Christian secularists

[Risky Thicket]

And this is bad because?



Christianity, however I didn't really intend for this thread to be a debate about which religion is correct, but about the proper relationship between the correct religion and the government.

It is the duty of each person to support the true religion. This duty does not cease merely because a person holds public office, therefore it is the duty of those who hold public office to support the true religion in their official capacity as legislators.

I don't agree with the notion of a divinely revealed positive civil law, however I do agree with the principle that civil law should conform to religion.

The definition of true religion is critical to the OP and is thus most relevant.

I'm a Zen Buddhist. I've been upfront about that. I prefer Vietnamese Zen, I'm partial to Korean and in the interest of full disclosure I am in formal study of Tibetan Buddhism. What specifically is your religious pedigree? What brand of Christian are you?

 

[Paleocon]

The definition of true religion is critical to the OP and is thus most relevant.

I'm a Zen Buddhist. I've been upfront about that. I prefer Vietnamese Zen, I'm partial to Korean and in the interest of full disclosure I am in formal study of Tibetan Buddhism. What specifically is your religious pedigree? What brand of Christian are you?

I'm Roman Catholic. Latin Rite.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You claimed that Muslims have a human right not to pay taxes to the Costa Rican government.

I said their human rights are being violated by being forced to pay for a religion that is not theirs.

 

[Risky Thicket]

I'm Roman Catholic. Latin Rite.

Are you related to Navy Pride?

 

[Paleocon]

I said their human rights are being violated by being forced to pay for a religion that is not theirs.

Through taxes.

Are you related to Navy Pride?

Not to my knowledge. Why?

 

[Risky Thicket]

Through taxes.



Not to my knowledge. Why?

He's the one other person on the board who thinks as you do and he's RC as well.

 

[Paleocon]

He's the one other person on the board who thinks as you do and he's RC as well.

Another person agreed with me in this thread.

 

[Risky Thicket]

Another person agreed with me in this thread.

I'd rather not discuss the excessive drinking habits of DP posters.

 

[Paleocon]

I'd rather not discuss the excessive drinking habits of DP posters.

What made you think he was drunk?

 

[laska]

With respect to Jesus being the Christ, the Son of God, there is the fact of his resurrection, which was testified to by at least eleven people, all of whom would have gotten along much better in their earthly life had they not spread that message. Due to the extreme implausibility of them all experiencing the same delusion or all lying and holding out to the end, it is therefore proven.

Lol you may want to re-think this.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Through taxes.

exactly

 

[Manc Skipper]

Yes of course. Does it really surprise you that I think that?

Sadly, no. Religious laws such as in Iran, or many of the Arab states, like Saudi, should suit you down to the ground.

A secular state protects the non-religious, the differently religious, and those who share your peculiar belief, from domination by each other.

 

[Dezaad]

Our discussion has been interesting. I think it's helped me understand the reasoning of Christian secularists, when they say that Christianity is "true", they don't understand truth in the same way that I do.

I do think that many of the 'secularists' really don't believe at all, but I think a majority of them do in the sense that they believe they have some kind of subjective confirmation for belief. Many of these probably believe as strongly as you do, I would guess, but there is no way for anyone to really know that.

 

[Paleocon]

Lol you may want to re-think this.

Because?

Sadly, no. Religious laws such as in Iran, or many of the Arab states, like Saudi, should suit you down to the ground.

A secular state protects the non-religious, the differently religious, and those who share your peculiar belief, from domination by each other.

Do you really consider Iran and Malta to be on the same level?

And subjects them to secular domination.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

1. Means that you support the government having Christianity as the official religion.

Would this mean that other religions would be banned?

2. Means you support the government having Christianity as the official religion, but only in a nominal way (like in England)

This seems to be a sensible solution. This would give us a solid reference for cultural disputes which doesn't exist in a secular society.

