant here, seeing as neither were Catholic, and so would not be bound by the rules discussed here.
As to the Bourbons, however, I would argue that, during the eighteenth century anyway, exactly what I've been describing has been what was in force throughout most states at the time! What did the Bourbons do (or not do) that violates what I have outlined above?
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 9:35 pm ¶The Bourbons did exactly what you outlined above. And it is good right and just that they were put to death for it.
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 10:13 pm ¶Oops. Please disregard "Although this isn’t necessarily" above. I forgot to delete that.
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 11:12 pm ¶"The Bourbons did exactly what you outlined above."
My point exactly.
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 11:27 pm ¶"Wow! In that case I would rather live in an Islamic fundamentalist state than a Catholic one. While Islam agrees that there is no right to religious freedom, it does at least teach that tolerance. . . is required and not just a concession to necessity."
Why do you feel that there exists a natural right to religious freedom? Can you demonstrate the existence of this right, either rationally, empirically, or from some tradition?
"It is a good thing that there aren’t actually any Catholic states left, except presumably the Vatican City, where this intolerance might be enforced."
It has no need to be enforced at the Holy See, as there's no one attempting non-Catholic public worship in, say, the Sistine Chapel.
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 11:39 pm ¶"I would consider very scary any state which attempts to legislate (presumably with the threat of enforcement action which may have to be violent) against other Christians and other faiths meeting together for public religious worship."
I would consider that scary as well. However, as I have outlined above, violent means are verboten in the enforcement of these laws.
"Fortunately there is little chance that any state in the modern world will act in this way because of Roman Catholic principles - for I have not noticed an upsurge of popular Roman Catholic fundamentalism of this kind."
While I agree that situations like I have outlined above will probably not come to fruition any time soon, I cannot agree to your use of the term "Roman Catholic fundamentalism." "Fundamentalism" is, when not used in its proper historical context (namely, early twentieth-century Evangelical Protestantism of a particular bent), a smear word. First of all, Catholicism has *nothing* to do with the Protestant movement known as Fundamentalism. Secondly, there's nothing particularly "fundamental" about the teachings I have discussed above. They are not underlying, formative doctrines of the faith, and so cannot be called "fundamental." Why do you use such an ugly phrase in characterizing my argument, when it is so clearly not applicable on historical or doctrinal grounds?
+0
Posted 26 Jul 2006 at 11:47 pm ¶"I note the following from today’s random endorsement of this blog:
'I have found that his blog is a useful antidote to the lingering bigotry amongst some Evangelicals (as opposed to constructive debate) against the RCC…'
Indeed. But, Tom, your position is unfortunately fuelling that bigotry…"
Who's the problem here? The one who merely states his belief, or the one who decides to let himself hate because he disagrees? I can't make apologies for stating my beliefs, even though they're considered positively medieval by the vast majority of modern people.
That which I believe is just that: that which I believe. I have attempted to enunciate these beliefs in a rational, non-polemical and non-inflammatory way. If I have offended, it is not because I have been insulting, but merely because you find that which I support highly offensive.
If that is indeed the case, that you are offended by my beliefs, rather than my particular expression thereof, then there's really nothing I can do, is there? You can tell me to shut up, but that doesn't fix the problem, does it?
"…by suggesting a return to the old days when Protestants were systematically persecuted in Europe and Latin America."
Keep in mind, once again, that the system I have outlined does not support violence. Also, I would point out that the norms for confessional states which I have discussed are nearly identical to those which Protestant confessional states adopted centuries ago.
One last thing, because I can see this one coming: If you're trying to argue that the things I have discussed above have led to violent repression in the past, then we should avoid playing a game of "who was worse? Protestants persecuting Catholics in England, Scotland, Switzerland, and the Germanies, or Catholics persecuting Protestants in France, Spain, and the Germanies?" because it's beside the point and rarely leads to a clear winner.
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 12:08 am ¶C'mon, Tom, don't be a liberal weenie on this… Any legimitate state has implicit power to do whatever is necessary to order and preserve itself. The Church may not condone it today, but this is easy from the position of great wealth and relative security she enjoys… a wealth and relative security purchased by the ruthless, grisly exploitation by Western powers of the rest of the world over the last 5 centuries. She has been forced by exigencies in the past to turn a blind (or at least winking) eye, to tolerate the lesser of evils (e.g., death & mayhem where Catholics survive vs. death & mayhem where Catholics die). She may be forced to do so again… and we'll be thankful if and when she does… and if all goes well, live to tell about it.
