What if you owned your own country...?

[Mari]

Ah, smart. Very smart indeed!

[Nurvingiel]

Lotesse: Aw, give Lief a break. I spent something like 3 hours writing two posts the other day.

OldHippie: Jimmy Hoffa for the win! Haha.

Ingwe: Your country is awesome. I think we should establish closer economic ties.

Originally Posted by Mari

Ingwe, I like your country.
But how come the population is growing so fast?
And how in the world are you going to put them all on a Cuba-sized island?

Well, his country will be dense but if it's the size of Cuba than it's 110'860 square kilometers, and with a population of 240 million, that would be about 2165 people per square kilometer. That's not too bad, he just has to have good city planning.

Originally Posted by Mari

By the way Elvis, or should I say Lief: aren't you supposed to be dead?

That's what he wants you to think!

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Relativists tend to hold to the belief that all religions are equally valid, that absolute truth either doesn't exist or can't be known, and that all belief systems are equal since no one can know the truth. Things like that. It allows an enormous variety of behavior to all be acceptable. Right and wrong are wholly dependent on perspective and have no absolute meaning that is independent of humans. Therefore people can make up their own ideas of right and wrong. That inevitably results in a lot of behavior that I see as wrong and a lot of looseness about moral principle, since anyone can make for themselves whatever principles they wish and those principles have no absolute value independent of our limited, temporary and entirely fallible (and equal) human judgment.

Ah, I see, thanks for the explanation. I don't really have a problem with relativism, but it's not my thing either.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes, I think we probably would allow Judaism.

Cool. Your liberal neighbour, Nurvingidania, has more influence over your country's culture than you'd probably like to admit. Of course, you influence us a lot too since we have many immigrants from your country move here.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Self-defense is understandable. Revolution to depose an oppressive regime is understandable. However, what I see as a huge difference between what I would attempt and what they are trying to do is that I would not try to force my vision into law. I might use legal means, or I might try evangelism, or conversations with people. Peaceful means, turning the other cheek and such. I would not try to violently overthrow people in order to force them to accept my view. Their use of violence to spread their vision of a godly state is not acceptable to me. To use violence to enforce laws that have been established in the state and which you believe to be right is understandable, but to use violence to force those laws into the state in spite of the wish of the other people or of the legal government is not something I see as valid.

Now we're getting a little OT since of course you are allowed to establish a theocracy if you want.

Speaking of which, I think your country might fall under the definition of a theocracy. I think that you are establishing a "government of a state by immediate divine guidance," but I'm not sure since Mirriam-Webster on-line has given a really crap definition (but here's the link anyway).

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Actually the date the Catholic Inquisition started to be used was in the 13th century, so they were able to maintain ideological purity without it for about a thousand two hundred years or so. I just wasn't counting the time period before they gained political power in my reckoning. I calculate a lot from the time of Constantine the First. That's not a big deal.

Yeah, no worries. I was only asking because you can't really tell if people who are now deceased were, in fact, as ideologically pure as you think they were. I suspect they weren't. They were human beings after all.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Anyway, the Catholic Church set out its beliefs and published them. There are records of their stated beliefs, so it can be seen how things have changed over time and how they have not changed. When the popes made decrees, those were recorded. Basically there were a lot of records and there is a good deal of history available on how they acted. We also have the scriptures and many of the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Catholic teachings are based upon those writings, those of tradition, the Bible and the decrees of the Church councils, if I'm not mistaken. Gwaimir would know more about this than I do. But one can see from the statements, records and decrees they've made in the past whether or not there have been significant changes.

True, and don't forget Orthodoxy as well. They might argue that they're the ideologically pure ones, and Catholics, Baptists, Protestants and all of us are in the wrong.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

*Examines it and then goes and researches for a bit.*

Hm. Looks like you're right.

I learned a lot in this thread too.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't think I'd have it allowed in my country at all. Modern technology and economic strength make it unnecessary. I don't see it as always, regardless of the circumstances, completely immoral, but for the above reasons I wouldn't have it allowed in my country. And I would reject some forms of slavery because I see them as immoral.

Er... what kind of forms of slavery are there?

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes. The one person might want to avoid starving and the other person might be unable to afford feeding him if he doesn't earn his keep by working without pay. So in that circumstance, certainly slavery could be acceptable. Economic conditions in past centuries or millenia (depending on where you were located) were much harder than they are now.

