# Separation of Church and State



## V52

Are we facing here in Italy  the starting of a new  " Counter-Reformation"? 
What's really happening ? 
Vittorio

_*Mod Edit*_:  Vittorio originally opened this thread as a discussion on the Vatican's influence on politics in Italy, in particular the infusion of religion into State discussions and elections. 

With his permission, we are broadening the topic since this issue of religious influence in government is not limited to one country. 

That said, how do you feel about the separation of church and state?  Does religion have a place in government?

Discuss. 
_*
Note:*_  Posts 2-5 were in response to Vittorio's first question.


----------



## zebedee

We'd benefit from some more background details. What exactly are you referring to? The news hasn't reached my part of the world yet and I'm interested to know.


----------



## V52

Dear Zebedee
Thank you for your question! I am happy to know that the news about the "revenge" campaign of Vatican in Italy is not so known abroad. It means it is not a world problem. They are daily taking part and giving not asked opinions about italian laws, giving vote indications that can easily be considered intrusions. They are proposing "castity" against AIDS, threatening italian Laws about Abortion, Divorce, criticizing weddings between christians and muslims, even obtaining laws that guarantee to Church tax exemptions on their immobiliar properties, and of course demonizing gays ... Where's going the foundamental pinciple "A free Church in a free State?" 
Vittorio


----------



## GenJen54

I tried to look up some articles in English, but the best one I found was to a website that required a subscription.  THIS article alludes to it a bit, but is not very in-depth.  THIS article might also benefit - citing the Church's interference in the Italian elections. 



			
				Vittorio52 said:
			
		

> Where's going the foundamental pinciple "A free Church in a free State?"


 Vittorio, if you don't mind, we might consider broadening the thread to a general discussion of _"separation of Church and State."_ I believe many countries are suffering from the same crisis. In Italy, the issue is between the "Church" (Catholic Church) and politics. In the US, the same issue is between the "Evangelical Right," and its interference in politics. 

I think a more apt question could be, does the Church (whether the Pope or other Protestant Right) have a rightful place in government and the right to influence political policy?


----------



## siljam

Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, to God what belongs to God, and
to the Church both things.


----------



## JennR

Separation of Church and State *does not mean* Separation of God from Society.


----------



## fenixpollo

JennR said:
			
		

> Separation of Church and State *does not mean* Separation of God from Society.


 God can be present in Society, but separate from Government.  We can all go to our respective churches, pray to our respective gods and contribute to society in our own way.  That doesn't mean that we have to make laws based on our respective religions.

The problem comes when we want to make laws based on what we think God wants us to do.  Whose god do we listen to?  Yours or mine?  

If your god tells you to do things that are radically different from the mandates of my god, then we have a problem.  If either of us makes laws based on what his own god tells him, then the other person will feel like his rights are being violated.  

Your God is more than welcome in Society, but I don't want Him to decide how I have to live my life.


----------



## Fernando

My two cents:

- Of course, Church and State must be separated.
- Of course, people must have the right to pray the god they want (by the way, more than a half of the planet have not this right).
- State must respect indiviual beliefs, but not to the point of a 'de facto' laws abolishing.
- Church have the right to express their opinions on all they want to, up to the limit of freedom of speech.
- Churches have to pay taxes. Those which do not clash with the general common accepted principles have the right to obtain deductions. 
- Churches are entitled to teach, as far as the parents are willing to and assuming they do not teach principles against the constitutional ones.


----------



## gian_eagle

But should the Vatican stay as an independent State only, or as a country of its own??


----------



## JennR

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> God can be present in Society, but separate from Government. We can all go to our respective churches, pray to our respective gods and contribute to society in our own way. That doesn't mean that we have to make laws based on our respective religions.
> 
> The problem comes when we want to make laws based on what we think God wants us to do. Whose god do we listen to? Yours or mine?
> 
> If your god tells you to do things that are radically different from the mandates of my god, then we have a problem. If either of us makes laws based on what his own god tells him, then the other person will feel like his rights are being violated.
> 
> Your God is more than welcome in Society, but I don't want Him to decide how I have to live my life.


Fenix, 

I think you and I are on the same page. I am a firm believer in Rendering unto Caesar and Rendering unto God. I believe that you should be allowed to live your life however you see fit so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights, the lives, and safety of others. 

I was going to write more, but that would go well beyond the scope of this particular thread. 


Pax,

Jenn


----------



## Fernando

gian_eagle said:
			
		

> But should the Vatican stay as an independent State only, or as a country of its own??


To me an independent State 0.3 km2 large is a good way of providing independence without real engaging in government.


----------



## gian_eagle

You mean a Country without government?


----------



## JennR

I have to preface by saying that I am not Catholic, so my opinion on the subject is outside the mandates of that particular branch of Christian belief. 

I think that the choice of use of the pill should be an individual one, not one dictated by the Church. It is a man made law. The Vatican, should discuss the pill with their faithful in order to influence change and not try to dictate the Church's will to the government.

J


----------



## Fernando

For the record, I am a Catholic. I do not feel we must center in the pill business. If you want my opinion on the topic, I will give it to you, but that is not the topic.

The important thing is that the Church (Catholic or whatever) is entitle not to dictate, but to try to influence as much as they can.

To Gian Eagle: Certainly the Vatican government is not a big load for anyone.


----------



## Outsider

gian_eagle said:
			
		

> But should the Vatican stay as an independent State only, or as a country of its own??


Is there a difference between the two?  

In any case, the Vatican is a very special state. For one thing, no one is ever born there.


----------



## fenixpollo

gian_eagle said:
			
		

> You mean a Country without government?


 If the Vatican is an independent country/state and decides not to have a government (e.g. anarchy), then that is the choice of the people that live there.  A country _can_ exist with no government.  

If they choose to have a theocracy, that's their choice, too.  If the Vatican is not an independent country, then its residents should abide by Italian and be subjects of the Italian government.


----------



## Outsider

The Italian posters should be able to confirm this, but I believe the Vatican is a fully independent state.


----------



## gian_eagle

Yes, that's true... because if the Vatican weren't an independent state, it would have become like Puerto Rico (subject to the US parliament) or Faroe Islands (subject to the Danish parliament).


----------



## Fernando

The Vatican IS a fully independent State.


----------



## gian_eagle

You are right. The Vatican is the smallest independent Nation in the World.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City


----------



## Agnès E.

What does authorize some men supposedly dealing with religious questions to deal with political/economical/financial issues?


----------



## Fernando

You mean, we only ask bankers when dealing with economy or soldiers when deciding to go to war or not?


----------



## ampurdan

No, Fernando, but I don't listen to a banker when he talks about finances or whichever is his specialty or main subject with the same condition as if he talks about football. Instead, there are plenty of people that listens to bishops as if they were doctors.


----------



## Fernando

Religion is a cosmovision (1). We think Jesus as a model of life. When we see an ethical problem we ask ourselves what Jesus would do. Of course, I do not search for bishops when dealing with a Maths problem but I certainly search for advise of wise people when dealing with ethical problems: philosophers, writers, intellectuals and religious people (bishops or not). 

Of course if we are discussing abortion, as an example, I would like to know the opinion of Church (Pope and bishops, to begin with).


(1) Is this English?


----------



## ampurdan

Oh, you won't have problems to find out the opinion of the Catholic Church, you can read it in the most atheist-oriented paper. Everybody will receive their point of view. Maybe the opinion of other people will be muffled by the mediatic noise.


----------



## Fernando

I can not quite understand you. Should I not give my opinion because other's opinions are muffled?


----------



## siljam

Si de abortos se trata, yo también consultaría a algun cura. Cualquiera de
ellos debe conocer dos o tres direcciones confiables.


----------



## Fernando

siljam said:
			
		

> Si de abortos se trata, yo también consultaría a algun cura. Cualquiera de
> ellos debe conocer dos o tres direcciones confiables.


Then you agree with me. Just another reason to hear the Church.


----------



## ampurdan

Fernando said:
			
		

> I can not quite understand you. Should I not give my opinion because other's opinions are muffled?


 
Well, Fernando, with the respect due to your opinion, I wasn't talking about it. I said that Catholic Church has a magnificient loudspeaker of his point of view of everything. You said that you won't go for bishop to help solve your Maths problems, but there was a time when the Church was the one who monopolized science. Maybe there come one day that what you deem appropriate to be said by a priest as priest, won't seem so appropriate to you anymore.


----------



## Fernando

People who have a magnificient loudspeaker:

- Politicians (elected or not)
- Trade Unions 
- Terrorists
- Demonstrators of any kind (the more violent the better)
- People with connections in the media
- Footballers 
- Artists (with not a damned idea about anything)
- People who belong to a 
- Wealth people

Another loudspeaker will not disturb very much, I think bishops are more entitled than many of the aforementioned.

I do not understand what a priest should do according you: discussing about how many angels can dance in a pin? By the way, only seven.


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:
			
		

> Religion is a *cosmology* .


 I'd much rather hear what an artist has to say about angels dancing *on the head of a pin* than a priest. It would be more abstract and creative, and less dogmatic.


