A confessional state would be run by laypeople and thus would have to choose to be confessional. That's the question, should it?
I've not said anything about forcing people to be good. Actually obedience due to fear of Hell is meritorious, albeit less so, however I'll grant you that a person who obeyed God solely because it was socially acceptable would not be meritorious. However, many who would obey God if it were the socially acceptable thing to do, would not consciously be doing it for that reason. You're assuming that appeals to the authority of God are unreasonable, yet (for purposes of this thread) it is accepted as a premise that God exists.
First, no where in Christian tradition is it stated that conversion due to fear of Hell is insufficient, if it were insufficient then practically no one would be saved. Also, as in toed political confessionalism doesn't require, or even indicate, forced conversion.
This rests on the assumption that God expects us to care zilch about the welfare of our fellow man. And is completely contrary to the notion of evangelism.
Logical Fallacies» Begging the Question / Circular Reasoning
As noted, confessionalism does not entail forced conversions. So no one would be forced to choose to follow God, it would simply be easier to.
Do you really think that religious belief is stronger now than in medieval Europe? And Christianity did demonstrate it's ability to draw people without state favor (Ancient Rome), however note that practically as soon as they did so, they began, willingly, to receive the favors of the state, because it simply made sense that the state should support that which is true, just as individuals should.
No it wouldn't. If it did, you would think someone in the first millennium of Christianity would have noticed.
I'm not an evangelical, but I am a Christian, and I voted as such.
In the United States we have a Constitutional prohibition against establishment of a state religion. We have a tradition of welcoming people of different faiths, especially those whose faith made them unwelcome in their country of origin. As such, our government should remain on the sidelines of religion. I don't want the government playing favorites among different religions, or different denominations of a religion.
Obedience due to fear of Hell is not meritorious from the perspective of a loving god. It is simply something control freak humans have found useful. Logically speaking, the only meritorious choice is the one arrived at through the love of the goodness of god. Anything else is calculating and grudging, no matter the polish and veneer one places upon it. The criminal who is beaten into submission has nothing to recommend him to good standing within my loving inner circle. The criminal who has a change of heart and stops because of new found remorse for harming his fellow man does, however. The criminal who acts like he has had a change of heart, and has not, is actually the worst viper of all. I am sure god (if he would but exist) sees into hearts with greater clarity than I.
I have assumed nothing about the unreasonableness of appeals to the authority of god. I have simply asserted that they are irrelevant toward proving through concrete consequences and logic that a law is good toward smoothing relations among people. They add nothing to the argument. That is quite a different thing than saying the appeals are unreasonable.
That is so patently untrue. There are many Christian traditions that reject the threat of hell as a motivator toward salvation, and reject its authenticity when it is so motivated. You have to ask yourself, did the New Testament authors share knowledge of Hell for other reasons than to threaten?
Stronger? Absolutely No. The strongest, most unshakable believing is done by the most ignorant, and we are certainly less ignorant now. However, the believing that is done is certainly more authentic. More authentic because it is done with greater education and because it is done with less support from the state. Now: Was strength of belief the goal? If so, you will need to get people to go back to being ignorant, and then manipulate them into believing.
Keep in mind that your assumptions about how god wants you to relate to government ultimately leads to room for only ONE theology to be favored. For example, if government should favor the truth, then it should favor the theology that advocates speaking in tongues or the one that rejects it, but it cannot favor the truth and favor both. These assumptions you've made about a Christian's role as political citizen put you logically on a path where you can favor only the one true church, whatever that might be. You THINK you are saving Christendom from Secularism, but what you are REALLY doing, in practical terms, is pitting Christian X against Christian Y against Christian Z. Historically, that has been the result of your assumptions. It may take Christians a while to get back to fighting religious wars, but you are pointing the way there.
If government need not always "favor the truth" as you've put it, only sometimes, then when is it correct for the government not to? Why? It is the truth, after all, isn't it?
I disagree it is the role of government to favor the truth. The government's role is to preserve the liberties, the freedom, to discover truth, and to foster education of the sort that will help people to think for themselves. Full stop. It seems to me that Christian theology can be in accord with this. That, in fact, Christian theology is only logical when it is in accord with it. If god wants genuine choice, then he has provided to mankind the means of that choice, and he doesn't wish for his followers to stunt it. If god does not want genuine choice, then he cannot be the loving god that Christians claim he is.
