Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I have always had great respect for the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox. Even if they have left-wing views, they don't let that effect the liturgy.

Well, that's certainly true. Indeed, take me for example: I'm a communist, for pete's sake. I want to confiscate all the property of the capitalists, fully nationalize the means of production, and have an entirely state-owned planned economy. And I support Leninist strategies for achieving these goals.

But when it comes to the liturgy, or indeed any aspect of the faith, whether it's a matter of theology or a matter of worship, I'm an arch-traditionalist. Thou shalt not mess with the Church. And thou shalt certainly not change liturgical practices willy-nilly, just to be "modern" or for other nonsensical reasons like that.

Well you certainly have an interesting way of looking at religion. Separate politics and religious beliefs too or do your beliefs influence how you approach politics?

[Cannabis Islands]

I have always had great respect for the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox. Even if they have left-wing views, they don't let that effect the liturgy.

Well, that's certainly true. Indeed, take me for example: I'm a communist, for pete's sake. I want to confiscate all the property of the capitalists, fully nationalize the means of production, and have an entirely state-owned planned economy. And I support Leninist strategies for achieving these goals.

But when it comes to the liturgy, or indeed any aspect of the faith, whether it's a matter of theology or a matter of worship, I'm an arch-traditionalist. Thou shalt not mess with the Church. And thou shalt certainly not change liturgical practices willy-nilly, just to be "modern" or for other nonsensical reasons like that.

And when pisses me off, is that the Roman Latin Rite of the Catholic Church has forsaken the liturgy and their traditions so much that some people give me blank expressions when I inform them that Georgian chant you hear in media such as TV and video games, it came from the Catholic Church. Yep, that's right. That organization you have a hatred so much for came up with the music you like. Then I give them smart ass smile and walk away.

I mean there is modernization and then there is giving up every fucking thing you believe in just to try to be attractive to people with my world views.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

My parents are sort of antagonistic toward organized religion, so I'm not really comfortable talking to them about it.
When I have independence, I intend to try and be a better Catholic.

What sort of antagonism to they tend to display?
While I'm a staunch atheist, I definitely don't approve of parents trying to force atheism on their children.

My parents are not atheists, they are just lapsed Christians that tend to role their eyes at piety.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

My parents are sort of antagonistic toward organized religion, so I'm not really comfortable talking to them about it.

When I have independence, I intend to try and be a better Catholic.

Hmmm... I see the problem.

There are some churches that hold Mass at times other than Sunday morning, however, so perhaps you could try going to one of them - not on a weekly basis, of course, but every once in a while - and just tell your parents you're heading out for a couple of hours? A lot depends on what they're like, of course (I remember my parents rarely asked questions when I told them I was heading out during the day, but others are different). And you probably don't want to talk about details like that on an internet forum.

Like I said, I'm really lacking in independence. Going out on my own is not something I ever do. I'm just really averse to risk taking or putting myself into stressful situations, to a somewhat illogical degree, I've even considered when discussing it with a friend that I might need therapy or something.

Like, my parents are good parents, they're tolerant and I'm sure that they would accept that I'm a lot more religious then them. But I just can't talk about it anyway, I just don't know why.

[Nordengrund]

I have always had great respect for the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox. Even if they have left-wing views, they don't let that effect the liturgy.

Well, that's certainly true. Indeed, take me for example: I'm a communist, for pete's sake. I want to confiscate all the property of the capitalists, fully nationalize the means of production, and have an entirely state-owned planned economy. And I support Leninist strategies for achieving these goals.

But when it comes to the liturgy, or indeed any aspect of the faith, whether it's a matter of theology or a matter of worship, I'm an arch-traditionalist. Thou shalt not mess with the Church. And thou shalt certainly not change liturgical practices willy-nilly, just to be "modern" or for other nonsensical reasons like that.

Forcing your beliefs on others is not Christian. Capitalists may be greedy, but being a thief does not make you any better. Confiscating property is theft and the Bible says thou shall not steal.

Why can the state take stuff, but it is wrong for the people? Isn't the government nothing more than a really big and really powerful monopoly?

Yes, the Bible does state to give up all we have, but it should be out of free will, not because some law says so.