----------



## ampurdan

Fernando said:
			
		

> People who have a magnificient loudspeaker:
> 
> - Politicians (elected or not)
> - Trade Unions
> - Terrorists
> - Demonstrators of any kind (the more violent the better)
> - People with connections in the media
> - Footballers
> - Artists (with not a damned idea about anything)
> - People who belong to a
> - Wealth people


 
So, you aprove this state of the public things? I guess you don't. I'm not going to comment on each one.



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Another loudspeaker will not disturb very much, I think bishops are more entitled than many of the aforementioned.


 That's a good Machiavellic argument... I don't see why the bishops are more entitled to a loudspeaker than any of them.



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> I do not understand what a priest should do according you: discussing about how many angels can dance in a pin? By the way, only seven.


 I don't know, I'm not the one who is telling the others what are they supposed to do in their lives.


----------



## Fernando

Titles for bishops to speak (and be wrong, of course):

- They are people who spend all day dealing with ethics. If you hear Gustavo Bueno (you should) you should hear them.
- They have no direct direct interest in (some of) the topics. A politician ever has. Of course, I pay more attention to bishops talking about abortion than talking about receiving tax money.
- The more important in a democracy, they represent to many people. If you hear NGOs (you should) which have a negligible affiliation (1) you should hear to them. Of course I am a Catholic and I often disagree with bishops but I assume many times Greenpeace associates would disagree with their governors (2).

(1) Is this English? 

(2) This is not.


----------



## ampurdan

Bishops deal with ethics as much as every other person. Oh! Of course they have interest in the topics, and in the same way a politician has. And I would not like the President of Barcelona Football Club told people if they should or should not use a condom or saying that football should be taught in school as if it were Maths, even if a third of the population of Spain were members or sympathizers of this club.

I don't deny them the right to express theirselves, but I don't see why the State has to grant them a better right than to the others.


----------



## Fernando

ampurdan said:
			
		

> And I would not like the President of Barcelona Football Club told people if they should or should not use a condom or saying that football should be taught in school as if it were Maths,



Well, given it is more than a club. 
And he has recommended the Estatut.
And showed a very funny map in Nou Camp.

This provocative and harsh comment shows the Christian clerical bigot should go to bed.

Done.


----------



## GenJen54

fernando said:
			
		

> Religion is a cosmovision (1). We think Jesus as a model of life. When we see an ethical problem we ask ourselves what Jesus would do.



What about those for whom Christianity is not their religion?  Should they "governed" by their State, which is inclusive and largely influenced by the Church (Catholic), or in the US, religious fundamentalism?

Where does one draw the line between "democracy" (for example) and/or 
"theocracy?"


----------



## Agnès E.

Fernando said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by *ampurdan*
> _And I would not like the President of Barcelona Football Club told people if they should or should not use a condom or saying that football should be taught in school as if it were Maths _
> Well, given it is more than a club.
> And he has recommended the Estatut.
> And showed a very funny map in Nou Camp.
> 
> This provocative and harsh comment shows the Christian clerical bigot should go to bed.
> 
> Done.


 
I don't see anything provocative or harsh in Ampurdan's comment, Fernando. 
Bishops, priests, and the pope are just human beings like you and me. Some people might believe in their authority, it is just a religious authority given by some human beings to some others. Nothing in the laws, nothing even in the Bible states that these few men have a right to dictate governments what to decide.


----------



## Fernando

The provocative comment was MINE, Agnès, not Ampurdan's.



> Nothing in the laws, nothing even in the Bible states that these few men have a right to dictate governments what to decide.


Please, let me know where I said few men (bishops, I assume) have a right to dictate governments what to decide.
And let me know where in the world they do. I feel dictatorships are more often (oftener?) than theocracies (I can remember now some in the Islamic countries).

PS: I have posted around 15 post in this thread. Unless someone is really interested I am feeling I am being a bit dull, nasty and repetitive. So, I am leaving the thread.


----------



## Fernando

fenixpollo said:
			
		

> cosmology



That is what I wanted to say. I do not know how to say it in English.
cosmovisión. 
 (Calco del al. Weltanschauung). 
 1. f. Manera de ver e interpretar el mundo.


----------



## Agnès E.

Fernando said:
			
		

> The provocative comment was MINE, Agnès, not Ampurdan's.


Oh, I'm sorry; I was a bit confused. 


			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Please, let me know where I said few men (bishops, I assume) have a right to dictate governments what to decide.


Fernando, I never wrote that *you *had wrote this. I just expressed my own opinion and my own comments regarding the topic, as the latest posts were more particularly focused on the Catholic churche's influence.


			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> PS: I have posted around 15 post in this thread. Unless someone is really interested I am feeling I am being a bit dull, nasty and repetitive. So, I am leaving the thread.


And are we, other-than-Fernando foreros, allowed to post our own opinion and carry on this thread?


----------



## ampurdan

Esto es una respuesta a un post de Fernando en el thread "¿Quién es Dios?" que he pensado que era más apropiado discutir aquí.



			
				Fernando said:
			
		

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ampurdan*
> _Hoy es evidente el influjo que tiene la Religión en la política, por ejemplo. Como los políticos se valen subrepticiamente de la Religión_
> 
> o de su crítica Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ampurdan*
> _para conseguir votos._
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *ampurdan*
> _¿a santo de qué se habla de la libertad de los padres de elegir la educación de los hijos? ¿Es que un padre puede elegir si su hijo va a estudiar o no matemáticas? Bueno. Sólo era un ejemplo._
> 
> He can. At least since 2º BUP (former academic frame). And Maths is neutral, cumulative knowledge. Religion (or Educación para la Ciudadanía) is not.


 
Hay políticos que se basan en una crítica burda de la Religión para conseguir votos. Hay políticos que simplemente quieren delimitar el terreno entre el Estado y la Iglesia y por ello, se les dice que odian la Religión etc. Por otra parte, hay evidentemente políticos que usan ese odio irreal para crear o acrecentar un contraodio hacia el gobierno.

Por otra parte, la Santa Sede (esa aberración político-religiosa) se queja de que el Gobierno Chino decida sobre asuntos religiosos, pero ella se siente con todo el derecho a exigir del Estado Español una escuela confesional...

Respecto al 2º de BUP, bueno su equivalente actual... Evidentemente no es enseñanza obligatoria, pero sí reglada. No veo por qué entre las opciones a estudiar debería haber una de educación confesional cuyo maestro estuviera designado por el obispo católico del lugar.


----------



## JazzByChas

This whole issue is a sticky one, not unlike the "chicken and the egg" analogy.

Many countries laws, and rules governing thier society were based upon the religious beliefs of the people who founded those societies. So in one sense, church and state are basically the same thing.

Now, what one does with one's beliefs, especially as pertains to the laws governing human behavior, will depend on each person. The only problem with the "you do your thing and I'll do mine" mentality, is that no one, when it comes right down to it, wants anyone else's rules of conduct to cause harm to them or their view of social structure. As an example, if you are an organization that does not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, what is to protect you and your children from the homosexual point of view being taught to your family? I.e. should a "gay" person be allowed to work for an organization whose fundamental creed disagrees with homosexuality?

We'll skip past murder, rape, stealing and the other "obvious" crimes. These are where physical or monetary harm was inflicted upon another. But one's values are just as precious a commodity. So how do you protect those? I think that if we, especially in the US, are trying to be tolerant of others' points of view, should allow ALL points of view to be expressed. Ironically, those points of view of the Judeo-Christian faith religion are now the least tolerated points of view.

So, I guess, in order to figure out to what degree church and state are separated, you have to figure out upon whose values you make your laws. I think, if we were to take an honest look at "laws," we would see that religion and law have always been intertwined. Societies have always based their laws upon whatever belief systems they had in place. What we are really discussing here, fundamentally, in each individual's beliefs and worldview, whatever that may be.

Sincerely,


----------



## Fernando

ampurdan said:
			
		

> Esto es una respuesta a un post de Fernando en el thread "¿Quién es Dios?" que he pensado que era más apropiado discutir aquí..


Excellent, Cuchu was about to punish me.



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Por otra parte, la Santa Sede (esa aberración político-religiosa) se queja de que el Gobierno Chino decida sobre asuntos religiosos, pero ella se siente con todo el derecho a exigir del Estado Español una escuela confesional...


While I find your arguments usually intelligent, I find this particular one rather demagogycal. 
The Chinese government decide over religious matters they jail or kill people by the hundreds. The Holy See (as a well as many international organisations) complains. Is Chinese government to pay attention? No.
The Spanish government attacks religious school teaching. The Holy See complains. Is Spanish government to pay attention? No.

Then, which is the power of Church? Why do you oppose HS attitude and when do you see the contradiction? HS is opposing the (perceived) attacks to religious freedom in two countries. Needless to say, the Spanish situation is by very very far, much less severe, but I can not see contradiction at all.


----------



## ampurdan

I chose China obviously not as an example of respect to Human Rights. My point is that the Catholic Church does not want the civil power to regulate her (and so it becames a civil power: an independent State and an international entitity), but it wants his specific confession to have some kind of officiality in every country: for instance, Doctrinal classes about Religion in Spain. The government has to pay some kind of attention (it's not absolutely compulsory, but they should if they want to prevent a diplomatic disaster); of course no eclesiastical obedience is requirable to the government, ¡faltaría más!