I agree with Mari about slavery.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Historically, yes. In some Third World countries today, maybe. Not in countries that can afford other, better systems, though. For instance, we can afford to take people prisoner and hold them in cells. People in the past may not have had the food resources to keep feeding them in prison all the time, though, and might have needed to have them work to earn their keep. Simultaneously, they could not release such people because they may have been criminals or prisoners of war. So in those situations, slavery seems logical and I don't see an alternative. Economic conditions and technology make this no longer necessary, though.

Also, this is not an excuse to kidnap people and make them work for your own economic profit. That is disgusting. Prisoners of war is one thing, as is a situation where someone is unable to pay a debt if there is not an economic situation in the country that can cope with it in a better way.

There are many forms of slavery and reasons for slavery. Some are bad while others are acceptable, in my view.

(Bolding mine.) The mind boggles. I can't believe that a rational, decent person such as yourself actually thinks that sometimes, in some third world countries, slavery is actually acceptable. Slavery definitely occurs, but for reasons of extreme hardship, unrest and poverty. It is a tragedy that such a situation exists at all, and the solution is to try to alleviate the situation, not accept slavery. The only acceptable solution is one where there is absolutely no slavery anywhere. The idea that it's okay for one human being to own another, regardless of the situation, is absolutely disgusting.

[Lotesse]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Lotesse: Aw, give Lief a break. I spent something like 3 hours writing two posts the other day.

Never! NEVER!! Not in a million years of Sundays, dear Nurvi, will I ever give Lief Ericson here a break.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Cool. Your liberal neighbour, Nurvingidania, has more influence over your country's culture than you'd probably like to admit. Of course, you influence us a lot too since we have many immigrants from your country move here.

Lol!

. . . I think not . I actually think we're a very, very happy country and most content right where we are.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Now we're getting a little OT since of course you are allowed to establish a theocracy if you want.

Speaking of which, I think your country might fall under the definition of a theocracy. I think that you are establishing a "government of a state by immediate divine guidance," but I'm not sure since Mirriam-Webster on-line has given a really crap definition (but here's the link anyway).

Hmm. I'm not sure quite what "government . . . by immediate divine guidance" means. Does that mean God speaking to the officials and telling them what to do all the time? Or God telling them what to do some of the time? Or them basing some of their decisions off the Bible- does that count? Or them basing some of their decisions and laws off the Bible?

It seems a somewhat weak definition, for not only is it not very explicit about this, but really every government official has some kinds of beliefs regarding theology, even if his beliefs are all unbeliefs, and his behaviors are going to be influenced by his true beliefs. If he thinks things are fine that a Christian thinks are wrong, that often will come partly from his personal views about God or reality, from his personal philosophy. Since everyone's beliefs about God motivate their behavior for good or ill, beliefs about or of religion are going to always influence how government is run.

Even laws based on secularism are of a religious nature, for secularism involves certain assumptions about reality and about God. Saying that it simply has no assumptions is false- it does have assumptions, underlying beliefs. One assumption is that that religions shouldn't be in places of power, that humans can come up with better ideas than any kind of God can. For why rely on humanity if one can get better ideas from God? But seeing as the idea that humans can come up with better ideas than God can is clearly ludicrous, secularism must assume further that God chooses not to involve himself with people or for some other reason his will can't be known or relied on, or he doesn't exist.

It's logical that if God existed and could make his will known to men, then we wouldn't need secularism. Therefore he either does not exist or does not make his will known to men. These ideas are all essential backing for the secularist framework in the government. If we did not assume them, we would not place human judgment over all religions and thus over the will of any god. And these founding principles of secularism are all evil lies from Satan. Secularism is a belief system like any other, and it has definite ties to religion in that it has ideas about God and establishes laws based on those ideas. So that's a form of theocracy. If it's not immediate divine guidance, it's immediate guidance by ideas about the divine. Which is probably what is meant by immediate divine guidance anyway. Secularism is an ideology based upon religious ideas that underlies our Western laws.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Yeah, no worries. I was only asking because you can't really tell if people who are now deceased were, in fact, as ideologically pure as you think they were. I suspect they weren't. They were human beings after all.

I'm very curious what Gwaimir's response to this would be.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

True, and don't forget Orthodoxy as well. They might argue that they're the ideologically pure ones, and Catholics, Baptists, Protestants and all of us are in the wrong.

Yes, maybe. I'm sure they don't think they're wrong .

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Er... what kind of forms of slavery are there?

Well, there's the kind that involves a rich person using slaves instead of some other form of economics because slavery is most profitable for him. He has other options, but he doesn't take them because he's a greedy stinker or a racist. That's a kind of slave owner that I find to be acting in an immoral way.