Not at all. If I were a Muslim in Malta or Lichtenstein or whoever would I have the same rights and privileges as a Christian? If not my human right to choose my religion freely is violated
I was counting all of Christianity as a missionary religion.
But the question is, should we have such a prohibition?
On the contrary, perfect charity is not a requirement for salvation. If it were, then only very few would be saved.
If appeals to God are reasonable, then how would they not be logical?
Are any of those traditions older than five hundred years?
Scientific advances hardly make us better than the medievals. Aside from that, how are we less ignorant?
ig·no·rance
ˈignərəns/Submit
noun
1.
lack of knowledge or information.
And, there we have it. The thing that comforts me that your ideas lead us back to the dark ages, and will ultimately lose whatever traction they have today.Of course only one Church can be established.
Did I say the government is to assist us in discovering the truth? I thought I distinctly heard myself say "The government's role is to preserve the liberties, the freedom, to discover truth, and to foster education of the sort that will help people to think for themselves" I will clarify, on account of the unclear commas. The meaning is already implied especially by the direction toward which my arguments were steering. Your interpretation of what I said was permissible, out of context, but was in no way warranted.You say the government should assist in discovering truth, well, what about after the truth has been discovered?
Despite their constituting the majority of Christians, Christian secularists (that is those who are Christians, who believe that the government should be neutral in religious matters) still boggle my mind. Claiming on the one hand that Christianity is the true religion, but on the other that the government should be neutral towards religion. I'm creating this thread as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism.
I'm intending this as a discussion which presupposes the existence of religious truth and which is about how that should influence civil government, obviously atheists, agnostics, deists, and the like will support secularism, but that is uninteresting, this discussion should be between confessionalism and Christian secularists, not the irreligious.
As this is to be a general discussion of confessionalism versus secularism, and not of which religion is correct, if you're a Muslim, a Bhuddist, or belong to some other religion which teaches that every person objectively ought to convert, then please feel free to jump in with your opinions either way, although again this is intended as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism in general, not of which religion is correct/which religion should be supported by the state. When the poll says "not Christian" it's referring only to those who are members of some type of missionary religion.
Yes.
People like you are what the founding fathers tried to protect the government from.
You took my words farther than was warranted by their plain meaning. I did not claim perfect charity was required.
I didn't say that appeals to god are reasonable. I didn't say they were unreasonable. I didn't say they weren't logical. I said, they contributed nothing toward furthering a logical argument; that they are irrelevant.
We cannot know what the oldest theologies are, since we don't have a historical record of what the theology was at the start of the Church. The oldest known theologies are not the oldest theologies, and history shows it takes very few years to completely corrupt an otherwise sound theology. In such a circumstance use of longevity is completely unsound.
<-- We have vastly lower amount of this today than we did during medieval times.
And, there we have it. The thing that comforts me that your ideas lead us back to the dark ages, and will ultimately lose whatever traction they have today.
Did I say the government is to assist us in discovering the truth? I thought I distinctly heard myself say "The government's role is to preserve the liberties, the freedom, to discover truth, and to foster education of the sort that will help people to think for themselves" I will clarify, on account of the unclear commas. The meaning is already implied especially by the direction toward which my arguments were steering. Your interpretation of what I said was permissible, out of context, but was in no way warranted.
The government's role is to preserve the liberties and the freedom to empower people discover truth on their own, and to foster education of the sort that will help people to think for themselves.
The above is the only interpretation that makes the rest of what I said fit, which was:
That, in fact, Christian theology is only logical when it is in accord with it. If god wants genuine choice, then he has provided to mankind the means of that choice, and he doesn't wish for his followers to stunt it. If god does not want genuine choice, then he cannot be the loving god that Christians claim he is.
Buddhism (note the correct spelling) does not "teach that every person objectively ought to convert". Are there Buddhists out there who want to convert people? Yes. In religion there are few absolutes. But I would say that Buddhists believe - as the Buddha taught - that nothing lasts forever, including Buddhism. The idea of converting all of the US, for example, to Buddhism is laughable. Then again the idea of converting the US to any single religion is laughable as well. Even Christians can't agree among themselves.
