Kevin's Watch

Hashi sorta brought this up in the Tank, so I thought I would expand that discussion here in the Close.

The Church has no business influencing political policy. Western Civilization had 1500 years of the Church's influence on political policy and a lot of it resulted in atrocity. I think we have all heard quite enough from them.

So where is this lot?

mmm .. thats kind of a loaded question tbh. Unfortunately the churches have had a lot of negative impact on humans throughout history .. I wouldnt say a consistent negative impact as they too have reaped much good.

But the crusades, the inquisition, colonial missionary work, the witch trials, slaughter of deemed savages, there has been a lot of negativity. To me if you are a religious person, youd focus on the positive impact of Christianity as opposed to the swaths of negative impacts.

I see it as the church itself is blameless.
It is low down dirty rotten bastards that have subvert and exploited the
authority that has caused the negative impact.

As far as the influence on political policy, you have to remember they were the
only voice of reason after the Roman empire collapsed.
It was the low down dirty rotten royal bastards who were in power and use
the church as a base and rallying point to achieve their own aims.

But there were many in the clergy who were low down dirty rotten bastards
themselves who willfully joined the church to advance their personal wealth and power. It was because they were so far down the line of succession for a crown the only way to achieve power was to join the church.

Their total power was remove during the crusades era. The first one was the purest but the latter ones were for lords and nobles of lesser stature to gain land and money. Thus having power and prestige. ( low down dirty rotten royal bastards)

The next failing is when good ole Martin Luther pegged his paper on the church door. He wanted change but got his own branch.
And good ole Henry the 8th. Poor fellow only wanted a son. His wife couldn't give him one and he wanted to divorce. But no.. she was related to some European king (maybe French) and instead of going to war against England
He moan and groan to the Pope. The Pope threaten with excluding Henry from the church but Henry said "Piss off" and started his own sect. With his own
rules he married and killed off because his mansplaining allow him because it was the women fault for not giving him a son.
Only if the Pope changed the rules.. England could have been catholic today.

It's people hiding behind a veil who cause the issues, not the institution.

Now there is the ones who caused X people to suffer or die. But if they chose the other option then X + 1 people die. If they remain neutral then
2X + 1 die.. And they are condemn because of it.

I really can't see the church have a political effect in the past 200 years as
the influence it had at the beginning or the middle ages.

People will tell it to "Piss Off"

In the commonwealth nations Christianity was a key element in that history, The positives were the influence the church had on the formation of our legal systems, systems of justice.

In the middle ages Ecclesiastical courts were the only place to seek a remedy for a deemed injustice. And they were run exclusively by the churches to provide that remedy.

So they had a significant role within the social compacts of the time.

However, it must be noted that it was the emperor Constantine that orchestrated the church as we know it today .. despite its various iterations in todays society, given splinter groups, factions and tear aways like protestantism. And it was absolutely a way to capitalise on the power and opportunity Christianity provided to stabilise the nation and nations .. the overall empire.

So theres that

So is the church blameless? Who runs the church? Who isnt overseeing what the church does .. to allow heinous acts to occur? I mean I understand your perspective, its one of fealty and faith .. but it is unfortunately true that those in power in all ages have used it to wield their individual agendas .. be it royalty or state governments.

And that is a tragedy.

That's a very difficult distinction to make Ur-Dead, as Sky suggests I think. How do you differentiate between the Church and the people who run it?

As for the last 200 years, I think you'd be surprised. It still has an impact even in countries like yours with official separation, let alone ones where it is an official religion etc.

--A

The religion vs people-in-charge-of-it distinction doesn't matter. It's the people who run it who influence political policy. So it's apples to apples here.

Anyway, here's at least one nice list someone made.

+JMJ+

Jesus didn't commit "numerous atrocities", simply because He did "all things well." (Mk 7:37)

The spatio-temporal actions (as distinct from the sacerdoto-sacramental actions) of the Church -- with Her pilgrim-existence in this world as being one of "suspension between the Already and the Not-Yet" -- are always going to be mixed. Ambiguous. The sanctimonious judgements of History notwithstanding.


EDIT: typos

There is no Church without the people. If the Pope says to go kill them, you can't say "It wasn't the Church, it was only someone associated with the Church." Same applies to everyone else associated with the Church, to a lesser degree, that degree depending on their position in the Church. If a congregant says to torture people, in the name of the Church, to make them confess to witchcraft, and some go out and do it, it's difficult to blame the Church. If the priests, bishops, and Pope sit back and let it happen, it's not so difficult.

Regardless, I've never agreed with the position that religion shouldn't enter into politics. If the Truth of all life and reality isn't a good basis for laws, what is? Obviously, I'm going to oppose you in many instances, since I don't believe your Truth in all instances. But that's true regardless of religion's involvement.

I totally agree FF .. I think that there needs to be positive influences in government and it is true that religious institutions are representative of a significant segment of society.

Wosa I love your faith and how you represent it and your views that are inspired by your beliefs .. but its not really about sanctimonious judgement .. its about fair critique of truly heinous historical events .. driven and influenced by the Church, Christianity and loyal disciples and followers.

Even as a religious human you must see that .. I mean there is no defending some of the events provided and listed by Wayfriends link.

Its simply the straight up truth .. and as a believer in truth ... its all part of it embracing it .. the truth, that is

+JMJ+

Skyweir wrote:[...]