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 1:04 am ¶And… btw… John… a church to scare the hell out of us is exactly what we all need. But they are alas in very short supply these days…
Cheers!
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 1:11 am ¶"i don’t doubt you, but can you cite documents that state these points?"
Surely.
Leo XIII, Libertas (1888)
"Right is a moral faculty, and as We have said, and it cannot be too often repeated, it would be absurd to believe that it belongs naturally and without distinction to truth and to lies, to good and to evil."
Pius XII, Ci Riesce (allocution to Catholic lawyers)
"It must be clearly affirmed that no human authority, no State, no Community of States, of whatever religious character, can give a positive mandate or a positive authorization to teach or to do that which would be contrary to religious truth or moral good… Whatever does not respond to truth and the moral law has objectively no right to existence, nor to propaganda, nor to action."
Leo XIII, Libertas
"Civil society must acknowledge God as its Founder and Parent, and must obey and reverence His power and authority. Justice therefore forbids, and reason itself forbids, the State to be godless; or to adopt a line of action which would end in godlessness — namely, to treat the various religions (as they call them) alike, and to bestow upon them promiscuously equal rights and privileges."
Leo XIII in Immortale Dei:
"The Church is wont to take earnest heed that no one shall be forced to embrace the Catholic Faith against his will, for, as St. Augustine wisely reminds us, ‘Man cannot believe otherwise than of his own free will."
Leo XIII, Libertas
"While not conceding any right to anything save what is true and honest, she (the Catholic Church) does not forbid public authority to tolerate what is at variance with truth and justice, for the sake of avoiding some greater evil, or of obtaining or preserving some greater good."
Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors (these are condemned propositions)
“15. Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.”
“55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”
“77. In the present day, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.”
“79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.”
Also, the Spanish Charter of 1945 is an example, in legal form, of the Catholic teaching, which it relates very well.
"1) The profession and practice of the Catholic religion, which is that of the Spanish State, will enjoy official protection.
2) No one shall be disturbed for his religious beliefs nor the private exercise of his religion. There is no authorization for external ceremonies or manifestations of other than those of the Catholic religion."
All these quotes are relevant to the discussion at hand, and form the basis of what I've been saying, although I'm too tired to arrange them in such a way as to create an argument. I just wanted to get some quotes up before I go away for a day or two. I'll come online again to discuss the above when I'm back in Pittsburgh tomorrow.
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 1:50 am ¶Aighty, Steve-o, here's a fun one for you:
From Leo X's Bull Exsurge Domine, in response to Luther's 95 theses.
This is condemned proposition number thirty-three.
"33. That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit."
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 1:59 am ¶Scary? Perhaps. Unchristian? Definitely. Allow me to paraphrase Jesus:
"Let he who has never believed or taught error light the first fagot."
The direction this conversation has gone is almost enough to make me sick to my stomach.
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 7:53 am ¶Tom, you are entitled to your beliefs. I suppose Hitler was also entitled to his beliefs (although not to put them into practice), as was his friend Franco whose Spanish Charter of 1945 you quote with approval. But surely I am entitled to find such beliefs highly offensive and a threat to world peace (well, yours would be if you became a national leader as Hitler did), and so to argue against them.
I am not at all defending past repression of Catholics by Protestants, except that I could say that Catholics started it - here in England it was Bloody Mary. (Not all the Tudors were not Catholics!) I note also, by way of balance, that it was a Catholic king, James II, who first introduced religious tolerance in England.
You asked me,
I did not actually argue that there was such a right. But the empirical need for such a right is obvious in the modern world. Europe was torn apart in the 16th to 18th centuries because of fighting largely to protect the rights of Catholic and Protestant believers, and found peace and prosperity only in the 19th century when (despite the best efforts of the reactionary popes you quote) religious tolerance became widespread. Now in the 21st century peace is threatened again because of the lack of religious tolerance in the Islamic world.
Thanks for the quote from St Augustine: The pope who quoted this was wise to hold that no one should be forced to embrace his faith. Forcible conversions are usually shallow, as is clearly seen in Latin America where much Catholicism is in fact paganism with a thin Christian veneer. In fact God gave to humans the right to choose even to disobey him, which they have done much of the time ever since Eden. He did this partly to ensure that their obedience would be free and genuine, compare Psalm 32:9. That doesn't imply that their disobedience went unpunished, but that's another matter.