Voluntary socialism is Christian, a government that forces people to give up property isn't.

Capitalism can also be Christian since it allows people to make something of themselves and many millionaires give to the poor and fund programs for the less forunate.

It is un Christian to force someone to live like a Christian.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

But, as a side note, I'm just imagining how apocalyptic the situation must have looked from the perspective of the Catholic Church in the 16th century. Out of nowhere, in the space of just a few decades, all of Europe seemed to be engulfed by heresy. Not since the days of Arius had things looked so bleak. In the 4th century, St. Jerome famously said: "The whole world woke up one morning, lamenting and marvelling to find itself Arian." Well, now, in the 16th century, it seemed Europe woke up one morning to find itself Protestant.

Indeed, it would have been really frightening. It sort of makes you understand why there were things like the inquisition.

[The Archregimancy]

Well, I suspected that my english was bad, but I never tought it was at the point people could think that it's just machine translation...
Still, to answer your question, I'm the majority of the time on a 3ds which may explain some mistakes I make (any guy which ever tryied to write on a 3ds know how horrible it is...) but, well, I hope you still understand me, at least a little...

Moi, je comprends tout, y compris les mots en français. Ne t'inquiéte pas. C'est probablement à cause de ces mots que Tarsonis pensait que tu utilises peut-être une... heu... comment dit-on? Traduction automatique?

Moi aussi je vous comprends sans probleme; comme Constantinopolis dit, ne t'inquite pas.

[Constantinopolis]

Well, that's certainly true. Indeed, take me for example: I'm a communist, for pete's sake. I want to confiscate all the property of the capitalists, fully nationalize the means of production, and have an entirely state-owned planned economy. And I support Leninist strategies for achieving these goals.

But when it comes to the liturgy, or indeed any aspect of the faith, whether it's a matter of theology or a matter of worship, I'm an arch-traditionalist. Thou shalt not mess with the Church. And thou shalt certainly not change liturgical practices willy-nilly, just to be "modern" or for other nonsensical reasons like that.

Well you certainly have an interesting way of looking at religion. Separate politics and religious beliefs too or do your beliefs influence how you approach politics?

I see them as very closely related, actually. I first became a socialist because of my Christian faith, and then as I drifted further left, I always maintained the view that Christianity and the socialist movement (including its communist variant) should be natural allies. It was only a collection of foolish errors and realpolitik considerations (basically, "the friend of my enemy is my enemy") that resulted in the historical hostility between them.

I should clarify. I, personally, in the time allotted for silent prayer after the prayer read aloud for the Church as a whole, pray for the Pope and the Patriarch. I imagine some others do as well, but I wouldn't call it standard practice.

Oh, I see. In that case, please read my "thank you" in the singular rather than the plural. Your prayers are much appreciated!

If I may offer a suggestion, however, the Orthodox Divine Liturgy includes a prayer for "the holy Orthodox Patriarchs", and we only pray for the Ecumenical Patriarch in particular when the service is being performed by a priest or bishop under his jurisdiction. So, because of the collective nature of Orthodox leadership, I would suggest that it is better to pray for the Pope and "the Orthodox Patriarchs", rather than just the first-among-equals Patriarch in particular. But obviously I don't want to impose anything on your prayer life - it's just something to consider.

And here's hoping the Orthodox in North America are better than most Christian groups at unification and find a way to come together and embrace their new parishioners.

Well, they are already united in communion. It's just the administrative bureaucracy that is all tangled and... you know, Byzantine.

We have to stay true to our roots, after all!

[Vazdaria]

Well you certainly have an interesting way of looking at religion. Separate politics and religious beliefs too or do your beliefs influence how you approach politics?

I see them as very closely related, actually. I first became a socialist because of my Christian faith, and then as I drifted further left, I always maintained the view that Christianity and the socialist movement (including its communist variant) should be natural allies. It was only a collection of foolish errors and realpolitik considerations (basically, "the friend of my enemy is my enemy") that resulted in the historical hostility between them.

I should clarify. I, personally, in the time allotted for silent prayer after the prayer read aloud for the Church as a whole, pray for the Pope and the Patriarch. I imagine some others do as well, but I wouldn't call it standard practice.

