Christianists and their quest for "Dominion"

[Lord Varys]

The idea of a secular government or a separation of religion and government is completely antithetical to the world view championed in the holy texts of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism.

The same goes for democracy, by the way.

Western Christianity is somewhat different than Islam, Eastern Orthodoxy, and ancient Judaism (due to the end of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century which allowed the Popes to usurp the place of Roman Emperors as representatives of Jesus on earth - in the Byzantine Empire the Emperor kept that role, and in the Muslim world the Caliphs also were both religious and worldly leaders) but not so much.

The Pope sent himself up as the ultimate ruler of the world, above the kings and emperors. The fact that he never exerted any real and direct power outside of Italy (at least as a head of state) doesn't change the fact the Papacy tried to change that for centuries. Not to mention that they created a church that is subject and responsible to no worldly authority (or at least sees itself that way).

Protestantism just moved the power from the Church completely into the hands of the kings and princes who became the heads of the Protestant churches in Europe and the colonies. That is why there are still so many state churches around.

Thus it is hardly surprising that those religions continue to do and want what they always did and wanted. 

A separation of religion and government is worth nothing if a majority of the administration and populace are religious zealots. The US could have used the last century to actually educate and enlighten their rural areas. But they did not. And now things are as they are.

[Jo498]

it seems that historically a separation of church/religion and state is fairly rare and in only/mainly arose (slowly over a long time) in (western) Christianity. There was no such separation before Constantin and Theodosius and while we might cringe at the Emperor (or today Pope) as representing Christ, before that and in other cultures, the Emperor was not merely representing but claimed to be divine or of divine origin himself. So briefly, the separation is a WEIRD and probably a christian thing. (Of course not systematically christian, although there is the famous "Render unto Caesar..." passage in the gospels and there are also pauline teachings that indicate more separation between faith and political power than was customary. Still, like modern science, modern political theory and modern separation of powers arose historicaly mainly/only in Western Christianity.)  So it's anyone's guess (or alternative history fantasy) what would have happened if christianity had vanished or had a similar fate to Judaism, remaining a small, not very influential religion. I certainly would not make bet that we had separation and religious freedom today if paganism (or whatever followed it) had prevailed.

I don't think we have sufficient historical data what "works" better. Very few things in human history have been more stable over millenia than the Catholic and Orthodox church or the old Chinese Empire, certainly the US or Western secular nation states have not yet come so far. (And there is the other problem that despite technical separation most cultures and countries were until recently considerably uniform in religion and in practice the separation was not all that clear. I mean, on whose banknotes does one read "In God we trust"...)

[Free Northman Reborn]

I also think it was quite easy for Christians in early America to argue for separation of Church and State when they had no other religions to contend with, and where at most they were trying to free themselves from having any particular branch of Christianity forced unto them. After all, the vast majority of people they knew were Christians in any case, and disputes largely revolved around which interpretation of Christianity was most valid. And any atheists who did exist, largely kept to themselves, and certainly did not try and force Christianity to the margins of society. So any threat to the future of the Faith, from such a separation of Church and State was likely difficult to envisage back in the day.

I somehow doubt they were envisaging a future where this separation would translate into a society where schools could be forced to stop having morning prayers or Bible study, and enable the type of secular court actions and denial of religious life that we see in today's society.

[The King in Black]

Slightly tangential but interesting - is it even possible to rise higher in the United States in politics without affirming yourself as a Christian of some denomination, the more evangelical the better ?

[Inigima]

27 minutes ago, The King in Black said:

Slightly tangential but interesting - is it even possible to rise higher in the United States in politics without affirming yourself as a Christian of some denomination, the more evangelical the better ?

Higher than what?

There's a couple of Jewish senators and House reps. For sure it ain't easy.

[The King in Black]

5 minutes ago, Inigima said:

Higher than what?

There's a couple of Jewish senators and House reps. For sure it ain't easy.

I meant higher up the food chain. 