I don't believe in freedom of religion, I don't see why I have to tolerate violent religions or annoying ones, I believe in freedom of conscience and of speech. The State though, should not match the scientific and descriptive humanistic education with indoctrination. Anyway, I don't understand why you say that the Spanish government attacks religious freedom.


----------



## nabi

Dios brinda muchos principios eticos que muchos politicos hoy en dia necesitan para manejar sus respectivas naciones, cada vez mas el numero de politicos creyentes en Dios aumenta esto para mi concepto es bueno, investigue y mire que la mayoria de presidentes de los estados unidos fueron protestantes el unico que fue catolico fue kennedy, a lo que voy es que para una nacion seria grave(en mi concepto muy personal) alejarse de principios cristianos.


----------



## Fernando

Far better expressed. China has little to do here.

Attack on religious freedom: That is what Church claims. It is to be discussed, obviously (China example is not).

About freedom of religion: I can not quite understand how you can hold f. of speech and conscience without f. of religion. 



> I don't see why I have to tolerate violent religions .


You have not. Religious freedom (as every freedom) has its limits.



> or annoying ones


 Ooops. I thought I was the religious bigot. You are WR's Enver Hoxa  



> The State though, should not match the scientific and descriptive humanistic education with indoctrination.


 Agreed. We could argue about the details.


----------



## cuchuflete

> a lo que voy es que para una nacion seria grave(en mi concepto muy personal) alejarse de principios cristianos.



I'm sure this remark would elicit a perplexed look in Yemen.  How appropriate would this extraordinarily broad world-view be in Japan?

Surely the Bay of Pigs fiasco and the vast increase in the number of US troops in Vietnam had something/everything/nothing to do with the sectarian affiliation of the then-sitting president.

I better get back on topic or Fernando will chastise me.


----------



## ampurdan

Call me a bigot if you want, but I don't want a man crying from a Mosque waking me up in the morning or supporting the most strange worships of any Religion making my life less comfortable (a procession of Harekrishna every night in my street). 

I don't understand why should there be a religious freedom. There is freedom of thought, of speech, of association and of demonstration. That is enough to cover all the reasonable public aspirations of any creed, be it religious, philosophical or whatsoever.


----------



## Fernando

ampurdan said:
			
		

> waking me up in the morning or


I agree with you. But that is not annoying, that is a crime



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> supporting the most strange worships of any Religion making my life less comfortable (a procession of Harekrishna every night in my street).


I would joyfully kill every Harekrishna (and Padre Apeles, to be fair) but my respect for the others' freedom makes me respect them, since I respect people who are spreading far more dangerous doctrines in the name of philosophical or political concepts.


----------



## ampurdan

Of course I respect Harekrishna and their believes, but they make noise and I imagine that I don't have to stand annoyances in my life in the name of a Religion. I just don't want freedom of religion permit that some people may annoy other people only because their religion tells them so. By the way, I don't want demonstraters cutting the motorways either... But this is obvoiusly off-topic.


----------



## Fernando

ampurdan said:
			
		

> By the way, I don't want demonstraters cutting the motorways either... But this is obvoiusly off-topic.


No, it is not. It shows you are consistent. Then I could understand (not agree you). A friend of mine agrees with you.

The point is you bear a zero-level interference in your life (apart from your boy/girlfriend, I guess).

When you form a party to painfully kill every noisy-motorcycle rider, please, count one member.


----------



## ampurdan

Well, my point is that there is no need for "freedom of religion"; especially when this implies that the different creeds have to be incorporated inside the State structure. Why should a public officer refuse to abide by the law whenever he/she feels his religion tells him/her to do so? And what if the one in charge of weddings believes that a couple of different religion cannot marry eachother?


----------



## Fernando

As you possibly know two Spanish judges have tried not to marry homosexual couples. Constitutional Court has rejected their claim. Even though I oppose homosexual marriage I agree this is beyond religious freedom.

Anyway, I heartfully agree with those who reject to prescribe the day-after pill or perform abortions.

I will answer your next question: No, I would not accept Jehova's Witnesses claim against blood transfusion. Under no circumstances with their children and only in limited cases with the witness itself.


----------



## ampurdan

If the one that rejects to interrupt pregnancy has no obligation to perform it, I will neither force him to do it. 

In my point of view, on the one hand freedom of religion is superflous as a human right, because there are other rights that cover its application with more systematical logic (freedom of conscience and thought, speech, association) and on the other hand, it has perverse aplications, permitting the different religious creeds to have representation in the civil organization of the State (A chapel in a Hospital or in a Prison does not bother me, but theoretically coarts my right to the same treatment that a Catholic believer and have a room to express my personal believes)... It is more serious when the system permits that a church (specially one that only shows respect to science when it is usefull to their interests) decides which are the contents of a particular subject in primary school. At least, it is abnormal. Potencially... Think on what some teachers may say about homosexuallity and the use of contraceptives without the possibility of being removed (unless the bishop wants to). Maybe you don't care but such declarations may have terrible consequences if the pupils happen to pay any attention at them.


----------



## Fernando

Freedom of conscience and thought produces people who denies Holocaust.
Freedom of speech produces Salsa Rosa
Freedom of association produces Batasuna

All freedoms have perverse applications. The abuse does not exclude the use.

About relations between State and religion I certainly agree the State should be the more neutral the better. Anyhow, the State has to adopt an ethical stance, the closer possible to the maximum common denominator (Eng.?) of their citizens, but it has a moral stance. Death penalty, abortion, divorce, expropiation, limits of civil rights and so on implies a moral stance.
As an example, I suffered "Physical education" (Eng.?) for 10 bloody years. I would better have stood 1,000 hours of Religion instead of this stupid brain-crushing exercise because the damned State considered their citizens should be healthy and strong rather than wise and learned.


----------



## JazzByChas

If I remember correctly, Jesus Christ Himself said, 

_"Tell us what you think! Should we pay taxes to the Emperor or not?" Jesus knew their evil thoughts and said, "Why are you trying to test me? You show-offs! Let me see one of the coins used for paying taxes." They brought him a silver coin, and he asked, "Whose picture and name are on it?" _
_"The Emperor's," they answered. Then Jesus told them, "Give the Emperor what belongs to him and give God what belongs to God." His answer surprised them so much that they walked away. » (Matthew 22:17-22 NIV bible)_

My point is that even Jesus Christ, God’s son said that there should be *separation of church and state*! He did not advocate that the church should overthrow government institutions; in fact He said that He endorsed them:


_Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor. (Romans 13:1-7 NIV Bible)_


[EDIT: I, as has been discussed above, am not advocating governments or authorities that *abuse* thier authority, just fair, sound laws and authorities.]

Now what the laws are, as I said in a previous post, are typically determined by the societies concept of right and wrong, which are determined by morals, which typically come from religious beliefs! 



			
				ampurdan said:
			
		

> Well, my point is that there is no need for "freedom of religion"; especially when this implies that the different creeds have to be incorporated inside the State structure. Why should a public officer refuse to abide by the law whenever he/she feels his religion tells him/her to do so? And what if the one in charge of weddings believes that a couple of different religion cannot marry eachother?


----------



## nabi

hoy en dia muchos politicos tambien estan aparentando que estan cerca de Dios para ganar los votos en la elecciones del pueblo cristiano el cual esta creciendo de manera muy acelerada, en colombia me he dado cuenta de esto pero otros en realidad esan buscando de Dios para que sea el quien les de la sabiduria para manejar a un pais como el mio.

en realidad siempre los politicos siempre se han apegado muchos a Dios o a sus dioses, el concebir un estado independiente sin Dios es algo que muy personalemente no concibo.

algo que si quisiera yo que cambiara es el dominio politico que tiene el pueblo catolico, creo que cada vez mas se les debe dar cabida otras personas, creo que que han pasado muchos siglos y nadie hace nada en colombia cada vez mas al pueblo protestante se le esta dando la oportunidad de participar icluso de ganar elecciones al senado y otros puestos publicos.

gracias por escucharme


----------



## ben119

To answer the original question, I think that this separation is vital (for a lot of reasons already mentioned in this thread).

What puzzles me is the way some people need to project their beliefs at state level. I cannot help thinking that it has something to do with their ego...


----------



## V52

ben119 said:


> To answer the original question, I think that this separation is vital (for a lot of reasons already mentioned in this thread).
> 
> What puzzles me is the way some people need to project their beliefs at state level. I cannot help thinking that it has something to do with their ego...