3. Means you believe the government should be secular but in practice give preference to Christianity (many Latin American countries are like this)

How is this different that what currently exist in the United States? It seems like this is the same as Option 4 but you live in a country where it is very likely that government officials have personally been influenced by Christianity. This is like option 4 without the practice of banning religious people from serving in a government role.

4. Means you support the government being strictly secular.

This is impossible unless you banned religious people from influencing the government by eliminating the freedom of speech. I am very much against this option. This spirit would eventually lead to the desire to kill all people who practice any religion. I don't like this option at all.

Freedom of religion is a distinct issue from secularism, although they're related.

I guess I don't understand the concept completely.

Does any of your options include making Christianity mandatory? I am referring to a nation where the law says that if you don't convert to Christianity then you will be killed.

I guess I don't understand what confessionalism is.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

Then it is a weak religion. Freedom of religion simply means that government is not going to make it a crime to worship in your own way. If a religion fails to thrive because they don't have the backing of government then what does that say about that faith. Judaism was outlawed in many countries and Jews still worshipped as Jews at times under penalty of death.

I don't know about the other religions but Judaism, Catholicism (which would include Protestantism) and Islam would have never became popular without government force. They don't seem to be very weak religions to me.

Mormonism was even forced upon people by an unofficial government in it's earlier days. Governments would have no incentive to attach themselves to a weak religion. That would be suicidal.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

A true religion should be irresistible, able to draw people to it of its own power, rather than relying upon the laws and policies of the land to favor it.

I suppose that I have an unique background. I grew up in very small Baptist churches that held firm to the traditions of the past without regard to their obviously shrinking congregation. I frequently heard criticism about churches who compromised in order to become more palatable to an immoral world. Perhaps I am a lot biased on this topic due to the unique indoctrination that I received as a child.

I see nothing about Jesus' teachings that is appealing to an American. Turn the other cheek? Rejoice and be exceedingly glad when people criticize you? It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? The man who works hardest will make the least amount of money? Go and sin no more?

Christianity is not an appealing message at all except for the serious student of philosophy which would include very few people. Billy Graham really watered it down with his claim that God loves you personally and wants to give you a big sloppy kiss. Practice emotional ecstasy frequently because that is a product of God's love. The evangelical movement was very successful but a severe perversion of Christ's teachings. These rock concerts at these Evangelical Churches are becoming pretty popular as well.

I don't buy your argument.

 

[Dezaad]

I suppose that I have an unique background. I grew up in very small Baptist churches that held firm to the traditions of the past without regard to their obviously shrinking congregation. I frequently heard criticism about churches who compromised in order to become more palatable to an immoral world. Perhaps I am a lot biased on this topic due to the unique indoctrination that I received as a child.

I see nothing about Jesus' teachings that is appealing to an American. Turn the other cheek? Rejoice and be exceedingly glad when people criticize you? It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven? The man who works hardest will make the least amount of money? Go and sin no more?

Christianity is not an appealing message at all except for the serious student of philosophy which would include very few people. Billy Graham really watered it down with his claim that God loves you personally and wants to give you a big sloppy kiss. Practice emotional ecstasy frequently because that is a product of God's love. The evangelical movement was very successful but a severe perversion of Christ's teachings. These rock concerts at these Evangelical Churches are becoming pretty popular as well.

I don't buy your argument.

The alternative is manipulating and pressuring people into making an uninformed confession of acceptance of Jesus. You really think that appeals to god? You pick.

 

[vasuderatorrent]

You really think that appeals to god?

How would I know that?

Is Christianity a philosophically superior ideology that would benefit the individual and society as a whole? or is there a better philosophical system that would result in a better society? Those are the questions we should be asking. Once you answer those two questions, you should answer the next one.

What is the most efficient method of manipulating and pressuring people to adopt this system of thought?