Suppose I and a group of my friends did attempt to hold a Protestant, or for that matter Muslim, worship service in the Holy See, in St Peter's Square? Presumably this is in some sense illegal, and I suppose the Swiss Guard would try to stop us. But, you say, What would happen if we refused to stop our worship service when we were asked politely? Should the Swiss Guard reject violence and simply stand and watch? Or should they use violence, with their ceremonial antique weapons or more modern ones, to break up our worship?
Meanwhile I used the term Roman Catholic fundamentalism with reference not to Protestant fundamentalism but to the Islamic, Hindu etc versions, as popularly defined. These forms of fundamentalism are characterised (as is the Protestant variety, for which I have few kind words in my own recent blog series) by reactionary religious views and support for the use of state power to enforce these views at least in outward expressions of religion. Yes, it was being used as a smear word, because I consider your views dangerous enough to justify being smeared. Another name sometimes used for Islamic fundamentalism is Islamo-Fascism. Your views seem to be the same without the Islamo-
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 8:04 am ¶It may look strange that I ended my last comment with a hyphen. There was intended to be a full stop (period) after it, but nothing else.
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 8:08 am ¶There is a a difference between permitting unfettered public expression of religion and indifferentism (or universalism, for that matter). I'm not indifferent to error. I believe the pre-V2 was dead wrong to advocate restrictions on public expression of religions other than Catholic Christianity. On the other hand, I think the post-V2 Church has been far too tolerant of buffoonery within her own fold.
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 9:09 am ¶Or Reformation-era England.
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 9:16 am ¶Reformation era England had sadly not entirely rid itself of the attitudes of its pre-Reformation pro-Rome period. It took Cromwell in the 17th century to legalise all forms of Protestant religious practice, as well as to allow Jews back. The crypto-Catholic Charles II took a step backwards into enforcing conformity to a state religion he privately rejected, but the open Catholic James II injected some realism by proclaiming freedom of religion. But memories of Catholic terrorism in 1605, Guy Fawkes' Gunpowder Plot, were too strong for the country to give full toleration to Roman Catholics until the 19th century.
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 9:34 am ¶States don't have the right to use whatever force is necessary to establish order. Order is the purpose of the state, but violence is inherintly disordered. The state can under very rare circumstances use force, but only when there is already disorganization to begin with. Furthermore this force must directly effect order, not exceed the disorder combatted in magnitude, and must be the only option available.
In the case of religious disorder within a society, the state has the positive obligation to provide order. Now, this order must be founded upon divine law (so only Catholicism is a legitimate basis for civil society). Of course, rarely if ever will private religious practice cause enough disorder that the state would be required to act directly. Simply encouraging that Catholicism be taught in schools and by the media should be sufficient.
Also, don't confuse "private" and "occult". "Occult" actions are clandestine and hidden. "Private" actions are simply those done outside the purview of the state. In the U.S. almost all religious expression is private. Only such things as the 700 Club or street preaching attain to public status. In the UK the prohibition on Catholic monarchs is definitely public. Beyond that it gets a bit murky. So long as all the heretics and pagans are doing is praying in their own churches, this shouldn't be a problem. It might be that, say, if Muslims refused to work on Friday or Quakers refused to join the military this *might* be a problem about which the state must act. However, the state doesn't need to root out error directly.
———————————————————-
"Catholics started it - here in England it was Bloody Mary"
Umm… Henry VIII killed Thomas More and John Fisher for refusing to support schism from the Church of Rome. And Elizabeth I killed more Catholics than Mary did Protestants. I believe Edward "ordered" some executions of Catholics during his reign (not that he actually knew much about what his advisors were doing).
Also, you argue that Catholic/Protestant and Judeo-Christian/Muslim wars are caused by intolerance. Could it not be that these wars developed due to the rise of these errors, and in the Catholic/Protestant example only subsided when Catholicism specifically and religion generally were removed from public influence. You would then be left not with a state that must tolerate all religions but one that must tolerate no religion at all.
"God gave to humans the right to choose even to disobey him"
You confuse "right" and "ability". These are not the same thing.
In fact, that's the whole point of this argument. Certainly the state can't remove the "ability" to hold to error, but does this mean that the state must recognize a right to do so.