There are probably other variants of that.

The kinds that I was arguing might be justified are cases where there's no other way to pay a debt one owes other than slavery, and cases where you take prisoners of war but can't afford to keep them prisoners while feeding them from your own food reserves, for that would deplete your storage, and neither can you let them go, because they'd still be your enemies and might attack you again, so your only solution is to make them work while being prisoners, which comes out to slavery. In those cases, necessity is involved. Also cases where you can't afford to employ someone, but you could afford to feed him or her if he or she worked a lot for you, so you take care of him or her while he or she is your slave. He or she has no other recourse and neither do you.

In cases where one is just exploiting other people and abusing them, slavery is certainly not justified.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I agree with Mari about slavery.

What she said sounded right to me too.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

(Bolding mine.) The mind boggles. I can't believe that a rational, decent person such as yourself actually thinks that sometimes, in some third world countries, slavery is actually acceptable. Slavery definitely occurs, but for reasons of extreme hardship, unrest and poverty. It is a tragedy that such a situation exists at all, and the solution is to try to alleviate the situation, not accept slavery.

My response is that sometimes slavery is the only way to alleviate it. You see, you're assuming that better technology and economics exist in the situation than I am.

But in cases where slavery involves one person just exploiting other people, it is not justified. When the slave owner has no choice but is required to do what he's doing out of necessity (as in cases of prisoners of war), or has enslaved someone temporarily until that person has payed a debt he owes, then slavery is justified.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

The only acceptable solution is one where there is absolutely no slavery anywhere. The idea that it's okay for one human being to own another, regardless of the situation, is absolutely disgusting.

Sorry, I definitely can't agree with you on that.

Originally Posted by Lotesse

Never! NEVER!! Not in a million years of Sundays, dear Nurvi, will I ever give Lief Ericson here a break.

I would have expected no less! Spoken as a true-blooded Rohirrim out to slay the orcs .

Though honestly, I'm not actually that bad. Or at least I don't think I am. *Tries to sound extremely convincing.* Maybe I should have left these last three sentences out of this paragraph . . . might have been more convincing . . .

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm very curious what Gwaimir's response to this would be.

Gwaimir's response is: it is very, very hard to know what the theological views of the average man on the street in the medieval period were; we basically can only judge the views of the learned men, from multitudinous sources; letters, summae, tractates, etc. There is just not that much information available about what the many were like in that time period; the best indications we have, really, are popular movements, such as the Flagellants, the appearance of the Cathar and Albigensian sects, popular support for the crusades, and things of this nature.

As for the learned, they didn't always agree, but it wasn't very often that they would go against the dogmatic teaching of the Church, if that's what you mean by "ideologically pure".

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

And these founding principles of secularism are all evil lies from Satan. Secularism is a belief system like any other, and it has definite ties to religion in that it has ideas about God and establishes laws based on those ideas. So that's a form of theocracy.

That is the weirdest view of secularism I have yet come across. Secularism just says some matters, like the state, should be separate from religion. But the idea that humans can do things better than gods is one I have never seen in secularism. Secularism is not necessarily anti-religion, religion is allowed its own place, just not in the driver's seat.

Are you sure you're not just trying to make secularism sound worse than it actually is, just because you don't like it?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

That is the weirdest view of secularism I have yet come across. Secularism just says some matters, like the state, should be separate from religion. But the idea that humans can do things better than gods is one I have never seen in secularism. Secularism is not necessarily anti-religion, religion is allowed its own place, just not in the driver's seat.

You're saying that secularism says religion and state should be separate, but you're not questioning why secularism mandates that they should be separate. I'm trying to examine the assumptions.

It makes logical sense that God (if he exists), having made the universe, would know how to do things better than humans. So it's logical we'd want his involvement in our governments if we could actually truly have it, right?

If your answer to that is yes, then the primary reasons I can see for separating church and state would be that either God doesn't exist or humans can't know what his will is. For if God exists and humans can know his will, then it makes sense to say that church and state should be quite strongly entwined, seeing as religion is the means by which people claim to know God and his will, and God might have ideas about how a state should be run that work better than the ideas humans have. If God doesn't exist, though, or God's will can't be known by humans, then it would be very logical for us to turn to secularism.