What about Cabinet members ? Speakers of the House, Governors ? Now that I think about it, even SCOTUS justices 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

28 minutes ago, The King in Black said:

I meant higher up the food chain. 

What about Cabinet members ? Speakers of the House, Governors ? Now that I think about it, even SCOTUS justices 

There have been a number of Jewish Supreme Court Justices.

FNR,

What frightens me, personally, about Dominionists is the way anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do is dangerous and "not really Christian".  It echos the way the Daesh attack Muslims who don't believe the Daesh are the "one true version of Islam".  

I, clearly, believe in separation of Church and State/State and Church for both religious and secular reasons.  I do not want to see a Christian version of the Daesh arise in the US.  I will always oppose Dominionism.

[Isalie]

He already did accuse you of not being a real Christian though

Isn't it kind of odd though, how people are perfectly clear that their faith is like 90% caused by where they were born and still believe that their's is the one true faith? 

Edit: I get that the same is true for atheism.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

13 minutes ago, Mikael said:

He already did accuse you of not being a real Christian though

Isn't it kind of odd though, how people are perfectly clear that their faith is like 90% caused by where they were born and still believe that their's is the one true faith? 

Edit: I get that the same is true for atheism.

Thats not really true for Atheism.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, Mikael said:

He already did accuse you of not being a real Christian though

Isn't it kind of odd though, how people are perfectly clear that their faith is like 90% caused by where they were born and still believe that their's is the one true faith? 

Edit: I get that the same is true for atheism.

My Parents are generic Protestant Christians.  I have a Brother who is an Athiest, another Brother who is generic non-denominational Christian, and a sister who is an Evangelical Christian.  I converted to Orthodoxy 17 years ago.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

My Parents are generic Protestant Christians.  I have a Brother who is an Athiest, another Brother who is generic non-denominational Christian, and a sister who is an Evangelical Christian.  I converted to Orthodoxy 17 years ago.

I think the point Mikael said (forgive me for putting words in your mouth)

Is that you are all Christians, (apart from your Brother)  because you grew up in a christian environment.

Basically you all like raw milk milkshakes, just a different flavour, apart for Brother who wants Tea.

[Lord Varys]

2 hours ago, Jo498 said:

it seems that historically a separation of church/religion and state is fairly rare and in only/mainly arose (slowly over a long time) in (western) Christianity. There was no such separation before Constantin and Theodosius and while we might cringe at the Emperor (or today Pope) as representing Christ, before that and in other cultures, the Emperor was not merely representing but claimed to be divine or of divine origin himself. So briefly, the separation is a WEIRD and probably a christian thing. (Of course not systematically christian, although there is the famous "Render unto Caesar..." passage in the gospels and there are also pauline teachings that indicate more separation between faith and political power than was customary. Still, like modern science, modern political theory and modern separation of powers arose historicaly mainly/only in Western Christianity.)  So it's anyone's guess (or alternative history fantasy) what would have happened if christianity had vanished or had a similar fate to Judaism, remaining a small, not very influential religion. I certainly would not make bet that we had separation and religious freedom today if paganism (or whatever followed it) had prevailed.

Actually, before we had the monotheistic regimes of Christianity and Islam conquering the world there was a lot of religious freedom in antiquity. Where there are many gods pretty much nobody is persecuted because of his beliefs. You don't have to worship them all, you can pick your favorite. And when the cultures interacted you can just identify Zeus with Jupiter, Hera with Juno, and so on. Jahwe would have basically be seen as another version of Jupiter/Zeus by the Greeks and Romans.

Theodosius and the Emperors after him, especially Justinian, ended religious pluralism in the Roman Empire for good and all.

The gospels only make a difference between god and the emperor because there was an emperor who was not following their god at the time they were written.

In Late Antiquity and throughout the entire Middle Ages this was different. Society belonged the and was controlled by the Church. The Clerics were the First Estate, the nobility only the Second Estate. There was struggle for power between the kings/emperors and the Pope who was the top dog in the entire thing, but nobody ever questioned the right of the Church to rule. It was just the question whether the Pope or the monarch was in charge of State and Church both, or the king/emperor just in charge of the State, subservient to the Pope who ruled the entire world.