Oh, I see. In that case, please read my "thank you" in the singular rather than the plural. Your prayers are much appreciated!

If I may offer a suggestion, however, the Orthodox Divine Liturgy includes a prayer for "the holy Orthodox Patriarchs", and we only pray for the Ecumenical Patriarch in particular when the service is being performed by a priest or bishop under his jurisdiction. So, because of the collective nature of Orthodox leadership, I would suggest that it is better to pray for the Pope and "the Orthodox Patriarchs", rather than just the first-among-equals Patriarch in particular. But obviously I don't want to impose anything on your prayer life - it's just something to consider.

And here's hoping the Orthodox in North America are better than most Christian groups at unification and find a way to come together and embrace their new parishioners.

Well, they are already united in communion. It's just the administrative bureaucracy that is all tangled and... you know, Byzantine.

We have to stay true to our roots, after all!

Sorry.....But how can you be Orthodox AND Communist???

[Constantinopolis]

Forcing your beliefs on others is not Christian.

Historically, that's... quite debatable, you know. Certainly if destroying and confiscating property counts as "forcing your beliefs on others", then Christians started "forcing their beliefs on others" as soon as they were able to do so. Pagan temples didn't convert themselves into churches, after all.

Capitalists may be greedy, but being a thief does not make you any better. Confiscating property is theft and the Bible says thou shall not steal.

Confiscating the property of someone who acquired it unjustly is not theft; on the contrary, it is justice. The Bible says thou shalt not steal, but what is theft? It is taking away property from its rightful owner. Taking away property from someone who had no moral right to own it in the first place is not theft. For instance, in the United States before the Civil War, millions of people were legally the property of others. But this law was evil and unjust. When the government took away the property of the slave owners, it was not theft. It was justice.

We communists see the issue of confiscating capitalist property in the same way. They have no right to own it in the first place, since they acquired it by exploiting their workers. Therefore it is legitimate - indeed, it is imperative - to confiscate this property, and give it to the workers, who are its rightful owners. I can explain further, but I'm afraid that would take us too far off-topic. You can TG me if you'd like. I love telegrams.

It is un Christian to force someone to live like a Christian.

That would imply that you must oppose any and all laws based on Christian morality. Do you?

[Constantinopolis]

Sorry.....But how can you be Orthodox AND Communist???

The same way it was possible, in the 4th century and later, to be both Christian AND a loyal subject of the Roman Emperor. Indeed, even an enthusiastic supporter of the Empire against the barbarians.

Just because we were enemies in the past, doesn't mean we have to continue being enemies in the future. Political alliances and hostilities change.

Like I said, I'm really lacking in independence. Going out on my own is not something I ever do. I'm just really averse to risk taking or putting myself into stressful situations, to a somewhat illogical degree, I've even considered when discussing it with a friend that I might need therapy or something.

Like, my parents are good parents, they're tolerant and I'm sure that they would accept that I'm a lot more religious then them. But I just can't talk about it anyway, I just don't know why.

Oh! Actually, I think I understand this quite well. My parents, although they are both Christians, are not church-going, and tend to think that going to church every week is a little weird. So, when I talk to them on the phone and they ask things like "tell me about your weekend", I usually omit to mention that I went to church. I imagine that if I was younger and lived with them, I would stay home on most Sunday mornings just to avoid any possible questions, although they would never actually object to me going to church.

But, as a side note, I'm just imagining how apocalyptic the situation must have looked from the perspective of the Catholic Church in the 16th century. Out of nowhere, in the space of just a few decades, all of Europe seemed to be engulfed by heresy. Not since the days of Arius had things looked so bleak. In the 4th century, St. Jerome famously said: "The whole world woke up one morning, lamenting and marvelling to find itself Arian." Well, now, in the 16th century, it seemed Europe woke up one morning to find itself Protestant.

Indeed, it would have been really frightening. It sort of makes you understand why there were things like the inquisition.

Well, no, the Inquisition itself was not about that. The Spanish Inquisition began long before the Protestant Reformation, and was concerned mainly with persecuting Jews and Muslims, and people suspected of being Jews or Muslims.

[Nordengrund]

Forcing your beliefs on others is not Christian.