In the US it is wrong for the government to impose religion, any religion, on the People. No religion should have the power of government behind it. Not your religion nor my religion nor anyone's religion. I do not and would not ask nor expect you to comply with basic Buddhist beliefs. Doing so would be wrong. It would also be wrong for you to expect me to comply with basic Christian beliefs. Wrong is wrong.
So if there is governmental differentiation based on religious beliefs then how are these governments categorized as non secular? It would mean they effectively follow the first amendment then which is the fundamental aspect of a secular government
They're non-secular because they have an official religion.
It's actions that I am concerned with. If they have no legal preferences than there is no danger or reason to be either supportive or non supportive.
If mere words that aren't acted on are what matters in this case it's a nonissue and about as important as a state tree or bird
The Catholic Church does have legal preference in those countries. Individual Catholics don't, however.
Then human rights are being violated as non Catholics are forced to support a religion they don't ascribe to
No they're not forced to do that.
It was my understanding that Buddhism taught that it was the true belief system of our era?
And why should the government not support the true religion?
My question still remains, what about once the truth is discovered, are we to keep forgetting it and rediscovering it ad nauseum?
Do they pay taxes?
No, indeed that is not true. Buddhism even accepts co-faith practitioners. As far as Buddhism is concerned you can be a Buddhist and a Catholic or a Baptist at the same time. Granted I've never met a Buddhist/Baptist but there would be no problem from Buddhism if a Buddhist is also a Christian. I completely understand that it would be a problem for many Christian traditions if a person was a Christian/Buddhist. No matter, that's not what we are discussing.
Buddhism does not teach that it is "the true belief system of our era". It might be helpful to know where you got that information as you have been misinformed.
What is your definition of "true religion"?
Why should the government support true religion? I see no need or purpose to do such a thing. It is unnecessary and its practice would be exclusionary. The overarching question is why should government support any religion?
I am going to skip everything else and focus on this for now. I think it is the key to your error.
You speak of your theology as if it is an objective truth that you have discovered. That it can be proven objectively. In fact, however, it is a thing you believe you are compelled to accept because of your own subjective experience. Truths discovered through subjective experience, if truths can be known at all through this means, must by definition be rediscovered by each person who is to consider believing them, because they must be "proven" by that specific person's subjective experience.
Alternative 1: You have simply chosen to believe your theology without even subjective proof. In which case, you are suggesting the notion of raising a person's merely preferred beliefs to the status of being favored by the state, simply because that person prefers those beliefs. If this is your position, I would like to hear its justification.
Alternative 2 (variation on original): You believe all knowledge is arrived at subjectively, and so there is no objective knowledge. This causes you to arrive at the error of thinking that therefore the subjective knowledge of one person ought to be accepted by another person without that second person achieving their own subjective verification. As I said, this is an error. The only thing achieved by this epistemological view is that the amount of knowledge that must be subjectively verified increases to encompass all knowledge. It doesn't help relieve your epistemological burden, it worsens it. The amount of things you must logically investigate and verify for yourself increases.
Alternative 3: You believe your theology is objectively verifiable. If so, this can be pretty much cleared up right now. Demonstrate the proof.
If they make enough money or own real property.
I was aware that Buddhism accepted co-faith practitioners, but it was my understanding (from what I've been told by Buddhists) that they believe that there were several Bhuddas before Siddhartha and that there will be several after, and that each comes after the previous Buddhism dies out. If they believe that all religions are equal, then why is Buddhism the established religion in parts of Asia?
Because each individual should, and the government is made up of individuals.
3: with respect to the existence of God, I refer you to Aquinas's five ways.
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.
With respect to the Catholic Church being the true Church of Christ, there is Jesus's founding of the Church on Peter, and his promise that error would not prevail upon the Church.
I am done. I am sorry, I didn't realize that your premise for favored treatment was based on an assumption that your theology is objectively true. I don't run across a lot of people who try to claim this, so I just assumed I wasn't discussing this matter under that premise. Usually, I have taken people to mean that they think the arguments you specify give some kind of weight in an argument, but don't rise to objective proof. And, debating whether it does in actuality rise to the level of objective proof would derail the discussion here.