 
You are sooo right!  This does maybe mean a discharge of responsability? 
Here in Italy we are facing now the problem of  catholics who  wait for their parish permission to know if they can accept  to say Hallo to a gay couple...  still they cheat, take the other pepole women,  live with a second partner... gosh we are living a real counter reform time! 
So unagreable...
Vittorio


----------



## .   1

Vittorio52 said:


> Dear Zebedee
> Thank you for your question! I am happy to know that the news about the "revenge" campaign of Vatican in Italy is not so known abroad. It means it is not a world problem. They are daily taking part and giving not asked opinions about italian laws, giving vote indications that can easily be considered intrusions. They are proposing "castity" against AIDS, threatening italian Laws about Abortion, Divorce, criticizing weddings between christians and muslims, even obtaining laws that guarantee to Church tax exemptions on their immobiliar properties, and of course demonizing gays ... Where's going the foundamental pinciple "A free Church in a free State?"
> Vittorio


The very same thing is happening in Australia right now!
My mother has lived here for a generation more than me and she reckons that this is the closest Australia has ever come to being run by a Dictator and he is surreptitously using right wing religions to bolster his support base.
It is scary to find out just how many senior Australian Politicians are either ordained clerics or very senior members of their church laity.
All sorts of stupid questions regarding people's private lives are now being looked at askance by power hungry politicians seeking to divide and conquer the community.
A free church and a free start went out the window when the two tall buildings fell down and a convenient enemy was created to demonise so that we could first be scared witless by vote seekers and then scared even further when we realised what that fake terror had terrorised us into electing.

.,,


----------



## Sepia

gian_eagle said:


> You are right. The Vatican is the smallest independent Nation in the World.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City



Untrue:

There is a monastery in Malta that is smaller and is recognized as an independent Nation by the UN.


----------



## Etcetera

Vittorio52 said:


> That said, how do you feel about the separation of church and state?



I welcome it. In my opinion, state should have nothing to do with church. And church shouldn't allow itself to be involved in politics. This way both will benefit. 
I can't speak for all countries, but in Russia it's better to be as far from the state as possible. 




> Does religion have a place in government?





>


Well, on major religious holidays - such as Christmas and Easter - there are usually lots of politicians standing in churches in front of cameras. I find it really disgusting. I believe that were they truly religious, they would choose a smaller church where there are no journalists.


----------



## Kajjo

Sepia said:


> There is a monastery in Malta that is smaller and is recognized as an independent Nation by the UN.


Please explain further. Malta is a small nation in the mediterranean, but what do you mean with "monastery as nation"? I have never heard about such a thing.

Kajjo


----------



## Spectre scolaire

Sepia said:
			
		

> There is a monastery in Malta that is smaller and is recognized as an independent Nation by the UN.



Of course, this is a misunderstanding – but as such, it is an interesting one. Malta has a very special history. Here is a small passage from http://en.allexperts.com/e/k/kn/knights_hospitaller.htm in order to clear things up a little bit:




> The Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St. John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta, better known as the Sovereign Military Order of Malta or SMOM, is a Catholic order which claims national sovereignty and has been granted permanent observer status at the United Nations. (Its claims of sovereignty are disputed.) SMOM is considered to be the most direct successor to the medieval Knights Hospitaller, also known as the Knights of Malta, and today operates as a largely religious, charitable and ceremonial organization.


Malta is not the only lilliputian state with a rather curious constitutional history. Look up _Andorra_, and you’ll find even stranger things.
​


----------



## Sepia

Kajjo said:


> Please explain further. Malta is a small nation in the mediterranean, but what do you mean with "monastery as nation"? I have never heard about such a thing.
> 
> Kajjo




Within the geographical area of the capital of Malta there is a building complex -  monastry - during the middle ages while crusaders were all over the area this monastry got the status of an authonomous state and still has, with the recognition of the UN. It is smaller than the Vatican state. Still it is not the smallest state in the world, I think. There is, or at least was one much smaller in the North Sea. The ladder emerged as the result of an economic endeavour and a long and complicated law suit.

I don't see why this should be more surprising than a church and the popes residence being an authonomous state. What pisses me off in this connection is that they have been granted the right have their own coins within the EURO as a currency. I don't see why a totalitarian or feudal state (like Monaco) should have their own Euro-coins. 

The Catholic Church is not democratic - and should therefore have no more influence on or part of a democratic state than any other corporation has.


----------



## panjabigator

> That said, how do you feel about the separation of church and state?  Does religion have a place in government?



I think religion has no place in government.  I'd rather know that our president makes his decisions with his people in mind and not God too many foolish decisions (including loss of life) have resulted from God related misconstructions.  Also, in a country with minorities that have a "different" God (or a different interpretation of God), one God is shown to have more importance than others.  You can't please anyone anymore, so how about not showing favoritism!

I am not saying that all religious days should be holidays (or shouldn't be) but that the government needs to make objective decisions based on the good of the people and not the will of a higher power.

I also think religious organizations should have to pay taxes etc. and shouldn't be exempt.  No favoritism.  (I really don't think these last sentences have any relevance, though).


----------



## Spectre scolaire

_Lo Stato del Vaticano_ is an anachronism of absolute monarchy, and it is literally reduced to smithereens compared to what it used to be. Still, it is recognized by most states – not Saudi Arabia, though, and the reason is perhaps obvious. I hope _Sepia_’s strong dislike for the Vatican is not equally religiously motivated. In that case there is nothing to discuss except erecting one’s own defenses. And I think the question under discussion is rather irrelevant for both the Vatican (ruled by an autarch) and the greater part of Arabia (owned by the Saudi family). 

There are many curious states around. Andorra is _formally_ ruled as a feudal fief by the French president(!) and a bishop of a city in Northern Spain. And what about _Mont Athos_ in Northern Greece? Is that a “state”? In some ways, yes – in other ways, no. 




			
				Sepia said:
			
		

> this monastry [in Malta] got the status of an authonomous state and still has, with the recognition of the UN.


As mentioned in my posting, it has observer status at the UN. _That is not the same as recognition_.



			
				Sepia said:
			
		

> What pisses me off [...] is that they [the Vatican] ha[s] been granted the right [to] have their own coins within the EURO as a currency.


-Wash your mouth!, my mother used to say... Vatican euro coins are not in ordinary circulation because of their relative (I’d even say _extreme_) rarity. For all intents and purposes, they are like medals kept in the drawers of numismatical enthusiasts – or perhaps used as jewellery.

Now, let’s go back to the subject of this thread (which I have followed with some interest). When posting this, I can see that it is already back on track.
​


----------



## Kajjo

Sepia said:


> What pisses me off in this connection is that they have been granted the right have their own coins within the EURO as a currency. I don't see why a totalitarian or feudal state (like Monaco) should have their own Euro-coins.


I do not see the connection between the type of government and the currency union. From the monetary point of view there is no problem in every nation having their own coins.



> The Catholic Church is not democratic - and should therefore have no more influence on or part of a democratic state than any other corporation has.


I do not see any connection between democracy and influence. I agree with you that no church should have any influence in a secular state and Germany is certainly too much influenced by the Christians churches. However, I would not accept more influence if the churches were more democratic. I am opposed to influence because of equality, liberty and secularity, not because of feudal or undemocratic structures _inside _a church I am no member of.

Kajjo


----------



## Athaulf

Sepia said:


> I don't see why this should be more surprising than a church and the popes residence being an authonomous state. What pisses me off in this connection is that they have been granted the right have their own coins within the EURO as a currency. I don't see why a totalitarian or feudal state (like Monaco) should have their own Euro-coins.
> 
> The Catholic Church is not democratic - and should therefore have no more influence on or part of a democratic state than any other corporation has.



You are very wrong not only in diagnosing "totalitarianism" and "feudalism" in case of these states, but also in assuming that totalitarianism and democracy are necessarily opposites.


----------



## Athaulf

ben119 said:


> What puzzles me is the way some people need to project their beliefs at state level. I cannot help thinking that it has something to do with their ego...



 Anyone who has ever expressed or supported any opinion about government or politics, no matter on what issue and from what perspective, has by that very act tried to "project his beliefs at the state level."


----------



## Outsider

Athaulf said:


> You are very wrong [...] in assuming that totalitarianism and democracy are necessarily opposites.


Interesting. I would tend to agree with that assumption, myself. Can you give a counterexample?


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> Interesting. I would tend to agree with that assumption, myself. Can you give a counterexample?



Unfortunately, discussing this issue at the necessary depth would soon become largely off-topic for this thread. There are essentially two kinds of counterexamples here. The first one would consist of various non-democratic systems of government that haven't had any totalitarian elements. The second one would be various governments that have implemented totalitarian policies with clear support of a large majority of the population. 

Of course, you can always counter any such examples by adopting and ever-shifting definition of "democracy" so that a government stops being democratic as soon as it breaks certain norms of nice behavior, regardless of the popular support for such measures, and then define "totalitarianism" simply as the lack of such "democracy." This is indeed what many people do, but it results in seriously flawed, useless, and incoherent definitions of both notions.

Note however that I didn't say that there hasn't been a high (though not a complete!) positive correlation between democracy and lack of totalitarianism in recent history; my response was merely to the claim that political entities such as Vatican or Monaco are somehow "totalitarian" or "feudal" (another often misused term) due to lack of democracy in certain parts of their political systems.

For a more detailed discussion that touches on these issues, see my posts in a different thread that dealt with the topic more closely.


----------



## Outsider

Athaulf said:


> Unfortunately, discussing this issue at the necessary depth would soon become largely off-topic for this thread. There are essentially two kinds of counterexamples here. The first one would consist of various non-democratic systems of government that haven't had any totalitarian elements.


You're right, I had forgotten that "totalitarianism" in strict sense is essentially a 20th century phenomenon.



Athaulf said:


> The second one would be various governments that have implemented totalitarian policies with clear support of a large majority of the population.