I doubt that mandatory religion was motivated by the desire to please God. I think it was motivated by the desire to create a more civilized and obedient society. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Sababa]

I don't know about the other religions but Judaism, Catholicism (which would include Protestantism) and Islam would have never became popular without government force. They don't seem to be very weak religions to me.

Judaism was popular in exile...under penalty of death. It formed a government against the will of the religion and then it was the government that caused it to fall out of favor.

M

ormonism was even forced upon people by an unofficial government in it's earlier days. Governments would have no incentive to attach themselves to a weak religion. That would be suicidal.

oh you missed my point.

 

[Dezaad]

How would I know that?

Is Christianity a philosophically superior ideology that would benefit the individual and society as a whole? or is there a better philosophical system that would result in a better society? Those are the questions we should be asking. Once you answer those two questions, you should answer the next one.

What is the most efficient method of manipulating and pressuring people to adopt this system of thought?

I doubt that mandatory religion was motivated by the desire to please God. I think it was motivated by the desire to create a more civilized and obedient society. Wouldn't you agree?

Ok, let me put it this way: Would a god who was pleased by manipulation and coercion be a god that was pleasing to you? If so, then I doubt you are a person I would respect much.

I agree about the questions you think we should be asking, they completely fit with what I have been saying. My answer is a resounding NO, and I am a non-believer partly as a consequence.

I seriously doubt that mandatory religion was motivated by the desire to please god, so we agree there, but their justification seems to have been to please god. I agree that it was a misguided attempt to create a more civilized society.

 

[Paleocon]

Would this mean that other religions would be banned?



This seems to be a sensible solution. This would give us a solid reference for cultural disputes which doesn't exist in a secular society.



How is this different that what currently exist in the United States? It seems like this is the same as Option 4 but you live in a country where it is very likely that government officials have personally been influenced by Christianity. This is like option 4 without the practice of banning religious people from serving in a government role.



This is impossible unless you banned religious people from influencing the government by eliminating the freedom of speech. I am very much against this option. This spirit would eventually lead to the desire to kill all people who practice any religion. I don't like this option at all.



I guess I don't understand the concept completely.

Does any of your options include making Christianity mandatory? I am referring to a nation where the law says that if you don't convert to Christianity then you will be killed.

I guess I don't understand what confessionalism is.

1. Not necessarily.

None of them make Christianity mandatory.

Confessionalism simply means that the government has an official religion.

I don't know about the other religions but Judaism, Catholicism (which would include Protestantism) and Islam would have never became popular without government force. They don't seem to be very weak religions to me.

Mormonism was even forced upon people by an unofficial government in it's earlier days. Governments would have no incentive to attach themselves to a weak religion. That would be suicidal.

Actually Catholicism did became popular in the absence of government-backing, even in the face of government-opposition.

How would I know that?

Is Christianity a philosophically superior ideology that would benefit the individual and society as a whole? or is there a better philosophical system that would result in a better society? Those are the questions we should be asking. Once you answer those two questions, you should answer the next one.

What is the most efficient method of manipulating and pressuring people to adopt this system of thought?

I doubt that mandatory religion was motivated by the desire to please God. I think it was motivated by the desire to create a more civilized and obedient society. Wouldn't you agree?

Catholic confessional states did not force people to convert, as that was against Catholic teaching. They prohibited the public advocacy of other religions, but forced conversions were generally not practiced.

Judaism was popular in exile...under penalty of death. It formed a government against the will of the religion and then it was the government that caused it to fall out of favor.

M

oh you missed my point.

Are you referring to the establishment of the Davidic Monarchy, or the modern state of Israel?

 

[RogueWarrior]

Because?



Do you really consider Iran and Malta to be on the same level?

And subjects them to secular domination.

WTF is secular domination?

 

[vasuderatorrent]

WTF is secular domination?

The Old Russian Soviet Union and the KGB. North Korea. China in the 1980's.

It's when you kill people for threatening the state with your religion.

 

[Paleocon]

WTF is secular domination?

Domination by secularism.