Many Christians nowadays are afraid of a political church because they think political power would corrupt it. There probably would indeed be some corruption. However, the idea that this is a good enough reason to separate church and state is a similar one to the "God exists but his will can't be known" category of reasoning for secularism that I listed above, because it assumes that he exists, but he can't make his will known to politicians.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Are you sure you're not just trying to make secularism sound worse than it actually is, just because you don't like it?

Eärniel, I don't just "not like it" randomly. There's a reason I don't like secularism, and the reasoning I'm giving you above is it.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Guys, you have to understand. Slavery is not an abstract issue, or an historical footnote. It's a current event, and not only in the 3rd world.

Here, from the department of state website.

In FY 2006, the U.S. Government obligated approximately $74 million to 154 international anti-trafficking in persons (TIP) projects in 70 countries and $28.5 million to 70 domestic anti-TIP projects. These projects are working to ensure human trafficking is prevented, the survivors are protected, and the traffickers are put in jail. They are funded through the coordinated efforts and program funds of the Departments of State, Justice, Labor, Health and Human Services, and USAID. http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/fs/07/83372.htm

They're spending twenty eight and a half million dollars on anti-slavery activity IN the USA. Approximately 600,000 to 800,000 victims annually are trafficked across international borders worldwide, and between 14,500 and 17,500 of those victims are trafficked into the U.S., according to the U.S. Department of State. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/a...act_human.html

It's a big problem. Now.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You're saying that secularism says religion and state should be separate, but you're not questioning why secularism mandates that they should be separate. I'm trying to examine the assumptions.

It makes logical sense that God (if he exists), having made the universe, would know how to do things better than humans. So it's logical we'd want his involvement in our governments if we could actually truly have it, right?

If your answer to that is yes, then the primary reasons I can see for separating church and state would be that either God doesn't exist or humans can't know what his will is.

Historically, the primary reason for separation of religion and state was that humans did know what God's will was.

Unfortunately, it turned out that they all knew different things about His will, and were quite willing to slaughter anyone who disagreed. After watching the horrors of the Wars of Religion engulf Christendom for more than a century, people like Jefferson and Madison, drawing largely on the works of John Locke, decided it was far better to keep religion out of the public sphere, rather than risk a repeat.

(Jefferson explicitly extends tolerance to Jews, Mohametans and Hindoos; Madison wanted to go as far as to ban official chaplains from the Army and Navy.)

That is why the US Constitution opens with the phrase "We the People". The Founding Fathers deliberately chose to keep God out of the Constitution, after much debate, which is why Patrick Henry denounced it, and many devout Americans rejected it as a Godless abhomination well into the 19th Century.

[GrayMouser]

Should be "which is one reason why Patrick henry denounced it..."; he had others.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Historically, the primary reason for separation of religion and state was that humans did know what God's will was.

Unfortunately, it turned out that they all knew different things about His will, and were quite willing to slaughter anyone who disagreed.

We both know that atrocities have been done in the name of religion, and in the name of atheism, Communism, and virtually any belief system. That does not mean that God's will is unknowable or that it should be disconnected from government. For myself, I personally believe that because of freedom of religion, hundreds of millions of children have been legally murdered through abortions worldwide, a slaughter that far exceeds the worst excesses of the Religious Wars.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

After watching the horrors of the Wars of Religion engulf Christendom for more than a century, people like Jefferson and Madison, drawing largely on the works of John Locke, decided it was far better to keep religion out of the public sphere, rather than risk a repeat.

(Jefferson explicitly extends tolerance to Jews, Mohametans and Hindoos; Madison wanted to go as far as to ban official chaplains from the Army and Navy.)

That is why the US Constitution opens with the phrase "We the People". The Founding Fathers deliberately chose to keep God out of the Constitution, after much debate, which is why Patrick Henry denounced it, and many devout Americans rejected it as a Godless abhomination well into the 19th Century.

I didn't know Patrick Henry denounced it or that he did so for that reason, though I think he was right to do so. I understood that the Enlightenment thought and separation of church and state stemmed from the religious wars. I think that the devil wanted that result and fed the religious wars partly to achieve it and partly to deceive many Christians. Secularist ideology rests on the foundation that either God does not exist or his will can't be known, but the validity of both of those two claims cannot be known.

[Mari]

Do you believe you can really seperate state and religion? Even when there is an official line, if all the practisers are Prostestant for example, their actions etc. will also be Protestant, because the law is just a written thing, the interpreters and users are the people using and shaping the result of that law.
I don't believe secularism to be a big problem, because there wouldn't be much secularism in practice if everyone believed the same things and had the same strong faith.
Seriously, in my opinion trying to fight secularism is fighting not the cause but the consequence.