That's what led me to disagree, initially. I can't think of any such democratic governments, though I suppose there are always special cirsumstances where one might argue that an approximation of totalitarianism has been instituted in democratic countries, such as during martial law. But I agree that we're getting off-topic.


----------



## Sepia

Athaulf said:


> You are very wrong not only in diagnosing "totalitarianism" and "feudalism" in case of these states, but also in assuming that totalitarianism and democracy are necessarily opposites.



Whether I consider the two opposites or not has nothing to do with my statement. To me it rather seems that you want to distract the attention from the fact, that neither the Vatican state nor Monaco are democracies, whereas the EU member states are. Those are indisputable, political facts. Not only "somehow" - when the constitution of a state leaves all decisive power with one person who is not to be elected by the people, then it is not a democratic constitution, no matter how nice the top man may or may not be. Simple as that!

With which type of system I aggree with should be obvious.


----------



## Athaulf

Sepia said:


> Whether I consider the two opposites or not has nothing to do with my statement. To me it rather seems that you want to distract the attention from the fact, that neither the Vatican state nor Monaco are democracies, whereas the EU member states are. Those are indisputable, political facts. Not only "somehow" - when the constitution of a state leaves all decisive power with one person who is not to be elected by the people, then it is not a democratic constitution, no matter how nice the top man may or may not be. Simple as that!



My objection was not to the above mentioned facts, but rather to the implications that you derived from them, namely that those particular monarchies are, in your own words, "feudal" or "totalitarian." I don't find any traces of either feudalism or totalitarianism in either of these states, under any reasonable definition of these terms. Hence my objection to the dichotomy between democracy and totalitarianism that you seem to have been assuming in your post above.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> My objection was not to the above mentioned facts, but rather to the implications that you derived from them, namely that those particular monarchies are, in your own words, "feudal" or "totalitarian." I don't find any traces of either feudalism or totalitarianism in either of these states, under any reasonable definition of these terms. Hence my objection to the dichotomy between democracy and totalitarianism that you seem to have been assuming in your post above.


Sorry mate.  I disagree.
The Vatican is a totally Totalitarian State run by The Pope.  Where is the confusion.
Monaco is run by a family dynasty and that seem awfully close to Feudal.

.,,


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> Sorry mate.  I disagree.
> The Vatican is a totally Totalitarian State run by The Pope.  Where is the confusion.
> Monaco is run by a family dynasty and that seem awfully close to Feudal.



Can you name some specific totalitarian measures implemented by the government of Vatican, akin to e.g. Stalin's USSR? Or some specifics of the political system of Monaco that have feudal characteristics, akin to e.g. the Holy Roman Empire in the 11th century? I'm asking for concrete examples and exact parallels, not just vague observations that all these systems are different from the modern concept of liberal democracy one way or another.

I understand that you dislike the political systems of these countries, but you're using the adjectives "totalitarian" and "feudal" simply as generic terms of abuse, without any concrete and coherent meaning.


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> That's what led me to disagree, initially. I can't think of any such democratic governments, though I suppose there are always special cirsumstances where one might argue that an approximation of totalitarianism has been instituted in democratic countries, such as during martial law. But I agree that we're getting off-topic.



For what that's worth, in the corner of the world that I'm coming from, I've more or less personally witnessed many nasty things committed by democratically elected (and repeatedly re-elected) governments. I've also read about even nastier things committed by freely elected governments, clearly supported by the majority of the population, in other parts of the world and historical periods (I won't name any names to avoid stirring further controversy). Whether these acts qualify as "totalitarian" in each particular case is of course debatable, but I've certainly seen this adjective used for acts of political oppression far lesser than in these examples.

Also, to get back to the original topic of the thread, I don't see democracy as having any connection whatsoever with the separation of church and state. In a democracy, an established state church (or other religious institution) will or will not exist according to the preferences of the majority of the voters. As simple as that.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> Can you name some specific totalitarian measures implemented by the government of Vatican, akin to e.g. Stalin's USSR? Or some specifics of the political system of Monaco that have feudal characteristics, akin to e.g. the Holy Roman Empire in the 11th century? I'm asking for concrete examples and exact parallels, not just vague observations that all these systems are different from the modern concept of liberal democracy one way or another.


I do not need to draw exact parallels to any system to be of the opinion that the Vatican is a totalitarian state. 
A totalitarian state is not necessarily a bad thing. 
A benign dictatorship seems to me to be an excellent system.
An honest Royal Family seems excellent.
I am not much of a fan of capitalism and prefer communism or socialism in some form.

The Collins dictionary:
*totalitarian* _adj _*1* of, denoting, relating to, or charistic of a dictatorial one-party state that regulates every realm of life.

By this definition The Vatican is one of the most totalitarian states to have ever existed.
One Pope. One 'Political' party. One Religion. The type of clothes worn by most of the people living and working in The Vatican is closely regulated. The type of food they eat. Their access to the internet. Their access to many other cultural influences.

Monaco is run by an inherited Crown Prince. 
There are Royalty and commoners 
There is no way for a commoner to become Crown Prince.
How far from the feudal track am I.
The whole Principality is artifically funded by the Royal Family's Casino.
Their subjects are supported by these funds and granted protection from fair tax laws and the subjects exist to allow The Royal Family to continue their financial war against their mathematically challenged opposition.
Business is the new warfare.

The Collins dictionary:
*feudalism* _n_ the legal and social system that evolved in the 8th and 9th centuries, in which vassals were protected and maintained by their lords, usually through the granting of feifs, and were required to serve under them in war. 




Athaulf said:


> I understand that you dislike the political systems of these countries, but you're using the adjectives "totalitarian" and "feudal" simply as generic terms of abuse, without any concrete and coherent meaning.


Please point out the slightest hint of abuse by me regarding totalitarianism or feudalism!

*Sorry mate. I disagree.*
*The Vatican is a totally Totalitarian State run by The Pope. Where is the confusion.*
*Monaco is run by a family dynasty and that seem awfully close to Feudal.*

*.,,*
It is not possible to discuss The Vatican and not be on topic of the separation of church and state.


----------



## .   1

Athaulf said:


> Also, to get back to the original topic of the thread, I don't see democracy as having any connection whatsoever with the separation of church and state. In a democracy, an established state church (or other religious institution) will or will not exist according to the preferences of the majority of the voters. As simple as that.


There is no dominant church nor is there a state church in Australia and we are almost a democracy, or as near as damnit.

.,,


----------



## Brioche

. said:


> There is no dominant church nor is there a state church in Australia and we are almost a democracy, or as near as damnit.
> 
> .,,



Following your line of reasoning with regard to Monaco, which is a constitutional monarchy, Australia, also a constitutional monarchy, is a feudal state. 

So Monaco is also "almost a democracy", just like other feudal, constitutional monarchies such as Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden


----------



## TRG

In the U.S. the doctrine of separation of church and state is rooted in the first amendment of the Constitution, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."  My understanding of this is that it was intended to prevent the establishment of an official state church or religion, and not to prevent religious thought from having any influence over the government or the governed.  However, nowadays people think of it more and more as an absolute separation such that there should never be any overlap whatsoever between a church or a religion and any governmental activity.  This absolutist line of reasoning leads to the elimination of some religious displays, such as nativity scenes, in public places.   As a practical matter, there is zero influence of religion in government in the U.S. except to the extent someone's personal philosophy is guided by their religious beliefs.   To the extent that people wish to be governed by principles that are rooted in religion, they will be and I think that it is ok.


----------



## Athaulf

. said:


> I do not need to draw exact parallels to any system to be of the opinion that the Vatican is a totalitarian state. A totalitarian state is not necessarily a bad thing. A benign dictatorship seems to me to be an excellent system. An honest Royal Family seems excellent. I am not much of a fan of capitalism and prefer communism or socialism in some form.



But totalitarianism is not equivalent to dictatorship or autocracy; it's a much stronger concept. For example, the former Yugoslavia in the 1970s was an autocratic dictatorship by all standards, but it wasn't anywhere close to totalitarianism. (And I recognize that as an objective fact despite my intense personal dislike for that particular regime.) 



> The Collins dictionary:
> *totalitarian* _adj _*1* of, denoting, relating to, or charistic of a dictatorial one-party state that regulates every realm of life.
> 
> By this definition The Vatican is one of the most totalitarian states to have ever existed.
> One Pope. One 'Political' party. One Religion. The type of clothes worn by most of the people living and working in The Vatican is closely regulated. The type of food they eat. Their access to the internet. Their access to many other cultural influences.


One head of state, as everywhere else -- and unlike ours , this one is actually elected, although for life and not democratically. No political parties whatsoever -- unlike democracies, but also unlike totalitarian states, in which a single monolithic party is the primary political force. An established state church, as in almost every country until ~200 years ago and as in the U.K., Finland, or Denmark nowadays. People wear  in public whatever they please if it's just within some minimal decency standards (again like everywhere else). Certain occupations do have professional uniforms, but that's also the case everywhere else. Food and Internet are also regulated in pretty much the same ways as in countries that are generally considered as liberal and democratic. 

On the other hand, I'm noticing a curious lack of the secret police, death squads, killing fields, concentration camps, militarism, prohibitions of emigration, disappearances of political opponents, barbed wire and trenches on the borders, etc. If you observe the actual totalitarian states that have existed in recent history, you should realize that you're taking the adjective "totalitarian" much too lightly.