"Presumably this is in some sense illegal"
The Holy See has no such law in force, as it has not come up. If there were to be any punishment (which is unlikely; Tom and I are arguing a position not so popular these days), it would simply be expulsion from the city.
——————————————————————————–
Is it just me, or has comparing people to Islamic Jihadists become the new "commie pinko"? This is the second time in as many weeks that my views have been compared to Islamic Theocracy and Fascism. I do wonder why rejection of pluralism is treated as so fundamentally unacceptable by our society, which otherwise prides itself on its tolerance of differing opinions.
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 9:10 pm ¶Tom:
To clarify the render unto Caesar, I'm sorry if I was unclear. The point is that Jesus himself implicitly distinguished between civic and religious authority operating in parallel. The Letter to Diognetus, an early Christian text, also emphasized that Christians are in all nations but are of none. This, combined with the call to evangelical simplicitly, make a strong case against state-enforced religious beliefs and practices.
Now for the history. The Romanovs of Russia and the Bourbons of France were probably the two dynasties who had some of the greatest influence on and enforcement of religious belief and practice in their countries. Politics ebb and flow, alas, and so do whatever religious beliefs that are caught up in those practices. France has been notoriously anti-clerical for the past two centuries, and Russia became the head of the most malignant atheistic movement in history. I still see some bloggers use the term "Holy Mother Russia", but to judge from the still-prominent atheism and abortion rates, I don't find Russia very holy or maternal.
Oh sure, you can still claim that the Romanovs and Bourbons are not representative of religious governments, but the decay of Byzantine Christianity, Henry VII's adventures in schism and heresy, and Spain's very liberal culture all make me very reluctant to think that monarchies and/or theological enforcement by the state are conducive to the flowering of orthodox religion. Can you, Tom, name any historical period that gives a lasting example of what you have in mind, or is this all theoretical?
And that's even apart from "little" details like the sayings of Christ and the early Christians that I cited above.
As an aside: Catholics and Orthodox are not the only ones to realize the dangers of mixing faith and politics too closely. Mainline Protestants found out about this the hard way in America as they are beginning to fade, having attached themselves to political trends (mostly liberal ones) that are growing obsolete.
Evangelicals may get their lesson soon as well as they crow over their political influence and many of their number seem to conflate their political and spiritual fortunes. (Funny how they condemn Catholic meddling in national politics throughout history yet promptly did it all themselves, ja?)
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 9:45 pm ¶Another clarification: when I said that Tom sounded like he was describing Saudi Arabia (no public worship according to non-official religious beliefs, but private was permitted), it wasn't to label him an Islamofascist or anything silly like that, but it was to perhaps get him to look in a mirror, 'cos he did describe more or less the official Saudi position on other religions in their land.
Someone wiser than me made an observation about absolute power corrupting absolutely, and giving organizations thorough-going powers such as used in Arabia is a recipe for poisoning true religious commitment and encouraging hypocrisy. Jesus didn't tell the apostles to beat or arrest those towns that didn't listen to them, but rather to shake the dust off their feet and move on. We don't need a state to help us follow those instructions, and I think we have enough historical evidence to show that any state-led help in that department does more harm than good in the long run.
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 9:50 pm ¶"Can you…name any historical period that gives a lasting example of what you have in mind, or is this all theoretical?"
1. France under St. Louis IX
2. Better example (if not Catholic), China under the Confucian Mandarins. This was the flourishing of Chinese culture and international influence.
Also, while I don't raise them as high as many do, Spain under Ferdinan and Isabella wasn't too bad (unless you were a crypto-Jew or Muslim, the latter being almost certainly a traitor of some sort).
+0
Posted 27 Jul 2006 at 11:38 pm ¶OK, Henry VIII not Mary I started it. But Henry's motivations were more political than religious, as were Elizabeth's, and Henry was hardly a Protestant. And don't forget that before he split from Rome he had put to death the pioneering Protestant John Frith (1533) and ordered the death of the Bible translator Tyndale (1536).
Anthrakeus complains that Could this be because they are in fact objectively similar? I was in fact referring to Tom's views, and he quoted the fascist Franco with approval. You are both advocating a kind of theocracy, a particular religion being imposed by the state and other religion being outlawed, which in the contemporary world is found only in Islamic countries. So, yes, there are good reasons to compare your views with Islamic theocracy and with fascism. As I have said before, you are entitled to your views (although maybe not to put them into practice), and by making these comparisons I am not trying to start a witch hunt against you. After all, I am not the one quoting a pope to justify burning at the stake!
