NationStates Jolt Archive

I was listening to an archive show of the Neal Boortz Radio Show, and one of the topics he was discussing was how much the Christian faith influenced American law and if we would actually come up with the same law if we didn't have the Christian influence. Neal argued that even atheist know that it's wrong to steal, kill, and harm others. Of course this got alot of reaction from the hard Christians who believe that without their moral guidance America would be Iraq, or the Soviet Union. I really did love how Neal handled them. Anyways, this has got me thinking, lets just say for a moment that America was not founded because the Puritans wanted freedom to practice their Christian faith (which I have no problem with) Let's just say that there are no Christian influence in our laws or legal system at all. Would we still come up with similar laws?

I would have to say yes, because even if we didn't have the Christian influences, we still know what is right from wrong, we would still know how to treat your fellow man, and yes there would still be assholes and bastards who'll break those laws. Really the only differences I can see is that the separation of church and state thing wouldn't really be that much of a problem. What do you guys think?

I think America would be a hell of a lot better today if it was founded by Atheists.

We would come up with the exact same civil and human rights (We would actually follow through), as Christianity does not affect our morals, and it did not affect the founding fathers morals either as they were not Christian.

Assuming the population of Atheists and Christians (or just those of religion) were reversed, we would also be far ahead in science. With stem cell research we would have probably found a cure to just about every disease.

*Sigh* Its good to dream and think about what could have been.

Most Christian morality is similar to the morality of the belief systems that come before it; a lot of the basics are pretty much universal with a few exceptions. Christianity just reflected the most recent stage of that same ethical system and as a result added to and detracted from the moral codes that came before it.

And, of course, there is one universal moral in all human cultures: You don't break oaths. Period.

I would have to say yes, because even if we didn't have the Christian influences, we still know what is right from wrong, we would still know how to treat your fellow man, and yes there would still be assholes and bastards who'll break those laws. Really the only differences I can see is that the separation of church and state thing wouldn't really be that much of a problem. What do you guys think?

Would it have happened if the Founding Fathers had no religious motive? Hard to say. 1776 was not an enlightened time in most of the world, and without the religious call to equality and justice, we might have been just another of those states who have lagged behind in history.

Most Christian morality is similar to the morality of the belief systems that come before it; a lot of the basics are pretty much universal with a few exceptions. Christianity just reflected the most recent stage of that same ethical system and as a result added to and detracted from the moral codes that came before it.

And, of course, there is one universal moral in all human cultures: You don't break oaths. Period.

I agree with everything you said. :)

Fluffle time! :fluffle:

Would it have happened if the Founding Fathers had no religious motive? Hard to say. 1776 was not an enlightened time in most of the world, and without the religious call to equality and justice, we might have been just another of those states who have lagged behind in history.
The founding fathers really didn't have any religious motivation I think. As deists they believe there is a general god, who did his thing in creating us, then left us alone to our own resources.

Would it have happened if the Founding Fathers had no religious motive? Hard to say. 1776 was not an enlightened time in most of the world, and without the religious call to equality and justice, we might have been just another of those states who have lagged behind in history.

Actually there was a movment of Enlightenment when the founding fathers were working. It wasn't a technological enlightenment per se, but a philisophical one. A few years later the industrial revolution would bring in that tech change.

I'm curious to as how religion has brought equality and justice? In fact, one of the legal principals makes sure to exclude religion because it is inequal. In fact, Christians make a point that they're right and everyone else is wrong and people have to accept Christ as their savior. I fail to see how this is "fair" and "just".

Actually there was a movment of Enlightenment when the founding fathers were working. It wasn't a technological enlightenment per se, but a philisophical one. A few years later the industrial revolution would bring in that tech change.

I'm curious to as how religion has brought equality and justice? In fact, one of the legal principals makes sure to exclude religion because it is inequal. In fact, Christians make a point that they're right and everyone else is wrong and people have to accept Christ as their savior. I fail to see how this is "fair" and "just".

One of the teachings that I have problem with, espically since I have good friends from other religion who do alot more for their community and God than my Christian friends.

I know that the theory of Thomas of Acquinus about the fair price actually influence how much a German landowner can take as rent so, I guess while the big things will look very similar, the small things, will be a lot different.

The founding fathers really didn't have any religious motivation I think. As deists they believe there is a general god, who did his thing in creating us, then left us alone to our own resources.

That might have applied to some of the Founders, but most were people of more traditional religious beliefs, rather than any sort of deism. It's been a while since I've studied it in depth. Hopefully someone with a better grasp of the specifics can clarify a bit.