I always think it's funny that people see Christianity as 1 whole, just the same with the Islam etc., not realising there are many factions and many different interpretations of those same holy texts and believes. But that is a different thing.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You're saying that secularism says religion and state should be separate, but you're not questioning why secularism mandates that they should be separate.

I have. I just think the reasons are different than the ones you posted.

It makes logical sense that God (if he exists), having made the universe, would know how to do things better than humans. So it's logical we'd want his involvement in our governments if we could actually truly have it, right?

Is it? What if he wants us to find out for ourselves? Parents don't make their children's homework either.

If your answer to that is yes, then the primary reasons I can see for separating church and state would be that either God doesn't exist or humans can't know what his will is.

I see a more practical reason for turning to secularism. In my view, secularism doesn't quite care for the questions of whether god(s) exists or whether their intentions can be understood. It tries to make nations function regardless of what the answers to those questions are, and of whether humanity will ever even know those answers.

There are many different religions in the world. Fact. They all think they've got it right. Fact. Our societies/nations are a mix of several religions and they're all different from one another. How to pick one to rule an entire nation with it? Secularism refuses to choose one above the others, as far as state control is involved. It allows people the freedom of religion, but denies them a tool to enforce it on others.

Eärniel, I don't just "not like it" randomly. There's a reason I don't like secularism, and the reasoning I'm giving you above is it.

I didn't mean any offense. It's just that I found your description of secularism so strange, that I wondered why this was. If I go by your posts, you are a very religious person and care much for your beliefs. To me, your dislike for secularism seems to stem more from the idea that secularism imposes undue limits on your religion. And because you care for your religion, secularism is a negative thing to you, and so one to which you contribute more negative aspects than it in essense possesses. All I can say is, that is just how it looked to me.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Is it? What if he wants us to find out for ourselves? Parents don't make their children's homework either.

Looking back at history and at the great variety of sometimes very nasty ideas people have come up with, I have doubts as to how good humanity is at coming up with the best way to govern by ourselves. Neither does it seem very nice to me for God to leave us to muddle our way through it on our own, when we do such a bad job at it.

When Christianity first came onto the world scene, the government had developed to the point that it was essentially one madman doing whatever he wanted to whoever he wanted, living in the most bloated opulence imaginable, he and his nobility having all their whims met by countless slaves, the emperor claiming to be God, keeping the people happy with gladiatorial games, and almost invariably ending up getting himself assassinated. There were a handful of good emperors, but very few and far between. My suspicion is that they got an F on their homework . So I think that after they had proven themselves utter failures, God took power out of their hands and placed it in the hands of Christians, thus creating a kingdom that lasted over a thousand years.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Parents don't make their children's homework either.

Well, this is an assumption about what God wants in his relationship with us. In matters of religion, it seems to me wiser not to go on assumptions but rather on evidence. I think that God can and has proved which religion is true, but he will do so again for anyone who is really seeking.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I see a more practical reason for turning to secularism. In my view, secularism doesn't quite care for the questions of whether god(s) exists or whether their intentions can be understood. It tries to make nations function regardless of what the answers to those questions are, and of whether humanity will ever even know those answers.

This does indeed ignore those questions, but the trouble is that those questions are crucial to whether or not secularism even has a right to exist. For if God does exist and can make his will known, what if he wants to have a voice in our governments and laws for our benefit? The view of secularism you have proposed walks over that possibility without even giving it an ear, since you said it doesn't care what the answers to those questions are. I can't see that as practical.

According to the Bible, God guarantees that he will communicate and commune with those who will listen to him. Ignoring that option completely without even quite caring about its existence seems to show a glorified view of humanity's abilities to work things out correctly (which is unjustified, considering human history) and a rather odd indifference to examining and perhaps making use of an Alternative that might otherwise extravagantly bless human civilization.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

There are many different religions in the world. Fact. They all think they've got it right. Fact. Our societies/nations are a mix of several religions and they're all different from one another. How to pick one to rule an entire nation with it?

So basically, God can't make his will known. He can't reveal which of these religions is right, so we can't know what his will is and it would be silly to pick randomly. I agree that it would be silly to pick randomly, but I think that it doesn't make sense to just assume that God can't reveal which religion is true.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Secularism refuses to choose one above the others, as far as state control is involved. It allows people the freedom of religion, but denies them a tool to enforce it on others.