+0
Posted 28 Jul 2006 at 5:23 am ¶"You are both advocating a kind of theocracy, a particular religion being imposed by the state and other religion being outlawed"
Well, yes and no. "Outlawed" could mean many things. What I (probably we, I can't speak for Tom) advocate is government imposed limitation on other religions. In the US (I can't speak for Brittain) about the only groups that have what could be called "public displays" are some of the evangelicals. Even we Catholics rarely have a procession outside. So, were I to take over in the US (a frightening prospect I know), little would change for the average Protestant. I suppose they might be limited in book publications, but again, that's mostly the evangelicals.
It wouldn't be worth the time and effort to try to root out all non-Catholic religions.
"Could this be because they are in fact objectively similar?"
As they say, one swallow does not a summer make.
——————————————-
As to the Funky's comment: that's a bit scary. I'm not sure what's worse, when the government has no place for religion, or when it misuses it.
+0
Posted 28 Jul 2006 at 12:38 pm ¶Anthrakeus claimed that
Are you suggesting that the average US Protestant is not evangelical? I don't know what the exact figures are, but there are an awful lot of evangelicals out there, who would react very strongly to any attempts to limit their evangelism and their publishing. If (God forbid!) you were to try to impose your principles on the USA, you would quickly have a revolution on your hands. Actually you would of course be acting unconstitutionally and would quickly be impeached if you tried this, but that's another matter. So, in fact nothing would change for Protestants because your policy would fail.
+0
Posted 28 Jul 2006 at 1:36 pm ¶"In the US (I can’t speak for Brittain) about the only groups that have what could be called “public displays” are some of the evangelicals."
I grew up in Boston and am currently living in New York, and there is not a weekend day in the summer, and few weekdays that there are not large processions for whatever saint is connected to that day.
+0
Posted 28 Jul 2006 at 6:08 pm ¶I suppose I'm used to the fairly subdued Irish piety of Western Pennsylvania. Processions *are* more of an Italian and Eastern European thing.
If it's the Irish with the processions, then I guess Western Pennsylvanians are just lazy.
+0
Posted 28 Jul 2006 at 8:39 pm ¶"C’mon, Tom, don’t be a liberal weenie on this…"
It's funny that I'm being called a "liberal weenie" on a thread in which I advance my view that the state is obliged to advance religion.
"Any legimitate state has implicit power to do whatever is necessary to order and preserve itself."
How so? This strikes me as almost *exactly* the position that Niccolo Machiavelli advanced in the The Prince — a position which was almost universally condemned then and now. Another traditional Christian ethical maxim important to remember in this discussion is that one may not do evil that good may come of it.
+0
Posted 29 Jul 2006 at 1:45 am ¶"Scary? Perhaps. Unchristian? Definitely. Allow me to paraphrase Jesus:
'Let he who has never believed or taught error light the first fagot.'"
Apples and oranges. Christ's message, in this passage, was one of forgiveness. Should we forgive those who have fallen away from the faith? Yes; most definitely. Stopping those who would spread ideas directly leading to the damnation of souls is another matter entirely, which is why the Church *does not* and *has never* taught that holding heretical views privately is a matter to be dealt with externally. It is only the public spread of these views which the Church deems unacceptable.
"The direction this conversation has gone is almost enough to make me sick to my stomach."
Why? Have you given the arguments laid out even the time of day, or have you dismissed them out of hand? I have yet to see you make a counter-argument, so I can't help but think the latter. Prove me wrong. Instead of calling my views "almost enough to make (you) sick to (your) stomach," why don't you try to change my mind?
+0
Posted 29 Jul 2006 at 2:08 am ¶"Tom, you are entitled to your beliefs."
In the interest of consistency, I must conditionally disagree. If my beliefs are wrong, then I do not have a right to hold them. Which is why I am trying to get people on this thread to actually engage my arguments, rather than smear them and call me names; I want to find out the truth of the matter. I have laid out my position, which is, I believe. the correct one (obviously). Tell me why you think I'm wrong; you may get me to change my mind.
