[PUG] French Parliamentary Committee Supports Burka Ban

[Shai Gar]

Because God for all intents and purposes is the author of the order of being. So whatever the state's official stance on God(acknowledging his existence or not) is still in the end a theological statement with profound political implications.

Without the acknolwedgement of God, the state de facto becomes the final authority and has that authority through mere arbitrary will. By contrast by acknowledging God's existence and the fact the state derives its authority from God's grace, you have the duty to hold the state accountable for any wrong doing its done - because you have a higher authority to appeal to. One major implication of this can be seen in the concept of Civil Rights for example.

So, if the state does not recognise this entity as the author of the order of being, then it's a moot point and not worth considering.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Because the institutional seperation of Church and state does not mean that the state is to indifferent to religious issues. As Richard Hooker noted(citing Aquinas) that human law and divine law cannot be seperated but rather are twins. However human law is best served through the state while divine law is best served through the Church.

That's assuming that there is some divine law. Suppose a bunch of apatheists get together and form their own state. Where does religion come into that arrangement?

Yes actually it is. A good example of this was when St. Ambrose rebuked the Emperor Theodisius for the massacre at Thessalonica in 390 AD. St. Ambrose rebuked the Emperor for engaging in un-Christian behavior, and thus destroying the intregity of the state along with it. This was not possible under paganism, where religion and state were one in the emperor. This was also difficult in the Christian East, where the church was often under the control of the state.

A state being controlled by a church and maintaining its own autonomy are mutually exclusive. What you seem to be arguing here (with a flimsy example) is that an influential church can help to keep the state in line with its moral authority, which both misses the point and assumes that the church will always act with good intentions backed by correct moral stances.

It's not my opinion, one largely needs to study history to know this.

I very much doubt that a study of history would provide an unbiased perception of which one exploited the other more often. It happened in both directions, often simultaneously, and the concept becomes meaningless when state and church and completely fused. But assuming that your opinion is correct, what bearing does it have on this topic?

 

[Peguy]

So, if the state does not recognise this entity as the author of the order of being, then it's a moot point and not worth considering.

Then that begs the question of what is the ultimate authority. Without reference to God or providence, the state becomes the ultimate authority. We have plenty of experience telling us where that can lead.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Then that begs the question of what is the ultimate authority. Without reference to God or providence, the state becomes the ultimate authority. We have plenty of experience telling us where that can lead.

It can lead to the government being afraid of its people... in short, national bliss.

 

[Peguy]

That's assuming that there is some divine law. Suppose a bunch of apatheists get together and form their own state. Where does religion come into that arrangement?

Then the state is adopting an apatheist POV. Quite obvious. However that still raises plenty of questions in wake of that.

A state being controlled by a church and maintaining its own autonomy are mutually exclusive. What you seem to be arguing here (with a flimsy example) is that an influential church can help to keep the state in line with its moral authority, which both misses the point and assumes that the church will always act with good intentions backed by correct moral stances.

Well it's kinda interesting how you're trying to tweak my argument, since the state was not controlled by the Church. The church's authority only was in moral and spiritual matters, and temporal only in regards to the Papal states which were under the Pope's political authority. The state was a check against abuses made by the Pope or other clerical authorities, and this played out several times over the course of Medieval history.

I very much doubt that a study of history would provide an unbiased perception of which one exploited the other more often. It happened in both directions, often simultaneously, and the concept becomes meaningless when state and church and completely fused. But assuming that your opinion is correct, what bearing does it have on this topic?

Well a major issue under discussion here is the relationship between religion and political authorities, so it has a great deal to do with this.

 

[Peguy]

It can lead to the government being afraid of its people... in short, national bliss.

Authoritarian repression is national bliss?

 

[TheLastMohican]

Then the state is adopting an apatheist POV. Quite obvious. However that still raises plenty of questions in wake of that.

Do you believe that the state must have a (non/anti)religious stance that is defined by the religious stances of its governing members? Why can't the state just be neutral on that subject?

Well it's kinda interesting how you're trying to tweak my argument, since the state was not controlled by the Church. The church's authority only was in moral and spiritual matters, and temporal only in regards to the Papal states which were under the Pope's political authority. The state was a check against abuses made by the Pope or other clerical authorities, and this played out several times over the course of Medieval history.

I'm not "tweaking" any part of your argument. I just reiterated what I had said earlier:

A state heavily influenced by a church is not ensuring its own autonomy and integrity.

You disagreed with that statement, claiming that such a state is in fact maintaining its own autonomy and integrity. I still don't see how you can think that, since the autonomy essentially means independence and freedom of will, and the church has not always acted with integrity.

Well a major issue under discussion here is the relationship between religion and political authorities, so it has a great deal to do with this.

No, it really doesn't. The relative quantities of occurrences (or combinations of occurrences) have nothing to do with the question of whether they can happen. Saying that the state exploits the church more often than the church exploits the state does not suggest that we should guard against the former occurrence but not the latter. They're both problematic.

 

[Peguy]

Do you believe that the state must have a (non/anti)religious stance that is defined by the religious stances of its governing members? Why can't the state just be neutral on that subject?

Well for one thing if the state is supposed to be the representative body of its citizens, then it make sense for the state to reflect those values. Religious questions are of uptmost importance, whatever the state's position. It also gets into issues of the law being a reflection of the truth.

No, it really doesn't. The relative quantities of occurrences (or combinations of occurrences) have nothing to do with the question of whether they can happen. Saying that the state exploits the church more often than the church exploits the state does not suggest that we should guard against the former occurrence but not the latter. They're both problematic.