That might have applied to some of the Founders, but most were people of more traditional religious beliefs, rather than any sort of deism. It's been a while since I've studied it in depth. Hopefully someone with a better grasp of the specifics can clarify a bit.
Ah, I thought most of them were deists.

Well, its late and I'm tired, night.

I would think that it would be much the same, though some of the moral laws, such as prohibition would have been avoided.

Honestly though, I don't see the US suddenly becoming either much better or much worse without the influence of Christianity.

Ah, I thought most of them were deists.

Well, its late and I'm tired, night.
Depends upon the person. Some were Deists, some were very much Christian. For many, such as George Washington, it's very hard to actually pin said person down.

Assuming the population of Atheists and Christians (or just those of religion) were reversed, we would also be far ahead in science. With stem cell research we would have probably found a cure to just about every disease.
Um, not only is that a very exagurated view of stem cells, the ban dates to the current president. 8 years is hardly enough time to develop cures for anything, especially with stem cells.

8 years tends to be a world of a difference in science, actually, but sure.


America wasn't even founded with religion in mind, so much as freedom to worship whatever you wanted, instead of the current King of england. (I forget his name. >_>)

Anyway, I'll agree with Eurgrovia. America would be leaps and bounds ahead in science, biology, and technology because of the... narrow-mindedness of Christianity as a whole. It would also be less populated and intolerant, probably.

I agree with everything you said. :)

Fluffle time! :fluffle:

Wilgrove fluffling Vetalia...that is not a sight I ever want to see again.

8 years tends to be a world of a difference in science, actually, but sure.
Really? It takes HOW long to develop drugs, run them through tests, and the like?

Anyway, I'll agree with Eurgrovia. America would be leaps and bounds ahead in science, biology, and technology because of the... narrow-mindedness of Christianity as a whole. It would also be less populated and intolerant, probably.
Why?

Thought this might be relevant. (http://www.idrewthis.org/d/20070501.html)

America I believe would not only be scientifically better off, but I believe that they may actually be less aggressive in their foreign policy, with there being no war in Iraq. 9/11 may not have happened either.

I would have to say yes, because even if we didn't have the Christian influences, we still know what is right from wrong, we would still know how to treat your fellow man, and yes there would still be assholes and bastards who'll break those laws. Really the only differences I can see is that the separation of church and state thing wouldn't really be that much of a problem. What do you guys think?
I can't think of a single founding principle of the US that comes specifically from Christianity. There are some which are shared with Christian morality ("Thou shalt not kill," etc), but none of those are remotely unique to Christianity.

Meanwhile, some of the most important concepts in American government revolve around the specific rejection of Christian Commandments ("Thou shalt have no other God but me" springs to mind).

I think the weakest and worst parts of American government are those which are grounded in religion. Blue laws, segregation, Prohibition...it's a long list. American law is at its best when it is purely secular, and at its absolute worst when it is religious.

Would it have happened if the Founding Fathers had no religious motive? Hard to say. 1776 was not an enlightened time in most of the world, and without the religious call to equality and justice, we might have been just another of those states who have lagged behind in history.

Show me any theocracy in history that wasn't a back assward hellhole full of injustice and human rights atrocities.


I'll be waiting.

Show me any theocracy in history that wasn't a back assward hellhole full of injustice and human rights atrocities.


I'll be waiting.

No, wait, I got this, I can get this one...

*thinks like a liberal*

Iran! Afghanistan! Palestine!

Quite a large chunk of American law is based off old english law, which in turn was very influenced by christianity at that time as with most european countries.

No, wait, I got this, I can get this one...

*thinks like a liberal*

Iran! Afghanistan! Palestine!

*thinks like a fundie*

Help help I'm being oppressed!

*thinks like a fundie*

Help help I'm being oppressed!

*thinks*

Well this is new

*thinks*

Well this is new

I'm not sure where he's coming from, but he did effectively dodge the challenge.

No, wait, I got this, I can get this one...

*thinks like a liberal*

Iran! Afghanistan! Palestine!

How is that thinking like a liberal?

I was listening to an archive show of the Neal Boortz Radio Show, and one of the topics he was discussing was how much the Christian faith influenced American law and if we would actually come up with the same law if we didn't have the Christian influence. Neal argued that even atheist know that it's wrong to steal, kill, and harm others. Of course this got alot of reaction from the hard Christians who believe that without their moral guidance America would be Iraq, or the Soviet Union. I really did love how Neal handled them. Anyways, this has got me thinking, lets just say for a moment that America was not founded because the Puritans wanted freedom to practice their Christian faith (which I have no problem with) Let's just say that there are no Christian influence in our laws or legal system at all. Would we still come up with similar laws?