> Monaco is run by an inherited Crown Prince.
> There are Royalty and commoners
> There is no way for a commoner to become Crown Prince.
> How far from the feudal track am I.
> The whole Principality is artifically funded by the Royal Family's Casino.
> Their subjects are supported by these funds and granted protection from fair tax laws and the subjects exist to allow The Royal Family to continue their financial war against their mathematically challenged opposition.
> Business is the new warfare.
> 
> The Collins dictionary:
> *feudalism* _n_ the legal and social system that evolved in the 8th and 9th centuries, in which vassals were protected and maintained by their lords, usually through the granting of feifs, and were required to serve under them in war.


 What you describe -- power, privilege, and patronage -- is business as usual for any government on the planet. You can call any political system "feudal" using those criteria. 



> Please point out the slightest hint of abuse by me regarding totalitarianism or feudalism!
> 
> *Sorry mate. I disagree.*
> *The Vatican is a totally Totalitarian State run by The Pope. Where is the confusion.*
> *Monaco is run by a family dynasty and that seem awfully close to Feudal.*


Well, "totalitarian" is a term that is normally perceived as a term of abuse by itself, and so is "feudal" when applied to modern political systems. If you intended to apply these terms to some modern states in a detached and morally neutral manner, that would be a pretty uncommon usage, especially since you're not using these terms in a technically precise manner.


----------



## .   1

I will ignore the most of the preceding hair spliting and words being put into my mouth.  I said what I said.  If you are not interested in reading it with an open mind so be it.



Athaulf said:


> Well, "totalitarian" is a term that is normally perceived as a term of abuse by itself, and so is "feudal" when applied to modern political systems. If you intended to apply these terms to some modern states in a detached and morally neutral manner, that would be a pretty uncommon usage, especially since you're not using these terms in a technically precise manner.


I object to this.
You are placing your prejudicial use of two perfectly acceptable descriptives into my words.
My words are totally neutral.  How much more neutral could I possibly have made them?  Should I write in beige.
There is neither praise nor condemnation contained within my words.
You interpreted my words with your baggage and you refuse to acknowledge that.
I will not accept that I made any perjorative statement about either Monaco or The Vatican when I described the former as being feudal and the latter as totalitarian.  
You may not like the concept of totalitarianism but you are not me.  
You may not like the concept of feudalism but have a quick look into the ghettos of any major city and tell me that there is not cannon fodder aplenty currently being produced for and to be deployed by the warlords of that state who at a whim can conscript as many serfs and vassals to go to war.  How far from the feudal road is a mining town?  The miners work their guts out for their entire life and what do they have to show for it at the end.  Sixteen tons and what do you get?  Another day older and deeper in debt.  These same miners will down tools and up weapons when told to do so by their elected leaders.  Would a vassal or a serf recognise such an existence?

How difficult would a refugee from a totalitarianism regeime find life within Vatican?  Do you reckon that such a person would more easily adopt the strictures of such a life more easily than an Aussie Stockman or Drover?

You are quite strident in telling me that The Vatican is not totalitarian.
If The Vatican is not totalitarian, what is it?

.,,


----------



## .   1

Brioche said:


> Following your line of reasoning with regard to Monaco, which is a constitutional monarchy, Australia, also a constitutional monarchy, is a feudal state.


Only if little Johnny Howard and his missus change our constitution so that they can breed our future Big Brother.  Eeeww.  Prime Minister John Winston Howard The Third.  

Where did you take the leap from Monaco to Australia from my line of logic?  Australia has elected leaders.  Monaco has born leaders.  That's a huge hurdle to leap.



Brioche said:


> So Monaco is also "almost a democracy", just like other feudal, constitutional monarchies such as Canada, Denmark, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden


Now are you saying that I said that Monaco is almost a democracy?
Monaco could not be further from a democracy if it were The Vatican.  At least they pretend to elect The Pope.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Athaulf said:


> Can you name some specific totalitarian measures implemented by the government of Vatican, akin to e.g. Stalin's USSR? Or some specifics of the political system of Monaco that have feudal characteristics, akin to e.g. the Holy Roman Empire in the 11th century? I'm asking for concrete examples and exact parallels, not just vague observations that all these systems are different from the modern concept of liberal democracy one way or another.
> 
> I understand that you dislike the political systems of these countries, but you're using the adjectives "totalitarian" and "feudal" simply as generic terms of abuse, without any concrete and coherent meaning.



i couldn't agree more with Athaulf.
I take it people are mistakenly referring here to Vatican City as "The Vatican" - there's a difference.
Vatican City (technically an elected monarchy) is actually a vast bureaucracy - the Pope may 'run' (for want of a better word) the Roman Catholic Church, but he doesn't 'run' Vatican City. Vatican City is governed by, guess what, the Governor of Vatican City. It also has two other powerful posts - the Secretary of State and the President of the Pontifical Commission for Vatican City.
Do not confuse Vatican City with The Holy See. (look it up!)

When talking of political entities it is helpful to understand the correct terminology, and to use it correctly and to shun terms of abuse.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

*This *is the opening question of the thread:


> That said, how do you feel about the separation of church and state? Does religion have a place in government?



Please return to the topic, and compare dictatorships and republics in another thread.

Thank you.


----------



## ben119

Athaulf said:


> Anyone who has ever expressed or supported any opinion about government or politics, no matter on what issue and from what perspective, has by that very act tried to "project his beliefs at the state level."


You're right Athaulf, I was not precise enough in my wording. Let's change it to :
"What puzzles me is the way some people need to project their *religious* beliefs at state level."


----------



## TRG

ben119 said:


> You're right Athaulf, I was not precise enough in my wording. Let's change it to :
> "What puzzles me is the way some people need to project their *religious* beliefs at state level."



Can you give an example?  I can think of some, but I'm curious to know what you mean.  I would just observe that many cultural practices are rooted in religion, and it does not strike me as particularly troublesome that this would influence government policy and lawmaking to some degree.


----------



## fenixpollo

TRG said:


> it does not strike me as particularly troublesome that this would influence government policy and lawmaking to some degree.


Here's an example: The Congress of the United States passes a law requiring all women to cover their hair while inside a government building, because the Koran says so. 

If government policy were influenced by a religion that is not yours, perhaps you might find it troublesome.


----------



## cuchuflete

I believe that current US federal law prohibits religious organizations, not individuals acting in accord with their religious beliefs, from trying to influence legislation or elections.  Those organizations that do so loose their tax-exempt status.  That's adequate, I believe.  If a church chooses to behave like a political entity, and it has every right to do so, then it should be treated as such.  

Sadly, some religious institutions preach honesty, decency and ethical behavior while going to some extremes to circumvent the law, working to influence public policy while maintaining the tax benefits accorded to churches.  These appear to be a minority of all religious organizations.  I have no desire to tar all religions with
a broad brush, but there are some institutions that act in a shameful manner.  If you would like to know which ones do this, look at the IRS (U.S. Internal Revenue Service) web site for details.


----------



## TRG

fenixpollo said:


> Here's an example: The Congress of the United States passes a law requiring all women to cover their hair while inside a government building, because the Koran says so.
> 
> If government policy were influenced by a religion that is not yours, perhaps you might find it troublesome.



That's not an example of anything.  A real example would be the current ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research which results in the destruction of human embryos.  Many of the people who oppose this do so based on their religious beliefs, but there are ethical considerations that go beyond religion so it's not a simple case.

As for your hypothetical, if I were of a culture where women were typically required to cover their hair, I doubt that such a law would be of any concern to me.  As it is, I have no religion, but I live in a country where most people do, so I try to be deferential to some of their influence even if it does not coincide with my own social or political views.


----------



## .   1

TRG said:


> A real example would be the current ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research which results in the destruction of human embryos. Many of the people who oppose this do so based on their religious beliefs, but there are ethical considerations that go beyond religion so it's not a simple case.


Such as?

.,,


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> Such as?
> 
> .,,


 

Here are two articles covering ethical issues surrounding stem cell research:

http://www.ethicsweb.ca/papers/BioScan-cm.pdf

http://www.ketv.com/stemcells/6681496/detail.html


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> Here are two articles covering ethical issues surrounding stem cell research:
> 
> http://www.ethicsweb.ca/papers/BioScan-cm.pdf
> 
> http://www.ketv.com/stemcells/6681496/detail.html


Nah mate.

I've only got one lifetime to live and I'm not going to waste it reading those wordy texts. What is pluripotent? The Collins dictionary seems to not have listed it yet.

You reckon that there are ethical issues relating to stem cell research that are not religious.
What are those issues?
If they are fairdinkum you should be able to supply a precis quite readily.

.,,


----------



## cuchuflete

The ethics of stem cell research?  Hmmmm.... can't seem to find that in the thread title or first post.

It might make for a highly interesting thread of its own.


----------



## TRG

. said:


> Such as?
> 
> .,,



The thing that is of greatest concern is human cloning and I think this is a concern shared by people for reasons that are not strictly of a religious nature.  I don't see a problem with it myself.  But, let's suppose you could clone yourself, then when the fetus was sufficiently developed, harvest whatever organs you might need to replace the ones you have worn out.  Does this scenario have ethical considerations which are not of a religious nature?


