Christian Discussion Thread XII: Soter? I hardly know her!

[Salus Maior]

I'm not asking for a theocracy, where priests are legislators. What I'm preferring is a constitution based on Christian principles, run by secular, layman legislators.

Theonomy. Might as well be the same thing. So, Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan but Christian?

I'd say more turn of the century Austria.

[Salus Maior]

Why not?

In the United States, churches tend to be corrupt and a corrupted form of Christianity has been injected into the American state. I doubt other attempts at desecularization would end up much better.

Terrible people use religion to justify their misdeeds.

Institutions everywhere made up of human beings tend towards corruption. There's nothing unique about the US and what churches reside in it, or the secular government for that matter, that make them any more corrupt than elsewhere.

[Diarcesia]

*confused stare*

Are you aware of what thread you're in?

Took me a moment to digest the sentence. I'm against countries having a state religion (except for localized ones that represent a worldwide community like the Vatican City) if only because of how they treat unbelievers.

[Senkaku]

You don’t want the church to run the state for the same reason you don’t want the military to do it: they’re institutions that have been built for distinct purposes, and attempting to organize the state on their own lines usually just leads to both them and the state becoming corrupt and ill-functioning.

I'm not asking for a theocracy, where priests are legislators. What I'm preferring is a constitution based on Christian principles, run by secular, layman legislators.

How do you keep your legislators secular lay types if you’ve outlined an explicitly religious constitution, especially in a society with religious diversity? If there’s a privileged state religion, and especially if that religion is as highly organized as the Catholic Church, there’s going to be uncomfortable crossovers and conflicts of interest, while members of other faiths are going to be inherently put off from participating in politics at all. It doesn’t have to be Iran or Saudi-tier stuff to become a problem, just as militarist regimes don’t have to have actual generals de jure in charge to experience serious issues.

[The Reformed American Republic]

In the United States, churches tend to be corrupt and a corrupted form of Christianity has been injected into the American state. I doubt other attempts at desecularization would end up much better.

Terrible people use religion to justify their misdeeds.

Institutions everywhere made up of human beings tend towards corruption. There's nothing unique about the US and what churches reside in it, or the secular government for that matter, that make them any more corrupt than elsewhere.

No, but I really do not like the aesthetics of purity placed on something human, especially a government. A secular government usually does not pretend to be given the divine blessing of a deity, nor is opposing it due to corruption deemed a sacrilegious act.

There's no real reason to have a state religion anyway.

[Salus Maior]

Are you aware of what thread you're in?

Took me a moment to digest the sentence. I'm against countries having a state religion (except for localized ones that represent a worldwide community like the Vatican City) if only because of how they treat unbelievers.

I mean I don't know why you're surprised that in the Christian discussion thread there are some posters who prefer a Christian government.

And also, that depends entirely on what laws exist to protect and tolerate other groups. Technically speaking England has a state religion, they're pretty free as far as religious diversity is concerned.

[Diarcesia]

Took me a moment to digest the sentence. I'm against countries having a state religion (except for localized ones that represent a worldwide community like the Vatican City) if only because of how they treat unbelievers.

I mean I don't know why you're surprised that in the Christian discussion thread there are some posters who prefer a Christian government.

And also, that depends entirely on what laws exist to protect and tolerate other groups. Technically speaking England has a state religion, they're pretty free as far as religious diversity is concerned.

My confusion comes at my interpretation that "you don't support a religious government but you support a religious government". I was too fast reading it, but I'm not surprised once I got it.

Bolded part: Only relatively recently. When they were "more devout" the Irish suffered for it.

[Salus Maior]

I mean I don't know why you're surprised that in the Christian discussion thread there are some posters who prefer a Christian government.

And also, that depends entirely on what laws exist to protect and tolerate other groups. Technically speaking England has a state religion, they're pretty free as far as religious diversity is concerned.

My confusion comes at my interpretation that "you don't support a religious government but you support a religious government". I was too fast reading it, but I'm not surprised once I got it.

Bolded part: Only relatively recently. When they were "more devout" the Irish suffered for it.

What the Irish in particular suffered from was the colonialist establishment of Protestant Scots and North-Englishmen as landlords, and the displacing of native Irish which Northern Ireland still suffers the consequences of. I would argue it has more to do with class and nationality than it does religion, though religion is an indicator of identity in that conflict.