I would have to say yes, because even if we didn't have the Christian influences, we still know what is right from wrong, we would still know how to treat your fellow man, and yes there would still be assholes and bastards who'll break those laws. Really the only differences I can see is that the separation of church and state thing wouldn't really be that much of a problem. What do you guys think?

Virtually all modern law has its roots in two categories: English Common Law and Roman Law, which was influenced in the later stages by Gratian and canonical law. More of the law than many care to admit is rooted in the medieval church.

Would it have happened if the Founding Fathers had no religious motive? Hard to say. 1776 was not an enlightened time in most of the world, and without the religious call to equality and justice, we might have been just another of those states who have lagged behind in history.

Religious call to equality and justice? I suggest you read up on the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony before saying something so ridiculous again. The early religious colonies in what is now the US were often as intolerant as the lands they left--people were tossed out into the wilderness for preaching doctrine contrary to that pushed by the leadership on more than one occasion.

Religious call to equality and justice? I suggest you read up on the history of the Massachusetts Bay Colony before saying something so ridiculous again. The early religious colonies in what is now the US were often as intolerant as the lands they left--people were tossed out into the wilderness for preaching doctrine contrary to that pushed by the leadership on more than one occasion.

1776 was the time of early religious colonies?

Show me any theocracy in history that wasn't a back assward hellhole full of injustice and human rights atrocities.


I'll be waiting.

No, wait, I got this, I can get this one...

*thinks like a liberal*

Iran! Afghanistan! Palestine!

What we have heah is a failure to communicate. ;)

1776 was the time of early religious colonies?

Fair enough. But you can't just start in 1776 if you're talking about this sort of issue. It's like discussing the US role in the Middle East but refusing to talk about anything prior to 1991.

Fair enough. But you can't just start in 1776 if you're talking about this sort of issue. It's like discussing the US role in the Middle East but refusing to talk about anything prior to 1991.

Well, you certainly can't be ignorant of the past. But discussing things contextually is just as important.

8 years tends to be a world of a difference in science, actually, but sure.


America wasn't even founded with religion in mind, so much as freedom to worship whatever you wanted, instead of the current King of england. (I forget his name. >_>)

Anyway, I'll agree with Eurgrovia. America would be leaps and bounds ahead in science, biology, and technology because of the... narrow-mindedness of Christianity as a whole. It would also be less populated and intolerant, probably.


If this were true then why are other countries that are not Christian based farther advanced than the United States?

What we have heah is a failure to communicate. ;)

Failure? You mean there was an attempt to communicate:eek: in the first place?

Well, you certainly can't be ignorant of the past. But discussing things contextually is just as important.

And the context here is that the myth of the freedom-seeking Puritans is generally a half-truth. Puritans were seeking freedom for themselves and their type of worship, but that didn't extend to dissenters inside their church.

Probably the best part--at least in terms of this discussion--of the American Revolution was the fact that it wasn't fought for religious freedom, but was really fought over money.

How is that thinking like a liberal?

Come on, they're liberals. They love theocracies. So long as they're not living in them.

I dislike the line of thought that America's laws are Christian. And it's not because I'm hostile toward Christianity, I count myself a Christian. It's a matter of honesty, and not dressing God up in the vestments of the secular world which governs most of our daily lives.

We have two of the "Ten Commandments" (actually gentiles are bound by only the 7 Noachide Commandments anyway) that are hard and fast law at all times in all places in the USA. As far as I know, those two crimes, murder and robbery, aren't legal in any country, Christian, Islamic, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Secular or officially Atheist. In fact, reprisal in the form of legal punishment, even capital punishment, is a part of American law, not the Christian doctrine of turning the other cheek.

What's more, quite a few of our legal traditions come not only from pagan Roman law, but also pagan Germanic law (via England), such as trial by jury, and a good deal of what some states recognize as Common Law.

Come on, they're liberals. They love theocracies. So long as they're not living in them.

Parts of iran are so rich-tastic! I could live like a king! Who cares if their government is a bunch of fuck-tardian theocrats.

And the context here is that the myth of the freedom-seeking Puritans is generally a half-truth. Puritans were seeking freedom for themselves and their type of worship, but that didn't extend to dissenters inside their church.

Probably the best part--at least in terms of this discussion--of the American Revolution was the fact that it wasn't fought for religious freedom, but was really fought over money.

You're talking two different contexts. Are we discussing the reasons for the Puritans' exodus, or the Revolutionary War?

And you are correct on both counts if taken individually, but together your contexts are...not quite aligned.

Parts of iran are so rich-tastic! I could live like a king! Who cares if they're government is a bunch of fuck-tardian theocrats.