2 hours ago, Jo498 said:

I don't think we have sufficient historical data what "works" better. Very few things in human history have been more stable over millenia than the Catholic and Orthodox church or the old Chinese Empire, certainly the US or Western secular nation states have not yet come so far. (And there is the other problem that despite technical separation most cultures and countries were until recently considerably uniform in religion and in practice the separation was not all that clear. I mean, on whose banknotes does one read "In God we trust"...)

As far as I know our American friends attached those stupid saying to their money during the 1950s when they were irrationally afraid that they would all become godless Communists who had to speak Russian.

1 hour ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

I somehow doubt they were envisaging a future where this separation would translate into a society where schools could be forced to stop having morning prayers or Bible study, and enable the type of secular court actions and denial of religious life that we see in today's society.

Well, Thomas Jefferson thought he could edit the Bible and cut out stuff he didn't like (especially that nonsense connected to those exorcisms and miracles). The founders of your nation were educated people of the enlightenment who were about as religious as Voltaire or Frederick the Great.

The problem with such compulsory prayer is that the state's institutions demand from everyone present to go along with a particular brand of religion, mostly Christianity, but it is a very large difference whether that's Catholic, Calvinistic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, etc.

The idea that the state can force you to pay lip service to a particular (brand of) religion when you are not following that religion is clearly a violation of a separation between religion and government. Diluting it down to 'we are all Christians' (we aren't) or 'we are all monotheists' (we aren't) is not going to work.

We effectively have two state churches over here, including the state collecting the church's taxes in the name of the church, and even compulsory religious classes (with the curriculum being decided and overseen by the churches) in public schools but we would never demand non-Catholics or non-Protestants to actually sit in those classes or participate in any prayers against their will. That would essentially violate them.

34 minutes ago, The King in Black said:

I meant higher up the food chain. 

What about Cabinet members ? Speakers of the House, Governors ? Now that I think about it, even SCOTUS justices 

Not as far as I know. You have to pay lip service to some religious branch (of Christianity) to get yourself elected into a position of real power.

For Jews the rules are somewhat different because the average guy doesn't understand that religious belief is not really mandatory to (self-)identify as a Jew. It is also a cultural, ethnic, and (for the racist) a racial kind of thing. People assume that Jews also have to believe in god but they are not compelled to do so, at least not in all branches of Judaism. It can be more a ceremonial thing where you celebrate the same feasts, do the same kind of rituals, but never actually believe in this god guy.

Sanders is a Jew, and one assumes that the overwhelming majority of the Americans did not understand that this could also mean that he is basically not religious at all.

Such branches of religion don't really existed among Baptists or other Evangelicals. And while there are a lot of 'cultural Catholics', Catholicism itself, of course, demands that you believe in the doctrines of the Church.

You can say 'I'm a Jew and I don't believe in god' within Judaism (whether this makes sense if you view Judaism just as a religion as I think you should view it is another matter) but if you say 'I'm a Christian and I don't believe in Christ and/or the Trinity' then more than a few people will raise their eyebrows in your congregation. And if you are a pastor saying this you no longer are the pastor afterwards.

25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

FNR,

What frightens me, personally, about Dominionists is the way anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do is dangerous and "not really Christian".  It echos the way the Daesh attack Muslims who don't believe the Daesh are the "one true version of Islam".  

But that's at the heart of 'true Christianity'. There is only one way, the right way - my way - to see it, and all the others are heretics. That's ingrained into the history. The idea that this is going to go away just because you have a Constitutional separation isn't very likely. Constitutions can be changed. Holy books usually aren't.

It is admirable for you to oppose the establishment of a theocracy but the theocrats actually have the better arguments if you take the Bible as a (literal) authority. Just as the monarchists do, actually.

25 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I, clearly, believe in separation of Church and State/State and Church for both religious and secular reasons.  I do not want to see a Christian version of the Daesh arise in the US.  I will always oppose Dominionism.

