This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
It wouldn't make any difference. Never forget, the Obergefell decision was decided by Justice Kennedy, a putative Catholic.Jezu ufam tobie!
How would they enforce it? How would heretics be treated? What specific form of Christianity would be mandated? Assuming they choose the one universal and original rock of Christ, then how would they delineate the powers of Pope and President?Really this was all worked out in the 17th century. Do we have to fight all those same battles again just to sign a second Treaty of Westphalia? It just goes to show how important education is.
Really this was all worked out in the 17th century. Do we have to fight all those same battles again just to sign a second Treaty of Westphalia?Last I checked, multiple countries have existed well into the present day with a combination of peace and state religions - particularly in the west. State-enforced secularism has a bloodier and less successful history.I oppose the introduction of a state religion - and secularism is another version of one. Leave issues to as local a level as possible.
One of the perennial problems of these debates is that we throw these isms around as if they stood for clear and distinct ideas. We don't appreciate the extent to which the reality is messy and confused. For example, in England (and it's a bit different in the other parts of the UK) we have what is called an 'established' religion, viz the Church of England, aka Anglicanism. Everyone is deemed a member of the CofE and, with the minimum of religious credentials, can call on the Church to christen, marry, and bury them. Bishops of the Church are appointed by the Crown (ie, the Prime Minister of the day) and sit in the House of Lords. The Head of State is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury and pledges to defend the religion of which he or she becomes head. Other religions are free to practise but have no role in the State. By and large historical restrictions on members of faiths other than Anglicanism have been rolled back. The last mainland internal conflict in which religion played a role was in 1745. There are historical compromises all over the place. Do we have a 'state religion'? Possibly. On the other hand, most Britons would probably agree that they lived in a secular state and would not want to see political power extended to religious hierarchies. Complicated, isn't it?
Or is more like a state adopting a state bird or a state flower?
Post a Comment