My sarcasm-sense in tingling! Tingling! Oww, oww, burning! Burning! I'm on fire! On fire people! Call the ambulance! Spider down! Spider down!

Seriously though, my sarcasm-sense is non-existent. Was that serious?

My sarcasm-sense in tingling! Tingling! Oww, oww, burning! Burning! I'm on fire! On fire people! Call the ambulance! Spider down! Spider down!

Seriously though, my sarcasm-sense is non-existent. Was that serious?

No joke! Massive social inequalities get you your own palace as long as your stinking rich!

No joke! Massive social inequalities get you your own palace as long as your stinking rich!

In Soviet Union, inequalities buy you!

Would it have happened if the Founding Fathers had no religious motive? Hard to say. 1776 was not an enlightened time in most of the world, and without the religious call to equality and justice, we might have been just another of those states who have lagged behind in history.

The founding fathers didn't really have much in the way of a religious motive; many were only nominally religious at best, and almost all of them were fiercely against the mingling of religion and government. Much as we'd love to make the American Revolution some shiningly virtuous war all about Truth, Justice, and the American Way, it was mostly about money, plain and simple.

I'm also a little puzzled as to how the Enlightenment was "not an enlightened time." Erm...

Come on, they're liberals. They love theocracies. So long as they're not living in them.

How precisely do you figure that?

How precisely do you figure that?

Man on the AM radio said so in between ads for Viagra and tinfoil hats. Must be true.

How precisely do you figure that?

They're always talking about how great they are. I figure, people are voting for them, so they must be right.

They're always talking about how great they are. I figure, people are voting for them, so they must be right.

How are they always talking about how great they are? Some actual examples might be nice. I am 100% sure I can find a plethora of examples of liberals decrying Iran.

They're always talking about how great they are. I figure, people are voting for them, so they must be right.

Last I saw, the only credible forces of theocracy in America are firmly ensconced on the right. Like those claiming that America's laws are based on a "Christianity" that promotes revenge and punishes property crimes. In other words, a Christianity unrecognizable to a Bible reader.

Come on, they're liberals. They love theocracies. So long as they're not living in them.

Oh, I get it. You're just being a dick. Well done!

How are they always talking about how great they are? Some actual examples might be nice. I am 100% sure I can find a plethora of examples of liberals decrying Iran.

Look around the forums a bit. People like OcceanDrive love Iran.

Look around the forums a bit. People like OcceanDrive love Iran.

Oceandrive's a person?

Look around the forums a bit. People like OcceanDrive love Iran.

George W. Bush loves Iran, if not, why come he keeps on givin' 'em victory after victory in Lebanon, over nukes, and soon in Iraq?

Look around the forums a bit. People like OcceanDrive love Iran.

I was not aware that NationStates was filled with either liberal politicians (and therefore liberal policy makers), or was at all a very good sample of liberals worldwide.

I also was not aware that small numbers of people define a large group.

Got anything meaningful?

I was not aware that NationStates was filled with either liberal politicians (and therefore liberal policy makers), or was at all a very good sample of liberals worldwide.

I also was not aware that small numbers of people define a large group.

Got anything meaningful?

You're obviously not aware of quite a bit then ;). It is always the small that defines the large...ever heard of stereotypes?

You're obviously not aware of quite a bit then ;). It is always the small that defines the large...ever heard of stereotypes?

Aye, but those stereotypes tend not to be overly accurate.

Edit: I know plenty of Asians who suck at math.

Aye, but those stereotypes tend not to be overly accurate.

Edit: I know plenty of Asians who suck at math.

Generally, yes, they aren't accurate. But stereotypes unfortunately define a particular group for most people.

Look around the forums a bit. People like OcceanDrive love Iran.

Ocean Drive isn't a liberal. Hell I have my doubts about his sentience.

Ocean Drive isn't a liberal. Hell I have my doubts about his sentience.
[nerd hijack]
Khadgar, is your name in any way related to Warcraft's Khadgar?
[/nerd hijack]

[nerd hijack]
Khadgar, is your name in any way related to Warcraft's Khadgar?
[/nerd hijack]

Yep, back when I made this nation I used that name all the time, now I never use it. WoW completely killed my hopes it'd fade into obscurity. :(

Yep, back when I made this nation I used that name all the time, now I never use it. WoW completely killed my hopes it'd fade into obscurity. :(
Seriously, for weeks I have been thinking, "Khadgar...Khadgar...why is that so familiar?" Been driving me nuts. :P

Seriously, for weeks I have been thinking, "Khadgar...Khadgar...why is that so familiar?" Been driving me nuts. :P

For weeks I have been thinking, "Bottle ... Bottle ...why is that so familiar?". Then I realised that I was an alcoholic.