Indeed they are, but one occurrence is more common than the other.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Well for one thing if the state is supposed to be the representative body of its citizens, then it make sense for the state to reflect those values. Religious questions are of uptmost importance, whatever the state's position. It also gets into issues of the law being a reflection of the truth.

..."If" being the operative word. I never said that the state is supposed to be representative of its citizen's beliefs. It only needs to maintain order among them. If a Christian moved into the community of apatheists, that would not cause the government to change accordingly.

Indeed they are, but one occurrence is more common than the other.

And? You repeat this opinion after I already explained why it's irrelevant.

 

[Peguy]

..."If" being the operative word. I never said that the state is supposed to be representative of its citizen's beliefs. It only needs to maintain order among them.

Maintaining order is part of providing for the common good, which generally is the final end of the state. In order to do this, it has to take into account the needs and wishes of the people its governing, otherwise this can undermine the state's legitimacy in many ways.

If a Christian moved into the community of apatheists, that would not cause the government to change accordingly.

No, just like non-Christians are not necessarily disenfranchised by living in a Christian state.

And? You repeat this opinion after I already explained why it's irrelevant.

I agreed with you that they're both problematic, but one still can't ignore which one occurs more frequently.

 

[TheLastMohican]

Maintaining order is part of providing for the common good, which generally is the final end of the state. In order to do this, it has to take into account the needs and wishes of the people its governing, otherwise this can undermine the state's legitimacy in many ways.

Legitimacy is not essential to a government's survival. Order is.

No, just like non-Christians are not necessarily disenfranchised by living in a Christian state.

That's not a very good segue, but while we're on that topic: the apatheists' government probably would not even mention religion, so the Christian would not face legal discrimination upon entering. A Christian state, by contrast (assuming that you mean a state governed according to Christian principles), would restrict certain freedoms that many non-Christians would not otherwise have been deprived of. If the government is officially Christian, then non-Christians are pretty well screwed, unless it's a particularly liberal brand of Christianity. A religious state and secular state should not be compared in this way.

I agreed with you that they're both problematic, but one still can't ignore which one occurs more frequently.

Why not?

 

[Shai Gar]

Then that begs the question of what is the ultimate authority. Without reference to God or providence, the state becomes the ultimate authority. We have plenty of experience telling us where that can lead.

You seem to wish to bow to some sort of Authority? What about standing up as a man and saying "There is no Higher Authority to me, than Me. I shall be the sole Author of my destiny."

That's what truly strong people do.

 

[Peguy]

You seem to wish to bow to some sort of Authority? What about standing up as a man and saying "There is no Higher Authority to me, than Me. I shall be the sole Author of my destiny."

That's what truly strong people do.

Correction that's what people who wish to cover up their own insecurities do. Despair to be oneself as Kierkegaard put it.

 

[Peguy]

Legitimacy is not essential to a government's survival. Order is.

Mere arbitrary power only gets you so far. If the people don't see the government as legitimate, it's pretty much screwed in the long-run because it's lost the loyalty of the people.

A Christian state, by contrast (assuming that you mean a state governed according to Christian principles), would restrict certain freedoms that many non-Christians would not otherwise have been deprived of. If the government is officially Christian, then non-Christians are pretty well screwed, unless it's a particularly liberal brand of Christianity.

How exactly are they screwed? St. Thomas Aquinas noted in the 13th century that non-believers should not be forced to believe because that would violate their free will before God. This of course is the origins to our concept of freedom of religion we know today.

Why not?

Because in a practical sense you guides you on where to put your defenses so to speak.

 

[acd]

Correction that's what people who wish to cover up their own insecurities do. Despair to be oneself as Kierkegaard put it.

But believing in God is not a crutch? Isn't it only in insecurity of the direction of one's life and placement in eternity, that someone can turn to God, acknowledge their "sin nature" and repent? Put their life in God's hands out of fear of themselves?

Quoting Kierkegaard doesn't make you right.

 

[Peguy]

But believing in God is not a crutch? Isn't it only in insecurity that someone can turn to God, acknowledge their "sin nature" and repent?

Faith in God certainly can be misused as a crutch. But a misuse of faith doesn't mean it's a crutch by its very nature. Faith is also a source of personal strength. So theres the paradox.

Quoting Kierkegaard doesn't make you right.

He certainly helps show what I'm talking about. BTW, he was also harshly critical of the manner in which many so-called "Christians" use God as a crutch. This theme runs through the Christian tradition, even dating back to the Biblical prophets.

 

[bamf]

Mere arbitrary power only gets you so far. If the people don't see the government as legitimate, it's pretty much screwed in the long-run because it's lost the loyalty of the people.

As long as the government has more power than the people and uses it in such a way, it will continue to exist. Arbitrary power will get the government as far as it can enforce it, with or without the people's will.

 

[Peguy]

As long as the government has more power than the people and uses it in such a way, it will continue to exist. Arbitrary power will get the government as far as it can enforce it, with or without the people's will.

For only so long, untill the apparent lack of support from the populace becomes clear. This somewhat gets into Tocquveille's discussion about why revolutions are rare in democracies.

 

[bamf]

For only so long, untill the apparent lack of support from the populace becomes clear. This somewhat gets into Tocquveille's discussion about why revolutions are rare in democracies.

If the people in power have more power than the combination of people revolting, they will stay in power (as so long as they continue to keep themselves as a government that retains said power; factioning off would diminish their power)

 

[Peguy]

If the people in power have more power than the combination of people revolting, they will stay in power (as so long as they continue to keep themselves as a government that retains said power; factioning off would diminish their power)

But how long can that be maintained? Even Machiavelli noted the importance of maintaining public support in regards to the survival of any political system, hence why he actually was in favour of republican forms of government(not monarchy, contrary to popular myth).