And there lies a very serious problem, in my view. Religious systems are very deeply entwined with morality. People's moral ideas and behavior tend to stem from their perspectives on religion. So in a democratic system, if no religion is preferred over any other, then no moral system tends to be preferred. So even though conservative Christianity or Islam might reject stem cell research, we have freedom of religion, so the government might just fund stem cell research whatever these religious groups think. So you see, if freedom of religion exists, freedom of morality exists. Those religious groups can't impose their moral ideas upon the population. And that goes for lots of other laws in modern times too. If one religion is separated from state, one religion's idea of morality also is separated from state, and if God happens to be speaking truly through that religion, then people are enabled to thrust all kinds of ideas into law that are opposed to God's will. The door is then as open for immoral laws as it is for moral laws.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I didn't mean any offense. It's just that I found your description of secularism so strange, that I wondered why this was.

Yeah, it's logical it sounded strange. It's not what you've grown up hearing. If you lived two or three centuries before this, it wouldn't have sounded at all strange and you might believe it yourself. That is really worth thinking about, in my view. I've thought a lot about it. We all grow up with one side of the story-the side that the majority ended up choosing-but the fact that the majority chose it and that argument ended up fading away does not make the final decision right. We learn the arguments for our current culture, laws and government, and we learn why we think our system is better than past ones. We learn about some of the arguments of those who have believed otherwise, but we also learn the refutations for those arguments and we don't often research their positions in any degree of detail at all. We grow up in our cultures, believing in our cultures and in most of our laws and governments. We are all very, very heavily biased, and most of us are without ever even realizing it.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

If I go by your posts, you are a very religious person and care much for your beliefs. To me, your dislike for secularism seems to stem more from the idea that secularism imposes undue limits on your religion. And because you care for your religion, secularism is a negative thing to you, and so one to which you contribute more negative aspects than it in essense possesses. All I can say is, that is just how it looked to me.

I think my dislike stems partly from "the idea that secularism imposes undue limits on [my] religion," and perhaps my dislike originally came from that. So I think you're probably partly right. But I wouldn't say that it stems "more from the idea that secularism imposes undue limits on [my] religion." My dislike is primarily founded on what I see secularism's essence as being and what I see secularism creating in our countries' laws. The undue limits on my religion are just one piece of that whole.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

Do you believe you can really seperate state and religion? Even when there is an official line, if all the practisers are Prostestant for example, their actions etc. will also be Protestant, because the law is just a written thing, the interpreters and users are the people using and shaping the result of that law.

I've argued that too, and I think that there is a good deal of truth in it. The only way to truly separate church and state would be to remove the right to vote from all people that declare themselves to have a religion. I see the power of Christians to gain political power and the ability of religious voters to influence elections as a back door that our country still does have. I think that that back door protected our country a lot for the first couple centuries of our existence. Almost everyone was Christian, so they could get away with having religious freedom. Now our laws have caught up to us, though, for there are many people in the US who have strongly differing values systems and they all have an equal right to make those values a place in our laws.

Originally Posted by Mari

I always think it's funny that people see Christianity as 1 whole, just the same with the Islam etc., not realising there are many factions and many different interpretations of those same holy texts and believes.

That's true.

I find the great fragmentation of Christianity to be very sad. For where there are many contradictions, there are bound to be many people in error in the debated beliefs. I expect that many Muslims would probably have the same perspective on the fragmentation of Islam.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have doubts as to how good humanity is at coming up with the best way to govern by ourselves. Neither does it seem very nice to me for God to leave us to muddle our way through it on our own, when we do such a bad job at it.

Who knows, we might learn yet. Adversity can be a good tuitor.

Well, this is an assumption about what God wants in his relationship with us. In matters of religion, it seems to me wiser not to go on assumptions but rather on evidence.

It is interesting enough to ponder the possibilities, which is what I intended, but I don't go as far as to make assumptions about it. One could also question whether there is any solid evidence in religion since it deals primarily with matters of belief. There is a massive argument possible there. But that would bring us too far from the original topic.

This does indeed ignore those questions, but the trouble is that those questions are crucial to whether or not secularism even has a right to exist. [...] The view of secularism you have proposed walks over that possibility without even giving it an ear, since you said it doesn't care what the answers to those questions are. I can't see that as practical.

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Those questions may be crucial in a religious context, but to put simplistically: your beliefs don't influence how you ride a bike. Some things can be done without any religious context being necessary.