----------



## Poetic Device

siljam said:


> Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, to God what belongs to God, and
> to the Church both things.


 
That was absolutely brilliant!  Yolu just blew me away!



> That said, how do you feel about the separation of church and state? Does religion have a place in government?


 
I feel that religion has about a 2% place in politics.  The only things that I feel might have a place are maybe some of the ten commandments (obviously, not the ones vthat say "thou shalt have no other gods before me"), the teachings of karma and some parables such as "love thy neighbour".  These things should only be used as guidelines, I think.


----------



## panjabigator

Poetic Device said:


> That was absolutely brilliant!  Yolu just blew me away!
> 
> 
> 
> I feel that religion has about a 2% place in politics.  The only things that I feel might have a place are maybe some of the ten commandments (obviously, not the ones vthat say "thou shalt have no other gods before me"), the teachings of karma and some parables such as "love thy neighbour".  These things should only be used as guidelines, I think.



I think that those qualities you refer to our just examples of decency;  I was never exposed to the ten commandments growing up and I think I still have followed the guidelines pretty well.


----------



## maxiogee

Poetic Device said:


> I feel that religion has about a 2% place in politics.  The only things that I feel might have a place are maybe some of the ten commandments (obviously, not the ones vthat say "thou shalt have no other gods before me"), the teachings of karma and some parables such as "love thy neighbour".  These things should only be used as guidelines, I think.



I'd be interested to know what common laws in other countries are not in some way related to the ten commandments. Those principles are not just religious - they are a manifesto for getting on with your fellows.


----------



## fenixpollo

Poetic Device said:


> The only things that I feel might have a place are maybe some of the ten commandments (obviously, not the ones vthat say "thou shalt have no other gods before me"), the teachings of karma and some parables such as "love thy neighbour".  These things should only be used as guidelines, I think.


 If you are going to allow governments to apply religion to government, I see two problems: 
1) The people who believe that the 10 Commandments were physically given to the people by God, and that they are unbreakable, uncompromising rules, are not going to agree to only apply some of them;
2) The people who do NOT believe that the 10 Commandments are the word of God are not going to agree to apply beliefs that are contrary to those of their religions. 





maxiogee said:


> Those principles are not just religious - they are a manifesto for getting on with your fellows.


 I'll let Poetic Device refute this one: 





Poetic Device said:


> (obviously, not the ones that say "thou shalt have no other gods before me")





TRG said:


> As for your hypothetical, if I were of a culture where women were typically required to cover their hair, I doubt that such a law would be of any concern to me.  As it is, I have no religion, but I live in a country where most people do, so I try to be deferential to some of their influence even if it does not coincide with my own social or political views.


 My point was that you are NOT of a culture where women are typically required to cover their hair. If a religious group with beliefs antithetical to yours began dictating public policy based on those beliefs, you wouldn't be happy. 

Thanks for giving the stem-cell example as a situation that is meaningful to you, because it proves my point.


----------



## Poetic Device

maxiogee said:


> I'd be interested to know what common laws in other countries are not in some way related to the ten commandments. Those principles are not just religious - they are a manifesto for getting on with your fellows.


 
Very true.  The only reason why I refered to the commandments is because that was the only way that I knew I would be understood.  Of course evedryone should do those things, and some have edone it without being exposed to any religion, but there are also those people who, for one reason or another, refuse to be civil.

Side note, we really should get rid of the stupid laws...  i.e.  It is illegal on one U.S. state to breathe underwater and it's illegal to stuff a small horse in a car trunk in another state.


----------



## Poetic Device

fenixpollo said:


> If you are going to allow governments to apply religion to government, I see two problems:
> 1) The people who believe that the 10 Commandments were physically given to the people by God, and that they are unbreakable, uncompromising rules, are not going to agree to only apply some of them;
> 2) The people who do NOT believe that the 10 Commandments are the word of God are not going to agree to apply beliefs that are contrary to those of their religions.


 

I understand what you are saqying.  That is why I think that the examples that I gave should be guidelines. (I think I said that, but if I didn't I apologise.)  Those examples keep morality and such in the world, and it does not infinge on the right to chose your preferred religion.


----------



## Sepia

Kajjo said:


> I do not see the connection between the type of government and the currency union. From the monetary point of view there is no problem in every nation having their own coins.
> 
> ...
> 
> Kajjo


 

I don't have much time so I'll give you the compact version:

From a monetary point of view the mentioned two mini-nations are not real members with all rights in this monetary union - they don't have a central bank and never even had their own currencies in modern times. But I see that as the lesser problem.
If cash was only a financial instrument - which it obviously in not limited to be - rather than a symbolic thing that reflects our societies we would not put so much emphasis on designing national and even regional versions of the coins displaying famous artists, architecture, flora and fauna from the various places in Europe, would we? We might as well have had one set of coins, uniform for all member countries just like it is the case with the bank-notes. 

So I see the Euro also as a strong symbol of what we have turned Europe into by striving for economic stability and developing democracy. Hardly anyone would deny that the last 50 years have been the most peaceful 50 years in European history. Even though Christian ethics and values have have a strong influence on the politics of many the member countries, this is still an achievement that the Church as an organisation has never accomplished.

Therefore I find it is absolute nonsense to grant non-democratic states the right to polish their image by letting them use symbols that ought to be the sole privilege of EU-member states. 

Of course this came into existence based onthe fact the currencies used in those states (with or without legal status) were Italian Lire and French Francs. 

I find that the fact that the Vatican and Monaco coins are strongly attractive as collectors items is without importance because they are legally valid currency.


----------



## JamesM

. said:


> Nah mate.
> 
> I've only got one lifetime to live and I'm not going to waste it reading those wordy texts. What is pluripotent? The Collins dictionary seems to not have listed it yet.
> 
> You reckon that there are ethical issues relating to stem cell research that are not religious.
> What are those issues?
> If they are fairdinkum you should be able to supply a precis quite readily.
> 
> .,,


 
I'm trying not to get off-topic with this one -- something I seem to have a talent for,  so I was supplying you with sources of information if you actually wanted to know what some of the issues were. 

There are many ethical issues related to stem cell research that do not necessarily have anything to do with religion (although the same issues might be seen from a different perspective depending on one's world view and religion.) I would say most of them revolve around the potential commoditization and commercialization of human cells at whatever stage of development, the ethical issues of cloning (SCNT), and the legal status of embryonic tissue. These are issues to be struggled with whether or not you believe in a god.

As cuchuflete said, this is not in the realm of separation of church and state that I can see. If you can see how to tie it in, more power to you.  I only offer it because your "such as..." left me with the impression that you thought it was exclusively an issue of religion interfering in government policy. There are clearly other considerations that are well documented, if you care to take the time to look at them.


----------



## .   1

JamesM said:


> I would say most of them revolve around the potential commoditization and commercialization of human cells at whatever stage of development, the ethical issues of cloning (SCNT), and the legal status of embryonic tissue.


It will be commercialised and commodified.  That is an inevitable end result of Capitalism.  The market will control the distribution.  The rich will have access and the poor will not.  Ever has it been thus.  Where's the debate there?

Embyronic tissue is exactly that.  Embryonic tissue.  It has no life of it's own.  It has been harvested and is being used therapeutically.  More power to the doctor.

Cloning if a furphy constantly thrown in to give the nightmare scenario of a baby being born so that it's body can be raided by some rich old bloke to prolong his life.
Cloning is nonsense and will never happen in humans.  Babies are far too easy and cheap to make using the sweaty old fashioned method.  We've managed to overpopulate the planet as it is.
Cloning is really only fodder for science fiction.
You may as well discuss immortality or invisibility or mindreading.

.,,


----------



## modus.irrealis

fenixpollo said:


> Here's an example: The Congress of the United States passes a law requiring all women to cover their hair while inside a government building, because the Koran says so.



In your example, was this law passed just like any normal law, meaning it's the product of a democratic system, got the support of the majority, and has no constitutional problems? Then I personally would say, sure I don't agree with it, but it's a democracy -- there's a lot of laws I don't personally agree with, but that's just life. 



TRG said:


> That's not an example of anything.  A real example would be the current ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research which results in the destruction of human embryos.  Many of the people who oppose this do so based on their religious beliefs, but there are ethical considerations that go beyond religion so it's not a simple case.



I think that's a great example for showing how religion interacts with all sorts of issues. I really don't see how people can decide that something is religious and something isn't -- like with embryos, one side is labeled as religious and some people think that delegitimizes it somehow, but where's the consistency? Universal health care can be the result of a religious attitude (and here in Canada it does have roots in religion), but I've heard nobody say that therefore it's a religious view and needs to be abolished. Similarly with the Iraq war where many religious group came out against it, many for religious religious, and yet again, nobody was claiming that being against the war was a religious point of view (with both these issues, it's probably because they're issues that people who usually toss around the don't-impose-religion mantra agree with).