From a religious point of view, do you see any intrinsic value in religious pluralism? If so, what is that? If Christ existed and cared for humanity and there was any truth to Christianity (which I very much doubt) then he would want to be worshiped in the correct way, the way he taught his disciples, and it would be a very good thing to ensure that people worship him the correct way. Else people will be tortured in hell forever. And that's much worse than to kill some unbelievers and establish a theocracy in which Christ's word will reach every soul on earth. Your own personal (religious) freedom is nothing when compared to eternal salvation.

If you think Eastern Orthodoxy is the real deal you should also begin and continue to convert other Christians/people to that particular truth. God might ask you (and judge you) for not doing so.

And care to elaborate on your conversion there? Was it something unusual or got it started because you interacted with people who had a considerable impact on you?

[Isalie]

32 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

My Parents are generic Protestant Christians.  I have a Brother who is an Athiest, another Brother who is generic non-denominational Christian, and a sister who is an Evangelical Christian.  I converted to Orthodoxy 17 years ago.

So you're all Christians? Except for the brother, so 1/6 isn't a Christian, however, to be fair to my 90%, none of you are Muslim or Sikh.

[Isalie]

34 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Thats not really true for Atheism.

I'd say it's pretty much true if you're a Swede. If I have any religious friend then I don't know it. My sister is a Muslim though, but she's always wanted to belong to those 10%...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Pebble said:

I think the point Mikael said (forgive me for putting words in your mouth)

Is that you are all Christians, (apart from your Brother)  because you grew up in a christian environment.

Basically you all like raw milk milkshakes, just a different flavour, apart for Brother who wants Tea.

Which is why my Sister (15 years ago) decided to come at me concerned "about my soul" because I liked the wrong flavor of milkshake?

And you really brushed past my brother who doesn't like milkshakes at all.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mikael,

See above.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

In truth if I weren't Orthodox I'd probably be a philosophical Bhuddist.

My point... is that if the environment you grew up were controlling why did my Brother and I seek out paths that were so different from the one blazed by my family.  My sister thinks I've put my soul at risk by being Orthodox and my other Brother goes to church on Easter and Christmas.  

The way we grew up didn't seem to have a great deal of impact upon the choices my siblings and I made with regard to our religiosity or lack thereof.

[Isalie]

15 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mikael,

See above.  

I know you can do this all day Scot, and I won't spend anymore time on it, but unless you guys worship different gods, I'm really not convinced by your example.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Mikael said:

I know you can do this all day Scot, and I won't spend anymore time on it, but unless you guys worship different gods, I'm really not convinced by your example.

Mikael,

My sister thinks we do, my youngest Brother doesn't worship at all, and my middle brother really doesn't care.  Explain again how we're all doing the same thing based upon what our parents taught us?

[Free Northman Reborn]

28 minutes ago, Lord Varys said:

Actually, before we had the monotheistic regimes of Christianity and Islam conquering the world there was a lot of religious freedom in antiquity. Where there are many gods pretty much nobody is persecuted because of his beliefs. You don't have to worship them all, you can pick your favorite. And when the cultures interacted you can just identify Zeus with Jupiter, Hera with Juno, and so on. Jahwe would have basically be seen as another version of Jupiter/Zeus by the Greeks and Romans.

Theodosius and the Emperors after him, especially Justinian, ended religious pluralism in the Roman Empire for good and all.

The gospels only make a difference between god and the emperor because there was an emperor who was not following their god at the time they were written.

In Late Antiquity and throughout the entire Middle Ages this was different. Society belonged the and was controlled by the Church. The Clerics were the First Estate, the nobility only the Second Estate. There was struggle for power between the kings/emperors and the Pope who was the top dog in the entire thing, but nobody ever questioned the right of the Church to rule. It was just the question whether the Pope or the monarch was in charge of State and Church both, or the king/emperor just in charge of the State, subservient to the Pope who ruled the entire world.

As far as I know our American friends attached those stupid saying to their money during the 1950s when they were irrationally afraid that they would all become godless Communists who had to speak Russian.