Historically, that's... quite debatable, you know. Certainly if destroying and confiscating property counts as "forcing your beliefs on others", then Christians started "forcing their beliefs on others" as soon as they were able to do so. Pagan temples didn't convert themselves into churches, after all.

Capitalists may be greedy, but being a thief does not make you any better. Confiscating property is theft and the Bible says thou shall not steal.

Confiscating the property of someone who acquired it unjustly is not theft; on the contrary, it is justice. The Bible says thou shalt not steal, but what is theft? It is taking away property from its rightful owner. Taking away property from someone who had no moral right to own it in the first place is not theft. For instance, in the United States before the Civil War, millions of people were legally the property of others. But this law was evil and unjust. When the government took away the property of the slave owners, it was not theft. It was justice.

We communists see the issue of confiscating capitalist property in the same way. They have no right to own it in the first place, since they acquired it by exploiting their workers. Therefore it is legitimate - indeed, it is imperative - to confiscate this property, and give it to the workers, who are its rightful owners. I can explain further, but I'm afraid that would take us too far off-topic. You can TG me if you'd like. I love telegrams.

It is un Christian to force someone to live like a Christian.

That would imply that you must oppose any and all laws based on Christian morality. Do you?

I am not against Christian morality, but Communism is not Christian. Look at all those people killed in socialist and fascist countries. The state has killed more people than any other institution.

Christian morality is universal, but virtues are not. It is immoral to commit murder, but it is unvirtueous to drink alcohol. There is nothing immoral about owning property or having money, it is how it is used.

What I mean by you cannot force people to be Christian is that following Christ and living a Christian life should be a choice.

Libertarianism is Christian since it allows to people to worship freely and is against the initiation of force.

I am against abortions, but that is not forcing a personal conviction, rather I am against abortions since killing an unborn child contradicts the Non aggression principle, and murder is considered universally wrong, not just among Christians.

Homosexuality is a different matter since some societies and some Christians do not see it as immoral.

You're right, they have no right to own it since all things belong to God. However, neither does the state have any right to own it for the state is not God.

Private property is just something God lets us use. Just because someone says they own land does not mean it is true.

[Constantinopolis]

That would imply that you must oppose any and all laws based on Christian morality. Do you?

I am not against Christian morality, but Communism is not Christian. Look at all those people killed in socialist and fascist countries. The state has killed more people than any other institution.

Large numbers of people were killed by Christian countries too, and if those numbers are smaller than for 20th century regimes, that's mainly because human populations in past centuries were much smaller than in modern times to begin with. And as for the state - I don't know, do the Mongols under Genghis Khan and his successors count as a state? Because they killed a lot of people; certainly the highest percentage of the world's population ever killed by any single group. Timur Lenk and his famous pyramids of skulls aren't far behind either. In any case, multiple scholars have found that non-state societies have significantly higher rates of violence than state societies, for what it's worth.

History is bloody, and cruel, and the horrible things that people did to each other defy all imagination. Trying to pin everything on a single cause, or a single vaguely-defined institution (e.g. "the state", as if there is such a thing as a universal definition of "the state") is silly, amateurish, and usually done for propaganda purposes.

Christian morality is universal, but virtues are not. It is immoral to commit murder, but it is unvirtueous to drink alcohol. There is nothing immoral about owning property or having money, it is how it is used.

Would you say that there is nothing immoral about owning slaves, because it all depends on how you treat them? There were, in ancient times, many examples of slaves that were treated very well. Does that excuse the institution of slavery in those cases?

What I mean by you cannot force people to be Christian is that following Christ and living a Christian life should be a choice.

Ok, well, then I agree. Of course. But I don't think anyone was suggesting forcing people to live a Christian life.

Libertarianism is Christian since it allows to people to worship freely and is against the initiation of force.

An ideology based on the view that some of the most abject sins are fundamental rights of the individual, and that we have no enforceable obligation to help our neighbors, is not a Christian ideology.

I am against abortions, but that is not forcing a personal conviction, rather I am against abortions since killing an unborn child contradicts the Non aggression principle, and murder is considered universally wrong, not just among Christians.

Homosexuality is a different matter since some societies and some Christians do not see it as immoral.