I am uncertain, but I think I would agree that something tested to be objectively true could be afforded favored status, even a religious thing. As for the rest of the theologies you mention in your OP, they don't seem to claim objective proof, and so do not fall under such an argument.
Despite their constituting the majority of Christians, Christian secularists (that is those who are Christians, who believe that the government should be neutral in religious matters) still boggle my mind.
Despite their constituting the majority of Christians, Christian secularists (that is those who are Christians, who believe that the government should be neutral in religious matters) still boggle my mind. Claiming on the one hand that Christianity is the true religion, but on the other that the government should be neutral towards religion. I'm creating this thread as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism.
I'm intending this as a discussion which presupposes the existence of religious truth and which is about how that should influence civil government, obviously atheists, agnostics, deists, and the like will support secularism, but that is uninteresting, this discussion should be between confessionalism and Christian secularists, not the irreligious.
As this is to be a general discussion of confessionalism versus secularism, and not of which religion is correct, if you're a Muslim, a Bhuddist, or belong to some other religion which teaches that every person objectively ought to convert, then please feel free to jump in with your opinions either way, although again this is intended as a discussion of confessionalism vs. secularism in general, not of which religion is correct/which religion should be supported by the state. When the poll says "not Christian" it's referring only to those who are members of some type of missionary religion.
I am done. I am sorry, I didn't realize that your premise for favored treatment was based on an assumption that your theology is objectively true. I don't run across a lot of people who try to claim this, so I just assumed I wasn't discussing this matter under that premise. Usually, I have taken people to mean that they think the arguments you specify give some kind of weight in an argument, but don't rise to objective proof. And, debating whether it does in actuality rise to the level of objective proof would derail the discussion here.
I am uncertain, but I think I would agree that something tested to be objectively true could be afforded favored status, even a religious thing. As for the rest of the theologies you mention in your OP, they don't seem to claim objective proof, and so do not fall under such an argument.
I don't understand, what's the issue here? The government acts by force, by coercion. Matters of faith can be resolved only on voluntary basis, by definition. OF COURSE the government should be separated from religion - for the sake of the religion's integrity, to begin with.
If they make enough money or own real property.
Buddhists don't seek converts. On the contrary, almost all exposure (some 29 years) I've had, anyone I've met, come across, listened to, et al. has expressly stated that what the Buddha taught could/should be brought back and applied to your native religion as it is not a deistic/theistic discipline. But I digress...
As it is, religion, the outward manifestation is merely ethics. Ontologically and ritually there is not a discussion there as I don't think anyone is calling for The liturgy of the Hours, salat, or zazen to be forced into practice on anyone or forcing a particular, big daddy in the sky do what he says or he'll spank you belief onto anyone. It is simply a matter of conscience.
As a matter of ethics, a matter of conscience, no religion today, major religions of today are in conflict with one another. Certain ones are more strict or more helpful depending on your point of view on how it assists you the individual to live your life morally according to those tenets but they all teach the same thing essentially.
Secularism is utilitarian and in that it makes people just as much as things, objects of use. It creates a society of production and use rather than a society of persons, it treats a person no different than it does a hammer, or a wrench, a car, it treats them as things which are to be used, not people to be respected as such.
Essentially, do we want a society which functions in a meaningful way or do we simply want meaningless function?
Answering directly as you've defined things, Christian secularist are neither Christian nor secular. They cannot be Christian if they allow for the secularist view that denies Christian truth because that would be to deny reality itself. They cannot be secular because their conscience would put people over purpose and respect people as persons rather than objects with no greater purpose other than function.
All that being said and I know a swarm of killers bees will swoop down upon my head but as the dominate culture of a country controls the government of said country, like it or not our country has been ruled by Christian conscience. (For the most part anyhow up until recently) Today we are seeing that slowly ebb away and secularism become the dominant force in society, in government, and to me, that's just unconscionable.
does the government give some of that tax money to the catholic church or its subsidiaries?
I don't know for each country, as they each have their own particular arrangements with the Church. I know Costa Rica pays the clergy in that country.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?