As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Separation of Church and State
[Tycho?]![[Tycho?]](https://us.v-cdn.net/5018289/uploads/userpics/934/nHG8VEMRTY5QM.gif)
As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
As elusive as doubtRegistered User regular
I was just thinking about the topic of religion, and I came to a startling realization;
Some people don't separate Church and State.
Now, this may sound obvious, but let me go into more depth. There are some people with whom the institution of the Church and the institution of a Nation State are inexorably linked; loyalty to one is one and the same with loyalty to the other. Now, I immediately thought of American Evangelicals like Bush, and those who support him. Sermons on why the Iraq war was good or holy.
Now, this just hit me full on right now. I'm not a fan of very religious people in general, evangelicals usually piss me right off, and big time nationalists I generally dont like much either. But damn, this takes nationalism, and religious fundamentalism, and binds them together into one ideal. Thats scary as fuck. Reminds me of Norsefire from V for Vendetta (the movie).
So anyway, lets try to get a discussion going about this!
First some thoughts and clarifications;
Are there actually any states like this that exist today? Now, an obvious response might be Iran, or the US. I don't really think that any of those quite fit. Iran is a theocracy, but I think (correct me if I'm wrong here) that Iranians do not really link their nationalistic beliefs with their religious ones. The religious leaders might try and promote this view, I know Khomeini said stuff like (paraphrase): if you disobey me or the law you are disobeying Islam. I dont think this really stuck though, since Iranians as a whole are pretty hungry for some reforms; they like their religion just fine thanks, but their government they aren't so much a fan of.
I think there is definately an element of it in the US, a strong element with a fair bit of political power, but they are pretty small compared to the rest of the country. That someone like this actually got to president is rather frightening though; remember when he said he talked to god about the Iraq war? Thats a pretty scary exchange right there, the concepts of President, God and War don't mix too well in a thought.
I'd like to keep this discussion on the topic of Religion and Nationalism. We'll probably get into stuff like the (very religious) monarchies in Europe and the like, but I'd like to try to stick with modern nation states here.
So, what do you guys think? Does it make sense to classify it this way? Is this completely obvious and I just didn't get it? Are church and state separate on some fundamental level, is it not possible to link them into a single entity? Or is it possible? Has it been done? Are there any examples that exist today? Think any will come up in the near future? Do they have to suck? What would a state like this be like (what is it like in fiction like V for Vendetta?)? And so on.
Some people don't separate Church and State.
Now, this may sound obvious, but let me go into more depth. There are some people with whom the institution of the Church and the institution of a Nation State are inexorably linked; loyalty to one is one and the same with loyalty to the other. Now, I immediately thought of American Evangelicals like Bush, and those who support him. Sermons on why the Iraq war was good or holy.
Now, this just hit me full on right now. I'm not a fan of very religious people in general, evangelicals usually piss me right off, and big time nationalists I generally dont like much either. But damn, this takes nationalism, and religious fundamentalism, and binds them together into one ideal. Thats scary as fuck. Reminds me of Norsefire from V for Vendetta (the movie).
So anyway, lets try to get a discussion going about this!
First some thoughts and clarifications;
Are there actually any states like this that exist today? Now, an obvious response might be Iran, or the US. I don't really think that any of those quite fit. Iran is a theocracy, but I think (correct me if I'm wrong here) that Iranians do not really link their nationalistic beliefs with their religious ones. The religious leaders might try and promote this view, I know Khomeini said stuff like (paraphrase): if you disobey me or the law you are disobeying Islam. I dont think this really stuck though, since Iranians as a whole are pretty hungry for some reforms; they like their religion just fine thanks, but their government they aren't so much a fan of.
I think there is definately an element of it in the US, a strong element with a fair bit of political power, but they are pretty small compared to the rest of the country. That someone like this actually got to president is rather frightening though; remember when he said he talked to god about the Iraq war? Thats a pretty scary exchange right there, the concepts of President, God and War don't mix too well in a thought.
I'd like to keep this discussion on the topic of Religion and Nationalism. We'll probably get into stuff like the (very religious) monarchies in Europe and the like, but I'd like to try to stick with modern nation states here.
So, what do you guys think? Does it make sense to classify it this way? Is this completely obvious and I just didn't get it? Are church and state separate on some fundamental level, is it not possible to link them into a single entity? Or is it possible? Has it been done? Are there any examples that exist today? Think any will come up in the near future? Do they have to suck? What would a state like this be like (what is it like in fiction like V for Vendetta?)? And so on.
[Tycho?] on
0
Posts
Is it scary to have a president who claims to talk to god? I suppose; the only people I ever hear about having talked to god usually end up drowning their kids in a bathtub. But, I don't think that much can be done to prevent this or that anything further should be done because then you'd have to do something like disallow political groups with a religious connection and at that point you'd be imposing on the right to organize and express.
