Clara Listensprechen

Although the "Ten Commandments" faction wants to see us go back to the first Puritan colony's standards, it's clear that this country, by and large, will have nothing to do with going back to Puritanism. Theocracies = talibanism no matter what the denomination...but...you can't tell Israel that. Nor can you tell any Islamic country that either.

With that, one can quickly see in ANY arena what a catastrophy the mixture of church/state is, and in all cases. The Middle East is a global concern because of the failure to separate church and state:

Israel airlifts Jews from parts of Africa (NPR, among others, did journalistic pieces on this practice, if you're looking for references) because their main concern is to be able to maintain a Jewish majority, so as to continue to claim that they're the only democracy in the region. Democracy, right...in the manner of Animal House. A country ruled by an artificially created majority certainly is run as a mob-rule democracy as opposed to a representative republic such as the U.S. is, where even lipservice representation is given to differing minority factions/less populous states...denied to any non-Jew minority in Israel.

While achieving official nationhood via the U.N. circa WWII, Israel actually began as a British protectorate, as did Iraq, as the spoils of WWI upon the defeat of the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), but unlike Iraq, Israel was created by virtue of The Balfour Declaration which recognized some sort of God-issued deed to this religious faction as if it was a racial ethnic group. SEE ALSO the anglo definition of "anti-semitism", a definition intended to apply exclusively to Jews as if they were a race, and as if Arabs weren't also Semites (which they are).

To add insult to injury, the Muslims and their Islamic nations point with offense to The Balfour Declaration as if their claim of some God-issued deed to "The Holy Lands" has more merit than anybody else's claim to some God-issued deed to the same properties. They claim that Israel has no right to exist because it's a theocracy--and they're right about that--but given the correctness of that observation they should, by the same token, give up on the idea of Islamic theocracies.

The Jews won't; The Western Christians agree (Eastern Christians tend to make up part of the Palestinian population, as they're non-Jew) with Israel's claim of this God-deed, and fundamentalist Muslims certainly never will.

So, you see, it's God's people's fault that we still have war even in this late millenium. Isn't it remarkable how all those people who profess to know more than the rest of us about how to get to heaven have only ONE talent, and that is to make everybody else's life PURE HELL??
:banghead:

lunachick

Heh. And I thought it was American neo-conservative Republicans.

doubtingt

I think you may be unduely optimistic about the U.S.
I think its a small minority of Americans who understand that
freedom and democracy cannot exist without a wall of separation.
Also, many Americans do not really value freedom and democracy in the first place, so long as it is their world view being forced on others.
If not for the constitution, it's likely that majority rule in the U.S. would lead to a puritan theocracy. In fact, this authoritarian streak in Americans appears to grow stronger every day and could soon be enough to make the constitution irrelevant.

Per

While I do not disagree that there are heinious examples of countries that are lacking in freedom and liberty due to a lack of state/church separation, I object to the notion that a lack of separation automatically means that freedom and democracy cannot exist alongside it.

Case in point: Denmark.

Denmark hasn't had state/church separation since the reformation in 1536. When autocracy was abolished in favor of democracy in 1849 the evangelical-lutheran church remained the state church as stated in §§4 and 6 of the constitution:

"§4. The Evangelical Lutheran Church shall be the Established Church of Denmark, and, as such, it shall be supported by the State."
and
"§6. The King shall be a member of the Evangelical Lutheran Church."


This means that all church personel (of the evang. luth. church)are government employees, there is a church department, and there is a church tax alongside the ordinary taxes for those who are members of the state church (about 85% of the population).
This, however, doesnt mean that there is no democracy or freedom or liberty, or what have you, in Denmark. According to § 70 among others there is freedom of religion:

"§70. No person shall for reasons of his creed or descent be deprived of access to complete enjoyment of his civic and political rights, nor shall he for such reasons evade compliance with any common civic duty."



It should therefore be noted that freedom and democracy can indeed exist without a wall of separation.
While I oppose this lack of church/state separation I think it paradoxically is one of the reasons most people in Denmark aren't very religious. It seems to have served as a big pacifier against extreme firebrand preachers with it's 'mellow' and 'bland' theology, so to speak.

doubtingt

To the extent that citizens of Denmark are required to pay for the Church, they are not free to support the religious view of their choice. If the state uses its power and authority to promote the state church then the state is engaging in coercive authoritarian acts thats prevent freedom of conscience. These things are true by definition and not empirical questions.
Also, only if the king has little to no authority can Denmark be considered a democracy (again a matter of definitional truth and not an empirical question)

Now, it may well be the case that their is a good deal of freedom in Denmark. However, the amount of freedom is in direct relation to the degree that civil and criminal law is based in secular justification rather than religious tenants. The neccessary separation I refer to is not inherently a legislated prohibition of church/state entanglement.
Ultimately what matters is whether such entanglements exist,
not whether their absence is due to constitutional restriction versus cultural preference.

Thus, Demark has freedom b/c there is, in practice, a separation of civil and religious law that stems from cultural preference. The U.S. has freedom b/c there is, in principle, a separation of religious and civil law that prohibits such entanglements, even if there is a cultural preference in favor of them.

In both cases, freedom directly corresponds to the degree of this separation.

Per

Then we are in agreement. I just wanted it to be known that a lack of church/state separation does not necessarily equal oppressive theocracy.

Clara Listensprechen

Same difference.

Clara Listensprechen

Amen.


George Orwell nailed it in Animal Farm

Quote:

If not for the constitution, it's likely that majority rule in the U.S. would lead to a puritan theocracy. In fact, this authoritarian streak in Americans appears to grow stronger every day and could soon be enough to make the constitution irrelevant.

It's that goffersaken holier-than-thou attitude like ayatollahs tend to get when they picture themselves as being holy enough to "lead" (read "force") the unwashed to do their bidding with everybody else being declared heretics. Puritans, Talibans, same difference. Do as I say, not as I do, or off with your head.

Clara Listensprechen

The best Danish is that what is cinnamon flavored and what has icing on it.

All established churches have a primary function of legitimizing whatever conduct the ruling head(s) of state take a fancy to indulge in (see also Church Of England as regards Prince Charles). The concept was Byzantine, original inventor was Constantine and the infernal Divine Right Of Kings concept that Jesus never came up with near as any of us can tell at this late date. Benevolent my arse. Self-serving, more like it.

Clara Listensprechen

How could I forget--another critical function that religion has always played when intermingled with state is legitimizing wars. While overwhelming consensus is that a state should be able to defend itself, it's religion that causes weird things to be defined as an attack for which defense is painted as necessary when it isn't always the case.

And don't anybody tell me that only Muslims have a history of political fatwas. The early history of Christianity is rife with their own equivalent. So is Jewish history. Pagans are no exception, with a history chock full of political leaders claiming god-ish superpowers if not outright socializing or gaining uncommon favor with this god or that.

Well, look at it this way--if you were just the joeshmoe next door of average humanity, you couldn't convince your neighbors to shed their blood for whatever cause du jour that irked you. If you could shock and awe your friends and neighbors with some sort of divinity trick, everybody would think you're Chosen and therefore worth dying for. Without religious magic, you're just the average joeshmoe next door.