[Salus Maior]

Institutions everywhere made up of human beings tend towards corruption. There's nothing unique about the US and what churches reside in it, or the secular government for that matter, that make them any more corrupt than elsewhere.

No, but I really do not like the aesthetics of purity placed on something human, especially a government. A secular government usually does not pretend to be given the divine blessing of a deity, nor is opposing it due to corruption deemed a sacrilegious act.

There's no real reason to have a state religion anyway.

I'm under no impression of purity when it comes to the establishment of a religion in a nation.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

How do you keep your legislators secular lay types if you’ve outlined an explicitly religious constitution, especially in a society with religious diversity? If there’s a privileged state religion, and especially if that religion is as highly organized as the Catholic Church, there’s going to be uncomfortable crossovers and conflicts of interest, while members of other faiths are going to be inherently put off from participating in politics at all. It doesn’t have to be Iran or Saudi-tier stuff to become a problem, just as militarist regimes don’t have to have actual generals de jure in charge to experience serious issues.

Of course it is a good thing if evil finds it difficult to thrive in politics, and we should strive to keep evil away from the halls of government if that is within our power to do so.

It’s just that Christians have a very different conception of what exactly counts as evil than we do. For example, I consider colonial exploitation or drugging sexual minorities into incapacity to be pretty evil things to do, but Old Tyrannia for one is on the record saying that society was better in the early 20th Century than it is now.

The scenario that you described, you outline that as an undesirable outcome, but most Christians want government to be filled with religious busybodies eager to enforce Christian morality on the populace and society. That’s why they keep voting for them.

[The Reformed American Republic]

No, but I really do not like the aesthetics of purity placed on something human, especially a government. A secular government usually does not pretend to be given the divine blessing of a deity, nor is opposing it due to corruption deemed a sacrilegious act.

There's no real reason to have a state religion anyway.

I'm under no impression of purity when it comes to the establishment of a religion in a nation.

You may not, but others may, and respectfully, it is a door that should never be opened. Especially when religion in government does have a long history of resulting in persecution.

[Senkaku]

No, but I really do not like the aesthetics of purity placed on something human, especially a government. A secular government usually does not pretend to be given the divine blessing of a deity, nor is opposing it due to corruption deemed a sacrilegious act.

There's no real reason to have a state religion anyway.

I'm under no impression of purity when it comes to the establishment of a religion in a nation.

What is the point of giving that establishment the privilege of official state sanction and funding, then?

Theonomy. Might as well be the same thing. So, Saudi Arabia or Taliban Afghanistan but Christian?

I'd say more turn of the century Austria.

I mean, if you want a decrepit monarchy with a thin base of support that won’t last out the next two decades, then I guess that’s a good model?

[Salus Maior]

How do you keep your legislators secular lay types if you’ve outlined an explicitly religious constitution, especially in a society with religious diversity? If there’s a privileged state religion, and especially if that religion is as highly organized as the Catholic Church, there’s going to be uncomfortable crossovers and conflicts of interest, while members of other faiths are going to be inherently put off from participating in politics at all. It doesn’t have to be Iran or Saudi-tier stuff to become a problem, just as militarist regimes don’t have to have actual generals de jure in charge to experience serious issues.

Of course it is a good thing if evil finds it difficult to thrive in politics, and we should strive to keep evil away from the halls of government if that is within our power to do so.

It’s just that Christians have a very different conception of what exactly counts as evil than we do. For example, I consider colonial exploitation or drugging sexual minorities into incapacity to be pretty evil things to do, but Old Tyrannia for one is on the record saying that society was better in the early 20th Century than it is now.

The scenario that you described, you outline that as an undesirable outcome, but most Christians want government to be filled with religious busybodies eager to enforce Christian morality on the populace and society. That’s why they keep voting for them.

I'd prefer religious busybodies than state atheist ones like yourself.

But at any rate, that's an entirely unfair caricature of OT, and I doubt he would include blatantly evil things such as that as his reasons as to why he looks fondly on the early 20th century.

[Diarcesia]

Of course it is a good thing if evil finds it difficult to thrive in politics, and we should strive to keep evil away from the halls of government if that is within our power to do so.