Basically, what I'm saying is that in many European countries, there were large religious entities literally called "The Church" (see: The Church of England) that wielded enormous political power. The Consititutional seperation tries to prevent such bodies from wielding control here (and fortunately, the US doesn't really have a large, overbearing religious entity with the power of national European churches, instead we just have lobbies).
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
Yes, I even think politicians should stifle their own religious beliefs as best they can when making decisions. They aren't running a spiritual or godly government, they running what should be a secular government, as it governs the people, not by god, and it governs over a great number and variety of people.
Our first game is now available for free on Google Play: Frontier: Isle of the Seven Gods
So, yeah. No. Never. That should never be the case.
We need a president to come out fucking right and say it. "We are not a Christian Nation. In fact, we're a strictly secular nation."
Maybe I'm living in the wrong America, though. Maybe all the fundies are right and I'm delusional.
The United States Congress did, in a treaty with Tripoli in the late 1700s.
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,— as it has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,— and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_guadalupe_hidalgo
That's not the case here, but my point is that even if the Treaty of Tripoli didn't exist, I'd be just as right as I am now, and for all the same reasons. It's illogical for such a developed world to cling so tightly to any religion, or even a spirituality.
Except that it can't do that. The First Amendment specifically provides for that eventuality: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
The whole reason that the Treaty of Tripoli is relevant is not that it's somehow binding, but rather that it demonstrates the intent of the Founding Fathers in writing the First Amendment.
Our only saving grace is that they can't agree on which Jesus to elect.
The structure and creed of all modern Christianity in particular is largely based on a series of political / religious arguments in the second and third centuries CE. However much different Christians may disagree about their religion today, even protestants and catholics, they are extremely homogeneous compared to the wildly diverging forms of the religion that existed before it became the state religion of Rome.
Questions such as whether Yeshua (read: Jesus if you want the version we ended up with via the Greek translations) rose from the dead, the authority and authenticity of the gospels, whether the apostles and their successors had any special authority, whether martyrdom was praiseworthy, whether Yeshua was the result of a virgin birth ( the concept of Mary as a perpetual virgin and the idea that Yeshua had no siblings was a 6th-7th century addition to the religion and was not really debated in the early church) and many other ideas later considered vital orthodoxy were hotly debated. And all of these issues which today would be considered purely theological had political ramifications. The authenticity of the apostles was equivalent to the temporal authority of the bishops and vice versa. The physical resurrection of Yeshua (and the rather dubious series of events which followed in some of the gospels) was vital to the claim by the Bishop of Rome to primacy over all others etc...
Christianity is by no means alone in this. More ancient religions, from bronze age Mesopotamia or Egypt down to classical Greece or Persia even more strongly exemplify the unification of the political with the religious as we define them today.
What we need is someone who thinks Church and State need to be hardcore fucking together.
But the OP seemed to be dumbfounded that there could be any other possibility. When in fact for the majority of history the religious and the political have been completely intertwined.
I'd play devil's advocate on this one, but I risk becoming actually, really frustrated by my own talking points.
I'd also never lose. Stalwart stupidity is the best defense ever.
Like Incenjucar said, if the Church runs the majority then they could end up running the State, too. Luckily the majority is divided enough to prevent that in most cases.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
But that's not really a separation of church and state issue as much as it is an issue with the majority of the American populace vehemently believing in the idea of us being a "christian nation".
Anyway, the issue came up in NZ last year or maybe was it 06? When we came off a long running open sore debate about the right to use force while disciplining children (called the anti smacking bill) and whether or not it should be banned. In the end it was and legally now one cannot use smacking to discipline children, although whether or not you'd get prosecuted isn't really certain. The reason why it is relevant to this discussion was that the split between organised opposition and organised support for the bill/move came down to straight old fashioned culture war reactionary Christians (Family First) vs. liberals. So at the protests/debates we saw marchers holding bible quotations and using biblical justifications to use force on their children - which was rather surreal I suspect for most New Zealanders, wherever one sat on the debate.
This split provoked calls by a radical Bishop (who owns his own church - still quite rare in NZ) to demand NZ be declared a Christian nation - without ever really saying what that would mean. While most think he is crazy a fair few people I think kind of liked some recognition of that fact, possibly due to fear of Islam/recent immigration/whatever and it is still possible to have this debate to this day (I had it last week with an agnostic friend who is in favour). So what does it actually mean to be a Christian nation, if one was to declare as such in a modern English speaking democracy, where 1/3 people have legally declared that they have no religion?
I'm as comfortable with faith-based initiatives and "In God We Trust" on coins as I am going without socks on a hot day.
I'll live, sure...