And there lies a very serious problem, in my view. Religious systems are very deeply entwined with morality. People's moral ideas and behavior tend to stem from their perspectives on religion. So in a democratic system, if no religion is preferred over any other, then no moral system tends to be preferred.

This goes back to a discussion that I have seen being touched upon many times in the religious topics on the 'moot. Whether or not a moral system can exist/originate outside a religion. I think it can, but I know many of the religious mooters find this improbable or impossible.

Yeah, it's logical it sounded strange. It's not what you've grown up hearing. If you lived two or three centuries before this, it wouldn't have sounded at all strange and you might believe it yourself.

True enough. I am well aware my views and beliefs may have been very differently from the ones I hold now if I had been born and raised in another geographical or temporal society. Sometimes I enjoy digging in and trying to find the roots of why I and other people think the way we do.

However, three centuries ago we may never have had this conversation. I probably had been married to a man not of my choosing, had half a dozen kids, may have been a granny, and very likely never had a decent education to even understand these topics. If I hadn't been killed off at 6 by a child-disease, that is. Let others praise ancient times, I say, I'm glad I'm born in these.

Suffice to say, I suppose, that your country will be a theocracy, and mine will be a secular state and we'll both be very confortable with it.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

It is interesting enough to ponder the possibilities, which is what I intended, but I don't go as far as to make assumptions about it. One could also question whether there is any solid evidence in religion since it deals primarily with matters of belief. There is a massive argument possible there. But that would bring us too far from the original topic.

I guess it would.

*Struggles with all his might to restrain himself, struggles, struggles, but just has to bite out from between his teeth,* two of my cousins saw angels yesterday!

And that is a true story.

Given what you just said, I just had to remark on that .

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. Those questions may be crucial in a religious context, but to put simplistically: your beliefs don't influence how you ride a bike. Some things can be done without any religious context being necessary.

True. Managing traffic doesn't have much to do with religion. But matters that do involve issues of morality do. Abortion, homosexual marriage, euthenasia, stem cell research, all of those kinds of issues are closely tied up with morality and thus with religion. It would be very helpful to know what God's perspective on those matters is and to have his will done in the government.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

This goes back to a discussion that I have seen being touched upon many times in the religious topics on the 'moot. Whether or not a moral system can exist/originate outside a religion. I think it can, but I know many of the religious mooters find this improbable or impossible.

But the understanding that exists in a moral system outside of religion is limited by our own human knowledge and ideas. Contentment with that doesn't take into account the possibility of how much better a government might be that listens to God and does his will, and has the authority to enact God's will in law. The consequences are bound to be so much more lovely, provided of course that God really does exist and wants to make his will known to humans. But we needn't assume that- he can and does prove his reality to humans. We would be so very much more blessed if our governments listened to God.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

two of my cousins saw angels yesterday!

And that is a true story.

And I was asked, in all seriousness, if I was an angel, just this afternoon. I didn't ask the guy if he was a relative of yours, maybe I should have.

That is also a true story.

[GrayMouser]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Looking back at history and at the great variety of sometimes very nasty ideas people have come up with, I have doubts as to how good humanity is at coming up with the best way to govern by ourselves. Neither does it seem very nice to me for God to leave us to muddle our way through it on our own, when we do such a bad job at it.

When Christianity first came onto the world scene, the government had developed to the point that it was essentially one madman doing whatever he wanted to whoever he wanted, living in the most bloated opulence imaginable, he and his nobility having all their whims met by countless slaves, the emperor claiming to be God, keeping the people happy with gladiatorial games, and almost invariably ending up getting himself assassinated. There were a handful of good emperors, but very few and far between. My suspicion is that they got an F on their homework . So I think that after they had proven themselves utter failures, God took power out of their hands and placed it in the hands of Christians, thus creating a kingdom that lasted over a thousand years.

Yeah, we call it the Dark Ages

What Kingdom was that? The Holy Roman Empire?

Actually, there's a reason it was given that name- the same reason that Byzantium called itself the Second Rome, Moscow called itself the Third Rome, and the heads of Russia and Germany were called Czar and Kaiser.

For fifteen hundred years Europe looked back on the Roman Empire as a lost time of unity, peace and prosperity, compared with the turmoil and strife that followed (just as the Chinese lok back on the Tang, the Indians look back to Ashoka and the Arabs look back to the Caliphate.)

And for the most part, they were right. After the establishment of the Empire, even under the worst of the Julio-Claudians - Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero- the Empire itself was pretty well run by the bureaucracy. The grain ships arrived on time, the roads and aqueducts were extended, the Legions guarded the borders and suppressed piracy and banditry, trade and business expanded.