"But surely I am entitled to find such beliefs highly offensive and a threat to world peace (well, yours would be if you became a national leader as Hitler did)…"
Are you implying that I am like Hitler because I advocate a state religion? NEVER ONCE have I stated that I support execution for the sake of any cause, even religion. Because the Holocaust is the first thing that comes to the minds of most when Hitler is mentioned, I can only conclude that your purpose was to compare my views to wholesale slaughter on the basis of ethnicity. In case I haven't been clear enough, I find mass execution morally unjustifiable.
"…and so to argue against them."
Commence with the argumentation. "You're very much like a fascist" does not constitute an argument.
+0
Posted 29 Jul 2006 at 2:26 am ¶"Yes, it was being used as a smear word, because I consider your views dangerous enough to justify being smeared."
Fair enough — but keep in mind that you're not discussing this matter with a third party, with whom a smear might be more appropriate and effective. You're debating me, and smearing my views to my electronic face isn't doing your position any good. Please argue against my points; you have nothing to lose by doing so, and you may gain my agreement.
"You asked me,
'Why do you feel that there exists a natural right to religious freedom? Can you demonstrate the existence of this right, either rationally, empirically, or from some tradition?'
I did not actually argue that there was such a right. But the empirical need for such a right is obvious in the modern world."
If there is no natural right to religious freedom, all the "empirical need" in the universe isn't enough to create one.
+0
Posted 29 Jul 2006 at 2:34 am ¶"There is a a difference between permitting unfettered public expression of religion and indifferentism (or universalism, for that matter)."
If I gave the impression that there was no distinction between the two, it was accidental, as such a difference is obvious.
"I’m not indifferent to error."
…never said that you were…
"I believe the pre-V2 was dead wrong to advocate restrictions on public expression of religions other than Catholic Christianity."
Great. . . why? Gimme something to argue against. Throw me a bone.
"'Odd, I think you just described Saudi Arabia, Tom.'
Or Reformation-era England."
While the ideas prevalent at the time may have been outwardly similar, I think that you may be trying only to compare my position to that of Bad People of the Past. I never stated that violence is appropriate means for any of what I've been discussing.
Now, on to Jerry's comments…
"To clarify the render unto Caesar, I’m sorry if I was unclear. The point is that Jesus himself implicitly distinguished between civic and religious authority operating in parallel."
I have no problem with religious authority operating parallel to secular authority. They are separate, and there is nothing wrong with that.
(As an aside, however, I would note that, here, Christ merely acknowledges the distinction between the spiritual and secular arms — He makes no judgment as to whether or not that is a good, bad, or completely indifferent thing.)
"The Letter to Diognetus, an early Christian text, also emphasized that Christians are in all nations but are of none. This, combined with the call to evangelical simplicitly, make a strong case against state-enforced religious beliefs and practices."
I think you are mischaracterizing my position. I do not support in state-*enforced* religion, I believe in state-*supported* religion. The distinction is, I think, rather huge.
"Now for the history. The Romanovs of Russia and the Bourbons of France were probably the two dynasties who had some of the greatest influence on and enforcement of religious belief and practice in their countries. Politics ebb and flow, alas, and so do whatever religious beliefs that are caught up in those practices. France has been notoriously anti-clerical for the past two centuries, and Russia became the head of the most malignant atheistic movement in history."
I can't speak to the Romanovs, since Russian history is not my specialty. So I will concede to you that the case of the Romanovs supports your position.
As to the Bourbons, I take it that you're positing that the Bourbon failure to support freedom of religion is the primary factor which led to the secularization and anti-clericalism of France (correct me if I'm wrong). This view is, maybe, a bit too simplistic, I think. Perhaps the lack of religious freedom in France *did* play a role in the current French distaste for religion, but I doubt that it could be correctly called the primary factor. Also, keep in mind the heavy-handed way in which the Bourbons were notorious for ruling ("let them eat cake" — almost as heavy-handed as I have been in this debate). I would say that the Enlightenment philosophies, which one could argue were most influential in France, were the primary cause of the French abandonment of religion. Descartes, Voltaire, and Montesquieu were all Frenchmen.
Also, consider this: Humanae Vitae turned a lot of people off to Catholicism. For that reason, many condemn it as incorrect. But the number of people who dislike it has no bearing on the veracity of its truth claims.
One more thing: you mention only the Bourbons and Romanovs. But lack of religious freedom has been the historical norm, not the deviation. Almost all European nations were what moderns would call despotic in regard to religion, and almost all European nations have been secular for many years. So I don't think one can point to any particular state and say that its lack of religious freedom led to the de