This is why I'm so sick and fucking tired of arguments about what the founding fathers intended. I don't give a flying fuck. I really don't. Most of them owned slaves. Most of them would be considered white supremacists today. They were smart men for the time, but they were mostly still utterly of that time.
At least one of those programs I know of defines "public work" as proselytizing. Specifically, the prison ones. Fuck those people.
From what i remember reading, most of them did not in fact own slaves and many members of the northern colonies were members of anti slavery groups.
Uh, most of the notable ones (see: Thomas Jefferson) did in fact own slaves. And even some of the ones that were against slavery were still racist.
They existed in the late 1700s in America, of course they were racist. Everyone was racist.
Point is, even if you could demonstrably prove that all the founding fathers intended for a strictly secular government, it would only sort of matter.
It would only matter in the same way it would matter to hear that H.P. Lovecraft wanted to write scary stories.
This isn't Thomas Jeffersonia, or John Adam's Land, or George Washingstan.
Most of them were deists, anyhow. I imagine only because they were highly intelligent and academic persons, and had Darwin's theory of evolution been around at the time, I imagine more than a few would even be atheists. At the time, however, atheism was based only around, "Well I haven't seen this God fellow..." which was a weak argument when you'd still have to explain the world.
My respect for Jefferson grew quite a bit (if that was actually possible) when I found out he was a deist. Nowadays, most people don't even know what it is.
edit: I realize part of the reason why this works is that it's a small country in terms of population. Fundie movements have a difficult time reaching critical mass here, although they still manage to do it in some regions.
I lived in Sweden for a year, same deal there. And I don't think I met anybody who ever went to church. Not even on Christmas and Easter.
Definitely showed me how true it is that separating church from state leads to good things for religion.
What America has is a lot of people who are religious to some degree. Yes, these people will run for office and people who have things in common, often from the same religion, will vote for them. In a democracy where 85% of the population was gay, it would be difficult to elect a straight guy or gal as leader. There's nothing shocking about this.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
And Gay or straight wouldn't matter if the country were tolerant. It isn't the 85% straight people of the country keeping the gays out simply because they're the minority. It's the fundies.
Or if Richy is reading this, it's anyone with a spiritual belief. They're all the same kind of nutcase.
I think the problem is religious groups using money and influence to advance agendas within the government. The message to them should be "STAY OUT".
Anyway, I think it's this sense of slipping authority that actually causes them to try to assert themselves politically, even if it's only on a few relatively meaningless symbolic issues (prayer in school, gay marriage, abortion). The funny thing, to me, is that making religion a partisan issue has probably hurt churches and the Republican party in the long run.
You can't have a 2 party system where 1 party claims Christianity in a country as big as the US. It just doesn't make any kind of sense unless you start saying that your party has the 'real' Christians and everyone else is a fag. Which is pretty much the argument today.
As soon as the Catholics give up on abortion and move back to the political Left (where they've traditionally lived through most of the 19th and 20th centuries), I think you'll see a realignment. I know plenty of 'conservative' Catholics who want universal health care, no death penalty, and less militarism. They're just hung up on abortion.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
Huh, good call, I can't believe I didn't think of Israel. I would definately say its a bad thing, or at least something that tends to lead to more bad than good.
Saudi Arabia might be a better example. The Quran is their constitution. Children learn how to spread Islam in government-funded schools.
As Riemman said, separation of church and state is a recent invention. Almost all the major religions contain explicitly political and legal strictures. In Islam, there is no distinction between political life and religion, since the Quran contains the ideal legal code for human civilization. This is something more Westerners need to wrap their heads around before they start talking about "spreading democracy" to the middle east.
I think the only reason we have widespread support for separation of church and state in the West is because nobody actually believes in the Bible anymore—even the evangelicals are pussy-footed about instituting all of them good ol' Old Testament laws. The Enlightenment eroded the moral and rational basis for Christianity.
Thats very interesting, I didn't know that. A state religion that ends up making the state more secular.... I like it! Not that I think I'd be a member myself, but its certainly preferable to a lot of other religious options, in my mind anyway.
I actually had listed Saudi Arabia in my examples, but I edited it out. Namely because while Saudi Arabia is very religious, there is a great deal of strife between the government and the fundamentalists. There have been numerous bombings by al-Queda and other groups against Saudi targets, and big time Saudi crackdowns against them. I think this is another example where the rules of Saudi Arabia may like the idea of using Islam to shore up support for themselves, in reality it doesn't work that way, and they end up fighting the religious elements intead of getting support from them.
On the other hand, plenty of people donate money to MoveOn to advance agendas within the government as do the NAACP, AARP, etc.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the Evangelicals, but it's no surprise that anyone tries to influence policy in the way they see as right.
RedShell, Catholics have a left/right split and aren't part of the religious right. In at least the last 50 years, no party has gotten 60% of the Catholic vote on the federal level and it's rare to even get 55%.
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.