Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Many people would say that because he is a religious leader he should not pass comment on political issues...
Well, many people also say that some unwashed guy thousands of years ago died after being nailed to a tree and then woke up again to have a party 3 days later.
What I'm trying to say is, I'm not too bothered by what other people say. The guy's a guy and he has a right to his opinion.
Originally posted by Quark_666
True. But it's also an option to give an opinion without intentionally representing whatever organization he happens to be in charge of.
That's very unlikely in politics.
But when you think about it, nothing is wrong with what the Pope said. It's not his fault if some took his words and applied his views into politics.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
There is no way the Pope made those comments without knowing that they would reflect upon the Italian Government- so was he right or wrong to make them?
The Pope was well within his rights
I also see no problem with the Catholic church having an opinion on politics
it is up to individual catholics to determine if the words of the pope or the laws of their land are more important
also, I'm really happy to see the catholic church take such a hardline stance against fascism and racism (the cynical part of me wants to add, "this time"😉
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
He was making a point that no matter what he did as President someone would get screwed over but that when it came right down to it as long as any majority was happy he hadn't failed.
no, I get that point, and I admit its hard to even imagine a system where the gains of the majority aren't at the cost of some minority...
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'll admit those are problems though I don't think totalitarianism has to suppress truth or opinions. In fact opinions, at least, benefit a totalitarian state as long as only one person can enforce them.
indeed, though we may be talking about different levels. I'm talking about freedom of speech, free press, free science, free academia. Stuff that almost goes out of its way to challange power. I don't feel these are as open in a totalitarian society.
Like, what does the totalitarian do about the anarchists who teach people in universities that power corrupts and that a totalitarian system isn't what they want?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I think it would be more possible to get a single benevolent/objective person than hope for benevolent/objective majority or group.
true, but I don't think objective groups of people are a end worth working toward. People are shaped by their experiences, and while this may create biases, it also is why they specialize and understand the world in ways that enlighten society.
Also, I feel in a system with less top-down power, benevolence between people becomes more necessary. Obviously I'm not saying if, in modern society, power was eliminated that we would all get along.
However, as rational people, it is not government that keeps people like you or me from murdering and rapeing others.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Well, everything works on paper.
lol, way to look that gift horse in the mouth
I get what you are saying, I was trying to concede that you had a good point.
Originally posted by inimalist
I see no reason why catholics shouldn't be in power...are you insinuating that because I don't feel the government should enforce religion that I also don't think religious people should be involved in politics?
No, I just think religion is superior to politics. It shouldn't be brought down to the same level, IMO.
Originally posted by Mandos
No, I just think religion is superior to politics. It shouldn't be brought down to the same level, IMO.
lol
well, ok, but some people want there beliefs to be relevant
I have had conversations with a Jehovah's Witness guy when he comes my school, and he feels generally the same way, so I can respect what you are saying.
However, to an atheist, that doesn't make much sense at all... Especially given that politics and morality cross in many places
Originally posted by inimalist
lolwell, ok, but some people want there beliefs to be relevant
I have had conversations with a Jehovah's Witness guy when he comes my school, and he feels generally the same way, so I can respect what you are saying.
However, to an atheist, that doesn't make much sense at all... Especially given that politics and morality cross in many places
I sometimes visit a Jehovah's disciple once a week. (I'm no tgetting turned, I think they're too much of an extreme). From their beleives, humanity politics have failed, and it got things much worste in the world (a point of view that could be discussed). Therefore, they stipulate that God's governement (in the Bible) is the only perfect one, and that it must be embraced to have worldwide peace. It somewhat makes sense. Politics are governments these days are failures that will explode in our faces in a few years, even if I don't beleive the Bible holds all the answers.
Re: Church before state.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
The question is:Should Roman Catholic's follow the Pope before the Head of State of their country?
In my opinion, your not a true Catholic if you don't accept that the Pontiff is the successor to Saint Peter and therefore Jesus' appointed representative on Earth.
Thusly, I would put the decrees of the Holy Father before that of the House of Commons or the Queen. Is this unreasonable?
Yes it is. Sometimes religion can be more humane than the state, but sometimes religon can be barbaric. Rules from Religion are not inherently superior.
Originally posted by Mandos
I sometimes visit a Jehovah's disciple once a week. (I'm no tgetting turned, I think they're too much of an extreme). From their beleives, humanity politics have failed, and it got things much worste in the world (a point of view that could be discussed). Therefore, they stipulate that God's governement (in the Bible) is the only perfect one, and that it must be embraced to have worldwide peace. It somewhat makes sense. Politics are governments these days are failures that will explode in our faces in a few years, even if I don't beleive the Bible holds all the answers.