Many societies and many people don't see abortion as immoral, either. Remember, although everyone is against murder, people define "murder" in different ways. In some societies, killing someone for dishonouring your family is not murder. There is really no such thing as something that is universally considered wrong. For any action you can imagine, there is probably a society somewhere that considers it ok.

So no, you can't actually avoid forcing some morals on other people. Because we don't all agree on what is right and what is wrong, whenever we have a law that says "X is wrong", we are forcing a moral belief on the people who do not think that X is wrong.

The liberal (and libertarian) ideal of value-neutral law and value-neutral government is absolutely impossible. Every law, and every government, is about forcing certain morals and values on people. Embrace it.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

Oh! Actually, I think I understand this quite well. My parents, although they are both Christians, are not church-going, and tend to think that going to church every week is a little weird. So, when I talk to them on the phone and they ask things like "tell me about your weekend", I usually omit to mention that I went to church. I imagine that if I was younger and lived with them, I would stay home on most Sunday mornings just to avoid any possible questions, although they would never actually object to me going to church.

Yes, it is like that. They would just think it strange, if I wanted to go to Church every week, or even at all. But is it sinful that I can't suck it up and deal with that?

[Constantinopolis]

Oh! Actually, I think I understand this quite well. My parents, although they are both Christians, are not church-going, and tend to think that going to church every week is a little weird. So, when I talk to them on the phone and they ask things like "tell me about your weekend", I usually omit to mention that I went to church. I imagine that if I was younger and lived with them, I would stay home on most Sunday mornings just to avoid any possible questions, although they would never actually object to me going to church.

Yes, it is like that. They would just think it strange, if I wanted to go to Church every week, or even at all. But is it sinful that I can't suck it up and deal with that?

Well... I'm not sure. On the one hand, you shouldn't let the opinions of the world keep you from going to church, because God is more important than anything else. But on the other hand, you should "honour your mother and your father" and not do anything that might strain your relationship. Especially since you presumably have only a few years before you'll be independent anyway. So... I don't know. Maybe ask a priest...?

[Aelex]

Moi, je comprends tout, y compris les mots en français. Ne t'inquiéte pas. C'est probablement à cause de ces mots que Tarsonis pensait que tu utilises peut-être une... heu... comment dit-on? Traduction automatique?

Really, your English is good. You shouldn't feel self-conscious about it. There are many native English speakers who are a lot harder to understand.

Thanks, but let me tell you that your French is really, REALLY good too, not a single error, even with the accents, which are the harder things to understand!

You know, this might seem like a random connection, but you reminded me of the time when I read Isaac Asimov's autobiography. He talked about how his parents refused to teach him Russian, despite his wish to learn it, because they wanted him to be purely American. He was still upset about that, half a century later.

I don't understand why immigrant parents do that sort of thing. What's wrong with teaching your children both languages? Growing up bilingual actually helps with brain development and learning in general!

Now, unfortunately, it might be difficult for you to learn Arabic (or Syriac) if you only speak Indo-European languages like French and English... but maybe at least a few prayers and phrases...

Well, about that, I guess that because he fleed the country fearing for religious persecutions; and thus didn't intended to ever return, he may have tought that it was superfluous to teach Arabic to his kids.
Or it may be because he was "just" a craftman and he wanted to make his sons be fonctionnary (the "French dream", from 1800 to the 70" everyone wanted to make his son a fonctionnary because it was a safe work with a regular pay and where there was no chance to be fired for no reasons), and thus, thought that completly assimilating to the French Culture may give them an advantage or even spare them some racism...

Still, thanks to your links, I have a lot of help to learn some prayers/phrases, and I guess I'll try to start to learn the Pater Noster in Syriac this afternoon!
I may seem to repeat myself, but really, thanks a lot for all your help!

[The Archregimancy]

Moi, je comprends tout, y compris les mots en français. Ne t'inquiéte pas. C'est probablement à cause de ces mots que Tarsonis pensait que tu utilises peut-être une... heu... comment dit-on? Traduction automatique?

Really, your English is good. You shouldn't feel self-conscious about it. There are many native English speakers who are a lot harder to understand.