In the end, I don't see the relevance of the ultimate source of a person's opinion as long as that opinion is discussed and decided upon democratically. What's the difference between a reason like "because God created us equal" or "because small government is better" or "because the environment is important." And how do you decide what gets labeled a religion and what doesn't, if you're going to play the game of censuring certain views from the political landscape? I mean, take human rights -- these are things that all humans have, but are invisible, they're both inalienable and yet governments can deny them to people, nobody knows how many there are, and so on, and yet human rights play a huge role in how Western countries approach the law and government -- I wouldn't call them religious, but they share a lot with religious beliefs in that they're not factual statements that can be empirically tested, and so I don't see how a concept like that is any different, from the perspective of law and government, than a religious concept.

In the end separation of church and state should mean that nobody gets power solely due to the religion they hold, nor should there be any requirements for religion to be in government, and so on, but I certainly don't think it means censuring certain views that some people decide are religious. And the other way, it also means that the state should not interfere in churches, although I think this separation is more limited because religious groups shouldn't (and don't) have absolute leeway to do whatever they want.


----------



## JazzByChas

I will be conservative here, and say simply...church and state and religion are somewhat intertwined...laws of a land are typically based on some religion.  The irony of that is, you can choose your religion, and therefore what laws do or do not conform to your beliefs.

So, when it comes to religion, and to laws governing a society, it seems to me that what is law today may change tomorrow, and people choose what laws makes the most sense to everybody, regardless of religious beliefs.


----------



## TRG

fenixpollo said:


> My point was that you are NOT of a culture where women are typically required to cover their hair. If a religious group with beliefs antithetical to yours began dictating public policy based on those beliefs, you wouldn't be happy.
> 
> Thanks for giving the stem-cell example as a situation that is meaningful to you, because it proves my point.


 
You have put me on the wrong planet. I'm not sure how I would feel about some cultural or religious practice being put into law so I'm fairly sure you don't know how I would feel either. It really would depend on what the exact circumstances were and to what extent it affected me personally. I can tolerate a lot. Congress is not going to pass any laws based strictly on the Koran in my lifetime, so it's not even worth talking about.

I don't care a great deal about stem cell research and I'm completely happy to go along with whatever the crowd wants. GWB will be gone soon, and the ban will probably be lifted and the topic will go away. I only picked it at random. I could have mentioned school prayer, public displays of religious symbols such as the ten commandments and nativity scenes, the pledge of allegiance, teaching intelligent design or creation science, or a number of other things. These issues in and of themselves are not important to me, but the political dynamic between the people on different sides of these issues is interesting to watch. That's really where my interest is. You may have a point, but is certainly isn't proven. Nice try though.


----------



## TRG

modus.irrealis said:


> In your example, was this law passed just like any normal law, meaning it's the product of a democratic system, got the support of the majority, and has no constitutional problems? Then I personally would say, sure I don't agree with it, but it's a democracy -- there's a lot of laws I don't personally agree with, but that's just life.
> 
> 
> 
> I think that's a great example for showing how religion interacts with all sorts of issues. I really don't see how people can decide that something is religious and something isn't -- like with embryos, one side is labeled as religious and some people think that delegitimizes it somehow, but where's the consistency? Universal health care can be the result of a religious attitude (and here in Canada it does have roots in religion), but I've heard nobody say that therefore it's a religious view and needs to be abolished. Similarly with the Iraq war where many religious group came out against it, many for religious religious, and yet again, nobody was claiming that being against the war was a religious point of view (with both these issues, it's probably because they're issues that people who usually toss around the don't-impose-religion mantra agree with).
> 
> In the end, I don't see the relevance of the ultimate source of a person's opinion as long as that opinion is discussed and decided upon democratically. What's the difference between a reason like "because God created us equal" or "because small government is better" or "because the environment is important." And how do you decide what gets labeled a religion and what doesn't, if you're going to play the game of censuring certain views from the political landscape? I mean, take human rights -- these are things that all humans have, but are invisible, they're both inalienable and yet governments can deny them to people, nobody knows how many there are, and so on, and yet human rights play a huge role in how Western countries approach the law and government -- I wouldn't call them religious, but they share a lot with religious beliefs in that they're not factual statements that can be empirically tested, and so I don't see how a concept like that is any different, from the perspective of law and government, than a religious concept.
> 
> In the end separation of church and state should mean that nobody gets power solely due to the religion they hold, nor should there be any requirements for religion to be in government, and so on, but I certainly don't think it means censuring certain views that some people decide are religious. And the other way, it also means that the state should not interfere in churches, although I think this separation is more limited because religious groups shouldn't (and don't) have absolute leeway to do whatever they want.


 
I agree. Many of the issues that come up in separation arguments are not simply a matter of religion. Religion and culture are intertwined in so many ways it's very difficult to see where the line should be drawn. What I think happens a lot is that people with a political agenda or an anti-religious agenda try to invoke the separation clause in the first amendment to mean something other than it's literal meaning. Of course, in politics they are free to do this and the way I see it, the seaparation absolutists (the ACLU if you wish) are winning the battle right now. I have often heard people talk about how the U.S. is becoming a theocracy since the beginning of the term of the current president. It is complete nonsense of course, but in politics, nonsense often prevails.


----------



## fenixpollo

TRG said:


> You have put me on the wrong planet. I'm not sure how I would feel about some cultural or religious practice being put into law so I'm fairly sure you don't know how I would feel either.


 I apologize for putting words in your mouth or unfairly ascribing motives to you. Perhaps I should have stuck with the third-person "one". 





> I can tolerate a lot.


 That begs the question whether the tolerant should tolerate the [religiously] intolerant.


----------



## TRG

fenixpollo said:


> I apologize for putting words in your mouth or unfairly ascribing motives to you. Perhaps I should have stuck with the third-person "one".  That begs the question whether the tolerant should tolerate the [religiously] intolerant.



The above statement would be equally valid sans the religious reference.  Nowadays I find as much or more intolerance by people opposed to religion as I do from people who are religious, at least in the U.S.  But, tolerance must have its limits also.  In the case of stem cell research, if the president's ban were clearly preventing people from receiving treatment that was known to cure disease and relieve human suffering then his actions would make me very upset and I would actively work to do something about it.  As it is, there are no cures sitting on the shelf and we do not know when if ever stem cell research will produce any so I'm content with the status quo.


----------



## Slick Slice

Vittorio52 said:


> how do you feel about the separation of church and state?




That all depends on whose concept of religious liberty the phrase is applied to.  I use the term to apply to Thomas Jefferson's, James Madison's and the Virginia Party's view of the rights of conscience.

In a nutshell, the fundamental principle may be stated as follows: 

Religion, the duty that we owe to our Creator, is exempt from the cognizance of Society at Large and Civil Authority in particular.




> Does religion have a place in government?


Religion, the duty which we owe to our Creator, has no place in the legislative sphere because law making bodies have no legitimate authority over religion.  "Just expressions" of religious sentiments, are permitted in speeches and addresses by civil officers, if the need arises for such expressions, naturally in the course of the discharge of one's civil office.  The principle of "Just expressions" does not excuse assumptions by civil government of authority to recommend religious opinions or exercises to the people.

The role of religion in the American Theory of Republican Government is to instill good moral character in the people and their elected rulers.  It was believed that the best way to foster good religion was for the government to stay out of religion.  That is why the U. S. Constitution was established by the people, not by the grace of God.


----------



## Slick Slice

Vittorio52 said:


> Dear Zebedee
> Thank you for your question! I am happy to know that the news about the "revenge" campaign of Vatican in Italy is not so known abroad. It means it is not a world problem. They are daily taking part and giving not asked opinions about italian laws, giving vote indications that can easily be considered intrusions. They are proposing "castity" against AIDS, threatening italian Laws about Abortion, Divorce, criticizing weddings between christians and muslims, even obtaining laws that guarantee to Church tax exemptions on their immobiliar properties, and of course demonizing gays ... Where's going the foundamental pinciple "A free Church in a free State?"
> Vittorio



None of those are what I consider to be purely religious matters.  They are all civil matters.  

Religious matters involve a man and his God, and no one else.  If the matter involves another person, it is a civil/secular matter over which civil government may exercise legitimate authority.

Prayer, fasting, baptism and the doctrine of transubstantiation are purely religious matters.  Marriage, abortion, divorce, mixed marriages, homosexuality and  such,  involve other persons, and are civil matters.


----------



## Slick Slice

TRG said:


> You have some interesting things to say!



I use a lot the rhetoric of the Jeffersonians of the late 1790's - early 1800's.   Some have no idea what I am talking  about. 



> Can you tell me who are the Counterfeit Christian Conservatives


I use the term to refer to what is known in the U. S. as the "Religious Right", who make the silly claim that Separation of Church and State in the U. S. is a myth.  



> what exactly to you mean by "advocating civil authority over God?"


I use the term "civil authority over religion" to mean "civil government authority over religion."  The term "civil authority" was used in the late 1700's to mean civil or secular government, as distinguished from religious or spiritual government.  

It was believed by many that Christ established the religious/spiritual sphere when he said, "my Kingdom is not of this word."   It was also believed that Jesus established the legal principle of separation of church and state when he said, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's."

In the temporal/secular/material sphere, Caesar, or civil government, had legitimate jurisdiction.  However, in the eternal/religious/spiritual sphere, God was the authority and a man's religion was no concern of the government as long as it did not become injurious to others.


----------