Well, Thomas Jefferson thought he could edit the Bible and cut out stuff he didn't like (especially that nonsense connected to those exorcisms and miracles). The founders of your nation were educated people of the enlightenment who were about as religious as Voltaire or Frederick the Great.

The problem with such compulsory prayer is that the state's institutions demand from everyone present to go along with a particular brand of religion, mostly Christianity, but it is a very large difference whether that's Catholic, Calvinistic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, etc.

The idea that the state can force you to pay lip service to a particular (brand of) religion when you are not following that religion is clearly a violation of a separation between religion and government. Diluting it down to 'we are all Christians' (we aren't) or 'we are all monotheists' (we aren't) is not going to work.

We effectively have two state churches over here, including the state collecting the church's taxes in the name of the church, and even compulsory religious classes (with the curriculum being decided and overseen by the churches) in public schools but we would never demand non-Catholics or non-Protestants to actually sit in those classes or participate in any prayers against their will. That would essentially violate them.

Not as far as I know. You have to pay lip service to some religious branch (of Christianity) to get yourself elected into a position of real power.

For Jews the rules are somewhat different because the average guy doesn't understand that religious belief is not really mandatory to (self-)identify as a Jew. It is also a cultural, ethnic, and (for the racist) a racial kind of thing. People assume that Jews also have to believe in god but they are not compelled to do so, at least not in all branches of Judaism. It can be more a ceremonial thing where you celebrate the same feasts, do the same kind of rituals, but never actually believe in this god guy.

Sanders is a Jew, and one assumes that the overwhelming majority of the Americans did not understand that this could also mean that he is basically not religious at all.

Such branches of religion don't really existed among Baptists or other Evangelicals. And while there are a lot of 'cultural Catholics', Catholicism itself, of course, demands that you believe in the doctrines of the Church.

You can say 'I'm a Jew and I don't believe in god' within Judaism (whether this makes sense if you view Judaism just as a religion as I think you should view it is another matter) but if you say 'I'm a Christian and I don't believe in Christ and/or the Trinity' then more than a few people will raise their eyebrows in your congregation. And if you are a pastor saying this you no longer are the pastor afterwards.

But that's at the heart of 'true Christianity'. There is only one way, the right way - my way - to see it, and all the others are heretics. That's ingrained into the history. The idea that this is going to go away just because you have a Constitutional separation isn't very likely. Constitutions can be changed. Holy books usually aren't.

It is admirable for you to oppose the establishment of a theocracy but the theocrats actually have the better arguments if you take the Bible as a (literal) authority. Just as the monarchists do, actually.

From a religious point of view, do you see any intrinsic value in religious pluralism? If so, what is that? If Christ existed and cared for humanity and there was any truth to Christianity (which I very much doubt) then he would want to be worshiped in the correct way, the way he taught his disciples, and it would be a very good thing to ensure that people worship him the correct way. Else people will be tortured in hell forever. And that's much worse than to kill some unbelievers and establish a theocracy in which Christ's word will reach every soul on earth. Your own personal (religious) freedom is nothing when compared to eternal salvation.

If you think Eastern Orthodoxy is the real deal you should also begin and continue to convert other Christians/people to that particular truth. God might ask you (and judge you) for not doing so.

And care to elaborate on your conversion there? Was it something unusual or got it started because you interacted with people who had a considerable impact on you?

You word it very well, and what makes it carry more weight is that you are coming from the point of view of an atheist. You are correct that my logical point is indeed that if you take the fundamental principles of Christianity as true, then it is either "our way or the highway", so to speak. This is a logic that is quite evident, whether you are a Christian or not. And I further like the question you pose to Scot regarding what value religious pluralism has from a purely Christian point of view. Not from a philosophical or Constitutional point of view, but from a Christian point of view.

Scot blends philosophy and Christianity, and is accordingly influenced by this blended reasoning. But if you look at it purely from the religious point of view, then your characterization of the issue is quite correct.