Thanks, but let me tell you that your French is really, REALLY good too, not a single error, even with the accents, which are the harder things to understand!

Just for the record, I left out the accents in my own (much shorter) French post because I haven't worked out how to make them come up while using the <expletive deleted> Arabic keyboard on my new laptop.

<sigh>

[Aelex]

Just for the record, I left out the accents in my own (much shorter) French post because I haven't worked out how to make them come up while using the <expletive deleted> Arabic keyboard on my new laptop.

<sigh>

I wasn't comparing to you...
Don't worry, your french is quite good too!

[Washington Resistance Army]

snip

Because it's a Christian discussion thread?

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

I sort of know a little bit of French, like I can understand the odd word. It's like that for most English Canadians, with all the French labels on our products and stuff due to bilingualism.

[Constantinopolis]

Moi, je comprends tout, y compris les mots en français. Ne t'inquiéte pas. C'est probablement à cause de ces mots que Tarsonis pensait que tu utilises peut-être une... heu... comment dit-on? Traduction automatique?

Really, your English is good. You shouldn't feel self-conscious about it. There are many native English speakers who are a lot harder to understand.

Thanks, but let me tell you that your French is really, REALLY good too, not a single error, even with the accents, which are the harder things to understand!

Well, thank you! That's a really nice thing to say. But I should mention that I am slow when I type in French. And when I speak, too. I don't use the language on any kind of regular basis, so I have to search my memory for the words I need. On the other hand, my pronunciation is good, so if I'm just reading a text off a page, you'd think I'm completely fluent. But in reality, I find it difficult to maintain a regular conversation, because of how long it takes to find my words.

I should get back to reading French literature one of these days...

You know, this might seem like a random connection, but you reminded me of the time when I read Isaac Asimov's autobiography. He talked about how his parents refused to teach him Russian, despite his wish to learn it, because they wanted him to be purely American. He was still upset about that, half a century later.

I don't understand why immigrant parents do that sort of thing. What's wrong with teaching your children both languages? Growing up bilingual actually helps with brain development and learning in general!

Now, unfortunately, it might be difficult for you to learn Arabic (or Syriac) if you only speak Indo-European languages like French and English... but maybe at least a few prayers and phrases...

Well, about that, I guess that because he fleed the country fearing for religious persecutions; and thus didn't intended to ever return, he may have tought that it was superfluous to teach Arabic to his kids.
Or it may be because he was "just" a craftman and he wanted to make his sons be fonctionnary (the "French dream", from 1800 to the 70" everyone wanted to make his son a fonctionnary because it was a safe work with a regular pay and where there was no chance to be fired for no reasons), and thus, thought that completly assimilating to the French Culture may give them an advantage or even spare them some racism...

Still, thanks to your links, I have a lot of help to learn some prayers/phrases, and I guess I'll try to start to learn the Pater Noster in Syriac this afternoon!
I may seem to repeat myself, but really, thanks a lot for all your help!

Well, again, you are most welcome! I really love to help.


About your grandfather, regarding him fleeing religious persecution and not planning to ever return... well, recent events suggest he was very right about that. Unfortunately.

I really worry about the future of Syrian Christianity. With the way things are going, even if Assad wins (which is by far the best possible outcome for Christians), the majority of Syrian Christians will most likely leave and never come back (if they haven't left already). And then what? If they all just assimilate into their new host countries, what will be left of Syrian Christianity two or three generations from now? What will become of the Patriarchate of Antioch? Two thousand years of Christian tradition, more venerable than either the Old Rome or the New, in the land where the disciples were first called Christians... How do we safeguard it for the future?

O, Phocas! You treasonous bastard, this is all your fault.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

I really worry about the future of Syrian Christianity. With the way things are going, even if Assad wins (which is by far the best possible outcome for Christians), the majority of Syrian Christians will most likely leave and never come back (if they haven't left already). And then what? If they all just assimilate into their new host countries, what will be left of Syrian Christianity two or three generations from now? What will become of the Patriarchate of Antioch? Two thousand years of Christian tradition, more venerable than either the Old Rome or the New, in the land where the disciples were first called Christians... How do we safeguard it for the future?