" And what have they ever given us in return?!
Xerxes: The aqueduct?
Reg: What?
Xerxes: The aqueduct.
Reg: Oh. Yeah, yeah. They did give us that. Uh, that's true. Yeah.
Commando 3: And sanitation.
Loretta: Oh, yeah, the sanitation, Reg. Remember what the city used to be like.
Reg: Yeah. All right. I'll grant you the aqueduct and the sanitation are two things that the Romans have done.
Matthias: And the roads!
Reg: Well, yeah. Obviously the roads. I mean, the roads go without saying, don't they? But apart from the sanitation, the aqueduct, and the roads--
Commando: Irrigation.
Xerxes: Medicine.
Commandos: Huh? Heh? Huh...
Commando 2: Education.
Commandos: Ohh...
Reg: Yeah, yeah. All right. Fair enough.
Commando 1: And the wine.
Commandos: Oh, yes. Yeah...
Francis: Yeah. Yeah, that's something we'd really miss, Reg, if the Romans left. Huh.
Commando: Public baths.
Loretta: And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.
Francis: Yeah, they certainly know how to keep order. Let's face it. They're the only ones who could in a place like this!
Commandos: Hehh, heh. Heh heh heh heh heh heh heh.
Reg: But apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
Xerxes: Brought peace?
Reg: Oh, pea-- Shut up!"

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

Yeah, we call it the Dark Ages

I know that . It's extremely interesting to me. That era is considered, "the Dark Ages," partly as opposed to the Enlightenment and "Age of Reason." Now we live in a post-Christian culture, and it's partly for that reason that we label the past to have been a Dark Age. And now we know better, or are "enlightened."

There are a lot of public misconceptions about the "Dark Ages," though.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The public idea of the Middle Ages as a supposed "Dark Age" is also reflected in misconceptions regarding the study of nature during this period. The contemporary historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers discuss the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a "time of ignorance and superstition", the blame of which is to be laid on the Christian Church for allegedly "placing the word of religious authorities over personal experience and rational activity", and emphasize that this view is essentially a caricature.[4] For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the 19th century[5] and is still very common in popular culture is the supposition that the people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat. This claim was mistaken, as Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."[6][5] Misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of natural philosophy", are all reported by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research.[7]

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

What Kingdom was that? The Holy Roman Empire?

I'm referring to all the territories, Russia, the Byzantine Empire and the West, that were dominated by Christianity. I start with Constantine the First, the first Christian Emperor, and calculate on up to the time of the Reformation and the fracturing of Christendom.

Originally Posted by GrayMouser

For fifteen hundred years Europe looked back on the Roman Empire as a lost time of unity, peace and prosperity

If you look at the following list of civil wars, you'll see that in the First Century BC there were twelve civil wars. Augustus brought an end to it and established peace that would last and prevent civil war for about a hundred years. After that, civil war began to break it apart again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_civil_wars

One useful basis for comparison between a major part of Christendom and the Roman Empire is that, if one does the math, Roman Emperors were significantly more likely than Byzantine Emperors to be forcibly deposed. Out of the 44 Roman emperors, 29 were forcibly deposed, and of the Byzantine 87 emperors, 47 were. Also, it is worth noting that the 44 Roman emperors had power for a period of about 300 years, while the Byzantines were in power for about a thousand. If the Romans had had as many emperors as the Byzantines but had kept going through them at the same rate, their empire would have lasted 600 years, not the Byzantine thousand. The source I'm getting these numbers from is somewhat incomplete, though, so that might adjust these numbers. My personal opinion is that in view of the visible trend, any such adjustment would not likely favor the Romans.

http://www.allempires.com/article/in...roman_emperors

Civil wars were very common in the Empire's history, and the Empire's territorial gains were all made by right of conquest. On the other hand, Christianity's territorial gains during the Medieval Ages largely (though not entirely) were made by evangelism.

Roman unity and peace are myths, except during the Pax Romana. The era was full of civil wars, conquests of surrounding peoples and the assassinations of their emperors.

But I agree with you that Rome made many, many major achievements. There was often a downside, such as the fact that the prosperity you mention was almost all the result of slave labor and the exploitation of conquered peoples, but there certainly were remarkable achievements made by Rome. Some were technological, as you've mentioned. There also was cultural sophistication. The Pax Romana was amazing, and I certainly respect the Five Good Emperors. Parts of Roman law have formed the basis for our own.