It’s just that Christians have a very different conception of what exactly counts as evil than we do. For example, I consider colonial exploitation or drugging sexual minorities into incapacity to be pretty evil things to do, but Old Tyrannia for one is on the record saying that society was better in the early 20th Century than it is now.

The scenario that you described, you outline that as an undesirable outcome, but most Christians want government to be filled with religious busybodies eager to enforce Christian morality on the populace and society. That’s why they keep voting for them.

I'd prefer religious busybodies than state atheist ones like yourself.

But at any rate, that's an entirely unfair caricature of OT, and I doubt he would include blatantly evil things such as that as his reasons as to why he looks fondly on the early 20th century.

By state atheist you mean militant atheists who persecute all religions?

[Salus Maior]

I mean, if you want a decrepit monarchy with a thin base of support that won’t last out the next two decades, then I guess that’s a good model?

The monarchy was plenty strong in the turn of the century Austria, and effectively maintained the support of the diverse peoples of the Dual Monarchy. That it didn't survive WWI doesn't mean it wasn't a strong government, considering even republics like France barely survived it intact, and Britain also ended up losing territory to instability like Ireland when they won.

Ultimately, Austria-Hungary is a decent demonstration of how a monarchy works well as a unifier.

[Salus Maior]

By state atheist you mean militant atheists who persecute all religions?

They're the same thing.

[Senkaku]

Of course it is a good thing if evil finds it difficult to thrive in politics, and we should strive to keep evil away from the halls of government if that is within our power to do so.

It’s just that Christians have a very different conception of what exactly counts as evil than we do. For example, I consider colonial exploitation or drugging sexual minorities into incapacity to be pretty evil things to do, but Old Tyrannia for one is on the record saying that society was better in the early 20th Century than it is now.

The scenario that you described, you outline that as an undesirable outcome, but most Christians want government to be filled with religious busybodies eager to enforce Christian morality on the populace and society. That’s why they keep voting for them.

I'd prefer religious busybodies than state atheist ones like yourself.

But at any rate, that's an entirely unfair caricature of OT, and I doubt he would include blatantly evil things such as that as his reasons as to why he looks fondly on the early 20th century.

I mean, you complain about unfair caricatures on the one hand, and then turn around and pronounce anyone in favor of secularism “state atheists,” it’s a bit hard to take seriously, unless I missed NSCR actually suggesting persecutions of the religious.

[Salus Maior]

I'd prefer religious busybodies than state atheist ones like yourself.

But at any rate, that's an entirely unfair caricature of OT, and I doubt he would include blatantly evil things such as that as his reasons as to why he looks fondly on the early 20th century.

I mean, you complain about unfair caricatures on the one hand, and then turn around and pronounce anyone in favor of secularism “state atheists,” it’s a bit hard to take seriously, unless I missed NSCR actually suggesting persecutions of the religious.

NSCR is a militant, state atheist.

[Diarcesia]

By state atheist you mean militant atheists who persecute all religions?

They're the same thing.

One thing I notice is that Christians tend to assume most if not all atheists are of the militant kind (like the Soviet Union) who want to stamp out all religion.

[Salus Maior]

They're the same thing.

One thing I notice is that Christians tend to assume most if not all atheists are of the militant kind (like the Soviet Union) who want to stamp out all religion.

I'm not under that impression.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I'd prefer religious busybodies than state atheist ones like yourself.

But at any rate, that's an entirely unfair caricature of OT, and I doubt he would include blatantly evil things such as that as his reasons as to why he looks fondly on the early 20th century.

Broadly, that is my point; our positions are fundamentally incompatible, and while we might be able to seek an understanding, which is one of the handful of reasons why threads like these are useful, we will never really be able to sympathise with each other’s position, and attempts to build such sympathy - like Senkaku is doing there - assumes there being more common ground than actually exists.

And yes, I happen to suffer from this crippling condition called not being a well-off straight male of European descent, unfortunately shared by the vast bulk of humanity, which prevents me from seeing what was so nice about that particular stage in human history.

When people talk about ‘decadence’ or ‘materialism’ and how horrible those things are, it inevitably seems to boil down to “I liked it back when we had an unquestionable social order that put people like me on top and didn’t have to deal with all these plebeians questioning things I take for granted”.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that of the many centuries in which Christianity was the dominant social ideology in Western Europe, OT happened to single out that particular time period in which Britain was at the height of its power and had an empire in which the sun did not set to reminisce on.