I know, I agree with a lot of what the guy says about "the politics of man". But, the politics and the state in the bible are the politics of man, and history shows that it is not religion, but in fact secular values carried from the greeks, to the arab world, and then back to Europe to start the renaissance, that have made the world better for people. I think one would have a hard time, using history and fact rather than rhetoric, showing religion as more important than secularism in ending human suffering politically.
Throwing away state power is good. Replacing it with something less malleable, less free, with absolute and unquestionable authority seems to be like taking a complete step backward.
If for no other reason, religion is incapable of running a nation because it says "we already know the answer".
Originally posted by inimalist
I know, I agree with a lot of what the guy says about "the politics of man". But, the politics and the state in the bible are the politics of man, and history shows that it is not religion, but in fact secular values carried from the greeks, to the arab world, and then back to Europe to start the renaissance, that have made the world better for people. I think one would have a hard time, using history and fact rather than rhetoric, showing religion as more important than secularism in ending human suffering politically.Throwing away state power is good. Replacing it with something less malleable, less free, with absolute and unquestionable authority seems to be like taking a complete step backward.
If for no other reason, religion is incapable of running a nation because it says "we already know the answer".
I understand your point of view. And I agree partly to it. What you say is true. I'm not going to fight about it because, frankly, my arguments are principally based on speculations. However, I truly beleive that we can be successful at looking back in history, take some elements, and apply them again with better use. For example, we can take a dictaturial example, That's what closely ressembles your description above. If, instead of giving absolute power to them, we give them only the right to guide us in the right directions. Instead of forcing things down upon us, wouldn't you think the world would be better if they just prepared us and provided consil. It would be far less dangerous.
What I am suggesting is for the government to turn from the authoritarian father figure, to a more explainatory type of father. I know that there are weaknesses in this system I pjust presented. I also beleive that with a bit of patching, something good can result out of this. That's where I see religion doing.
What we therefore have is a one powerful government for all, that still leaves freedom to the people.
Originally posted by queeq
There's French philosopher that wrote an interesting book. He states that the whole concept of Western democracy as we know it, the separation of state and church, tolerance to people with other beliefs and cultures, are in fact derived from the christian new testament philosophy and propagates that all school shoudl teach christian philosophy as a compulsary class in school (not to be confused with religion as a class).I thought that was an interesting view since a lot of people on these boards view christian beliefs as dictatorial and should stay very far away from politics. Interestingly enough, this French philosopher Frédéric Lenoir in his book Le Christ philosophe, says that without an ethical backing democracy would be empty. Pure democratically two-thirds majority could for instance take away women's rights to vote. From a christian ethical pov that would be wrong. Ineterstingly enough all the western democratical values we hold high, general rights to vote for men and women, separation of church and state, were all devised during a christian dominated society and fit well in christian philosophy. All forms of state that ruled with dictatorial styles (inculding the ones that CALLED themselves christian) were going against the philosophical principles of christianity.
I thought that was a refreshing, non-christian view on this topic in light of the usual uninformed ranting that goes on in here occassionally.
Now, the rant is heated up again, for sure. 😉
Originally posted by queeq
unfortunately, one can play the infinite reduction game.
These values were born in Christianity, especially in Italy, because of Moorish influence. The Moors, and the Arab world in general, until the renaissance was the most free, affluent and enlightened on the planet. They began universities and hospitals and libraries while Christian Europe was stuck in the dark ages. The reason for such dominance? Greek Philosophy.
During the Christian Roman destruction of Greece, science, art and technology, all of which the Romans showed a complete lack of interest in, was snuck away to Alexandria and the Arab world.
Agreed, there are specific things about Christianity that allowed the ancient Greek ideas to be molded into what they are today (The Christian idea of a person being free to choose to sin is essential, and something not found in Islam) but to attribute it to Christians with such blanket absoluteness is completely to ignore the same logic it proposes.
One can then find the Pre-Vedic Indian influences on both Egypt and Greece and say that it was those who inhabited present day Western India/Kashmir that are responsible for modern society, and by the logic of the scholar you mention, it is absolutely correct.
Originally posted by inimalist
unfortunately, one can play the infinite reduction game.These values were born in Christianity, especially in Italy, because of Moorish influence. The Moors, and the Arab world in general, until the renaissance was the most free, affluent and enlightened on the planet. They began universities and hospitals and libraries while Christian Europe was stuck in the dark ages. The reason for such dominance? Greek Philosophy.
You sure about this? Your saying the reason why The Moors were so succesful was because of Greek philosophy?