Wosa I love your faith and how you represent it and your views that are inspired by your beliefs .. but its not really about sanctimonious judgement .. its about fair critique of truly heinous historical events .. driven and influenced by the Church, Christianity and loyal disciples and followers.

Even as a religious human you must see that .. I mean there is no defending some of the events provided and listed by Wayfriends link.

Its simply the straight up truth .. and as a believer in truth ... its all part of it embracing it .. the truth, that is

mmm .. ok? But will just note that it was Christians and the Church that did the death and judgement dealing

So yeah .. not good to hang draw and quarter, crucify, hang, and deal all manner of heinous tortures to those who dont think, believe, or worship in the way expected or demanded

Heh. Kinda funny, it seems some folk are suggesting "The Inquisition doesn't kill people. People kill people."
The church is just like any other human organization...given the chance it will exercise as much power as possible. Given disagreements it will try to take all the truth and credit for all the good things and deny lies and responsibility for the bad. Unfortunately, it lays a baseless claim not just to your life, or a life, but the entirety of existence and post-existence, and pre-existence.

Fist and Faith wrote: Regardless, I've never agreed with the position that religion shouldn't enter into politics.

If the Truth of all life and reality isn't a good basis for laws, what is?

On the second, right. Now show me the religion that has that truth, knows reality.

On the first...it's not that religion is separate from politics. How could it be? If I had to guess, I'd say historically at least 95% of all U.S. politicians have been Christians. How many gov't sessions/functions open with a prayer, for Zeus's sake!
I can't think of any big national problem that would be improved by MORE religion tied to our gov't, and several that would be by LESS.
The issue is no PARTICULAR religion/church/sect should have judicial. legislative, or executive power to impose their peculiarities.
Catholics shouldn't be able to force confession on everyone, Jews force circumcision, or Muslim's ban pork. [[and naturally there are much bigger things they shouldn't be allowed to force on others]].

The Church teaches that those who don't follow their beliefs and dogma are not only wrong, but condemned to hell. On that alone they're monsters. Add in the kid-diddling and the coverup, as well as all the other atrocities, and they can go stuff it.

Vraith wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote: Regardless, I've never agreed with the position that religion shouldn't enter into politics.

If the Truth of all life and reality isn't a good basis for laws, what is?

On the second, right. Now show me the religion that has that truth, knows reality.

The point isn't that I think anyone has found the ultimate Truth. The point is that many people believe they have, and it makes sense to me that they would want to live in a society whose laws are based on that Truth.

Fist and Faith wrote:

Vraith wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote: Regardless, I've never agreed with the position that religion shouldn't enter into politics.

If the Truth of all life and reality isn't a good basis for laws, what is?

On the second, right. Now show me the religion that has that truth, knows reality.

The point isn't that I think anyone has found the ultimate Truth. The point is that many people believe they have, and it makes sense to me that they would want to live in a society whose laws are based on that Truth.

No, the point is that those kinds of people have had their way for most of history, and it basically sucks even for the people who think they want it.
And the point is that those who wrote our rule [and other places that have similar in place] WERE "believers" and they separated them on purpose, cuz it is a bad idea. History/the world are stuffed full of evidence.

Regardless. The point is it makes sense to me that people who think they know the Truth would want to live in a society whose rules are based on that Truth. I don't think they should have their way. I don't believe in their Truth, and do not want to live under it. But it makes sense that they want to live under it. Why wouldn't they?

Fist and Faith wrote:

Vraith wrote:

Fist and Faith wrote: Regardless, I've never agreed with the position that religion shouldn't enter into politics.

If the Truth of all life and reality isn't a good basis for laws, what is?

On the second, right. Now show me the religion that has that truth, knows reality.

The point isn't that I think anyone has found the ultimate Truth. The point is that many people believe they have, and it makes sense to me that they would want to live in a society whose laws are based on that Truth.

There is no Truth.

--A

I agree. Everybody has their own. And people often have the same, or similar.

Fist and Faith wrote: But it makes sense that they want to live under it. Why wouldn't they?

Does it make sense?
Because there is history [and current], it's been tried, and the result isn't merely less than optimal, it is horrible.
Let's be clear, here. I don't think most WOULD want to live in such a place [and the ones who would are exactly the kinds of people you don't want to be making the rules]...because what you're talking about is giving your cops, prosecutors, your judges, your military, your CIA, your president, the right to jail you, beat you, kill you for taking the lord's name in vain. You might think that's extreme---but these kinds of gov't go to extremes. Pretty much every time.
One might say all nations fall/fail...but that's a bit like saying all people die so we might as well put the psychopath in charge.
It MIGHT be different...but I doubt it...if it was a new religion, with new untried ideas. But that's not what anyone's mentioned. It's all the same old religions, same old ideas.
And not even the good-ish thoughts like "Love thy neighbor as thyself," and "Judge not" "Why behold the mote in your brother's eye, but not the beam in your own."
Nah...it's all the bad ones about the queers, the women, the heathens.

We're having two conversations. I'm talking about whether or not people who think they know the Truth about all of existence, particularly about how God wants us to live, would want to live in a society governed by God's rules. There can be no question that many people feel this way. They are trying to outlaw SSM; teach Creation in science class; etc. And it makes sense that people who believe God opposes two men being married to each other don't want to live around men who are married to each other.

You are talking about whether or not we should allow people who believe this way to make our laws. I wholeheartedly agree that it is a terrible idea, and I'll oppose basing laws on religious beliefs. It'll work out sometimes. Don't kill; don't steal. But it certainly doesn't work in many cases.