[Senkaku]

I mean, if you want a decrepit monarchy with a thin base of support that won’t last out the next two decades, then I guess that’s a good model?

The monarchy was plenty strong in the turn of the century Austria, and effectively maintained the support of the diverse peoples of the Dual Monarchy. That it didn't survive WWI doesn't mean it wasn't a strong government, considering even republics like France barely survived it intact, and Britain also ended up losing territory to instability like Ireland when they won.

Ultimately, Austria-Hungary is a decent demonstration of how a monarchy works well as a unifier.

It had been getting pieces of territory picked off for decades after barely weathering a revolution, and then it was mostly on the losing end of a war against Nicholas II’s Russia. It didn’t “unify” its people, it played them against each other— quite expertly, to be sure, but that’s not “unification” in any sense, and its permanent postwar breakup as opposed to the continued existence/territorial integrity of literally all the other powers (even the ones whose governments collapsed) should be an obvious demonstration of that. The maintenance of Habsburg power over the centuries is certainly impressive, but I don’t know why you think their use of the church to prop up their own family’s legitimacy and imperial rule across several different political incarnations of their empire is a desirable outcome for an ideal state.

[Northern Socialist Council Republics]

I mean, you complain about unfair caricatures on the one hand, and then turn around and pronounce anyone in favor of secularism “state atheists,” it’s a bit hard to take seriously, unless I missed NSCR actually suggesting persecutions of the religious.

Call me Russ, and I’ll be the first to admit that state-atheist is not actually an unfair characterisation of my position. Militant, I’d dispute more as a label, unless you consider any advocacy for public violence to be militancy in which case everyone except a handful of fringe anarchists is a militant.

I agree with Salus that the state should embody a moral position and have this moral position be reflected in its legislation and administration. I simply disagree with him over what exactly this moral position ought to be.

Since I call him a reactionary authoritarian all the time over exactly that issue, it would be more than a little hypocritical if I complained about being labelled something nasty right back. ;p

[Senkaku]

I mean, you complain about unfair caricatures on the one hand, and then turn around and pronounce anyone in favor of secularism “state atheists,” it’s a bit hard to take seriously, unless I missed NSCR actually suggesting persecutions of the religious.

Call me Russ, and I’ll be the first to admit that state-atheist is not actually an unfair characterisation of my position.

I agree with Salus that the state should embody a moral position and have this moral position be reflected in its legislation and administration. I simply disagree with him over what exactly this moral position ought to be.

Since I call him a reactionary authoritarian all the time over exactly that issue, it would be more than a little hypocritical if I complained about being labelled something nasty right back. ;p

Well, gross. As usual I now regret involving myself here.

[Salus Maior]

I'd prefer religious busybodies than state atheist ones like yourself.

But at any rate, that's an entirely unfair caricature of OT, and I doubt he would include blatantly evil things such as that as his reasons as to why he looks fondly on the early 20th century.

Broadly, that is my point; our positions are fundamentally incompatible, and while we might be able to seek an understanding, which is one of the handful of reasons why threads like these are useful, we will never really be able to sympathise with each other’s position, and attempts to build such sympathy - like Senkaku is doing there - assumes there being more common ground than actually exists.

And yes, I happen to suffer from this crippling condition called not being a well-off straight male of European descent, unfortunately shared by the vast bulk of humanity, which prevents me from seeing what was so nice about that particular stage in human history.

When people talk about ‘decadence’ or ‘materialism’ and how horrible those things are, it inevitably seems to boil down to “I liked it back when we had an unquestionable social order that put people like me on top and didn’t have to deal with all these plebeians questioning things I take for granted”.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that of the many centuries in which Christianity was the dominant social ideology in Western Europe, OT happened to single out that particular time period in which Britain was at the height of its power and had an empire in which the sun did not set to reminisce on.

I'm more willing to coexist with Senkaku then you, yes. Because you've made it exceedingly obvious that you don't want to exist with me or people like me.

Alright, and nobody's asking you to see what's good about Imperial Britain. I'm not the biggest fan either, but I'm not going to attempt to flame him over it.