O, Phocas! You treasonous bastard, this is all your fault.

We should start a UNESCO Intangible Religion Heritage, where certain religions of a long history are protected.

[The Archregimancy]

I really worry about the future of Syrian Christianity. With the way things are going, even if Assad wins (which is by far the best possible outcome for Christians), the majority of Syrian Christians will most likely leave and never come back (if they haven't left already). And then what? If they all just assimilate into their new host countries, what will be left of Syrian Christianity two or three generations from now? What will become of the Patriarchate of Antioch? Two thousand years of Christian tradition, more venerable than either the Old Rome or the New, in the land where the disciples were first called Christians... How do we safeguard it for the future?

O, Phocas! You treasonous bastard, this is all your fault.

We should start a UNESCO Intangible Religion Heritage, where certain religions of a long history are protected.

The Intangible Heritage listing already includes religious practices; is arguably dominated by religion.

The issue isn't UNESCO recognition, but rather getting governments with endangered religious practices to apply to UNESCO for listing. It's up to the relevant governments to apply for listing, not for UNESCO to grant recognition without consultation - and for obvious reasons, it's rather hard to see some Middle Eastern governments applying to list the West Syrian Liturgy as intangible heritage of global historical significance, even if most people in this thread would recognise its broader cultural importance.

[The Third Nova Terra of Scrin]

We should start a UNESCO Intangible Religion Heritage, where certain religions of a long history are protected.

The Intangible Heritage listing already includes religious practices; is arguably dominated by religion.

The issue isn't UNESCO recognition, but rather getting governments with endangered religious practices to apply to UNESCO for listing. It's up to the relevant governments to apply for listing, not for UNESCO to grant recognition without consultation - and for obvious reasons, it's rather hard to see some Middle Eastern governments applying to list the West Syrian Liturgy as intangible heritage of global historical significance, even if most people in this thread would recognise its broader cultural importance.

Nope, sorry if I'm not clear, but officially recognize certain organized religions as an intangible heritage to Mankind. They can get for example, declare Syrian Christianity an Intangible Religion. Well, Roman Catholicism can apply too.

However, the workableness of my suggestion is ruined by the fact that Middle Eastern governments would rather not care. Perhaps, we should point out to Middle Eastern governments the historical heritage of the Christian religions in their countries. Well, that's what organizations like "UNESCO" are for, right?

[The Archregimancy]

The Intangible Heritage listing already includes religious practices; is arguably dominated by religion.

The issue isn't UNESCO recognition, but rather getting governments with endangered religious practices to apply to UNESCO for listing. It's up to the relevant governments to apply for listing, not for UNESCO to grant recognition without consultation - and for obvious reasons, it's rather hard to see some Middle Eastern governments applying to list the West Syrian Liturgy as intangible heritage of global historical significance, even if most people in this thread would recognise its broader cultural importance.

Nope, sorry if I'm not clear, but officially recognize certain organized religions as an intangible heritage to Mankind. They can get for example, declare Syrian Christianity an Intangible Religion. Well, Roman Catholicism can apply too.

However, the workableness of my suggestion is ruined by the fact that Middle Eastern governments would rather not care. Perhaps, we should point out to Middle Eastern governments the historical heritage of the Christian religions in their countries. Well, that's what organizations like "UNESCO" are for, right?

Writing from the perspective of someone who regularly works on Middle Eastern UNESCO sites, I think the UNESCO process is often misunderstood.

UNESCO can't list anything on any of its heritage lists without an application from the relevant UN-recognised government. UNESCO has no real power to then enforce protocols to maintain listed heritage, only the moral authority which comes from de-listing heritage - which is highly unusual, and to my knowledge has only ever happened twice. And even that doesn't really matter if the relevant government doesn't care about de-listing (as was the case with the de-listing of the Arabian Oryx Sanctuary in Oman). Most of the practical work on protecting heritage is actually undertaken by UNESCO-affiliated NGOs, not UNESCO itself.

So while your proposal is well-intentioned, it lacks practicality on several fronts.

One of the profound ironies of UNESCO-listed heritage in the region is that the only UNESCO-listed sites in the Muslim Middle East that are listed on the basis of their Christian religious associations are in...

Iran.