For weeks I have been thinking, "Bottle ... Bottle ...why is that so familiar?". Then I realised that I was an alcoholic.

Explains a bit.

For weeks I have been thinking, "Bottle ... Bottle ...why is that so familiar?". Then I realised that I was an alcoholic.
I dunno *hic* wat yer talking about *hic*

:P

Seriously, for weeks I have been thinking, "Khadgar...Khadgar...why is that so familiar?" Been driving me nuts. :P

At the time he was fairly minor. Now there's a big honkin statue of him in Stormwind. :rolleyes:. Well, more of a statue of Gandalf, but still.

At the time he was fairly minor. Now there's a big honkin statue of him in Stormwind. :rolleyes:. Well, more of a statue of Gandalf, but still.

That's actually a statue of Ian McKellen. He's under cover as Gandalf because the authorities are still looking for Magneto.

Well, more of a statue of Gandalf, but still.

That's actually a statue of Ian McKellen. He's under cover as Gandalf because the authorities are still looking for Magneto.
You owe me $0.15 for the soda I just snorted out my nose.

You owe me $0.15 for the soda I just snorted out my nose.

Duly noted. You'll get it when Magneto stops making my change stick to the ceiling.

That's actually a statue of Ian McKellen. He's under cover as Gandalf because the authorities are still looking for Magneto.

Have my babies.

Have my babies.

:)

*pulls out the barbecue grill* now the hard part, medium rare, or well done?

:)

*pulls out the barbecue grill* now the hard part, medium rare, or well done?

Abortion rare.


*ba dum pum, psh* *sadness* *lawl* *sadness again while lawling*

Abortion rare.


*ba dum pum, psh* *sadness* *lawl* *sadness again while lawling*

With potatoes or rice?

With potatoes or rice?

You're a fucking potato factory.



... rice ftw.

I think the issue at hand is not which religion a system of laws is based on, whether Christianity or Islam or atheism (yes, atheism is just as much a statement of faith as any other religion--and more so than many since it's premised on the assertion of a negative), but whether a system of laws ought to have any relationship with morality whatsoever.

And I think the answer is, obviously not.

With a little thought, it can be clearly seen that law is not a support for morality. Not only is it not, but it can't be: law and morality are and must always be mortal enemies of one another.

Morality is a voluntary attempt to measure up to an abstract standard--in many cases to the immediate material detriment of oneself. The two essential ingredients of a moral act are free choice and selflessness: take either of them away, and while you may have exactly the same act, it's no longer being performed for reasons of morality.

Law, on the other hand, involves the threat of punishment. One does not follow a law out of choice or selflessness: one follows a law because one is forced to by a desire for self-preservation. A lawful act, therefore, is one that is involuntary and self-centered--the direct opposite of a moral act.

Where there is morality, no law is necessary; and if law is introduced anyway, it leads merely to oppression and injustice. Where there is law, morality cannot survive, because coercion drives out choice and self-interest drives out selflessness.

Suppose, for example, that hiring a prostitute is illegal, and that you have the desire and the wherewithal to hire one, but you don't. Is your forebearance a moral act, or are you just trying to stay out of jail? I don't know. Neither does anyone else, and I submit that not even you yourself can be sure.

But if hiring a prostitute is legal, and you have the desire and wherewithal and you still choose not to, then it's clear to you, to me, and to everyone else that it's a moral choice you're making.

That's an oversimplification, but it still applies.

If the objective is to maximize morality, then a subgoal of that objective must be to minimize law, because law corrodes morality wherever it exists.

What is the minimum amount of law that can exist in a civilized society?

I leave that as an exercise for the reader; but my own answer is that there is no need for any law that prohibits something other than a direct violation of another's rights. Laws that mandate behaviors (wearing seat belt / helmet / etc.) rather than prohibiting behaviors are unjustified, and therefore unjust; laws that prohibit behaviors that produce no victim (drug laws, prostitution laws) are also unjustified.

Full disclosure: I'm a fundamentalist Christian.

That's actually a statue of Ian McKellen. He's under cover as Gandalf because the authorities are still looking for Magneto.

I thought he was undercover as death in "the last action hero". With the magic ticket he could be anywhere:D

I thought he was undercover as death in "the last action hero". With the magic ticket he could be anywhere:D

Shhh... damnit, now the cats out of the bag.

Ian McKellen is awesome.

Shhh... damnit, now the cats out of the bag.Are you German?

Ian McKellen is awesome.In what way?

Are you German?

No...?

In what way?

Extremely talented actor, and I don't just mean from LOTR and X-Men.

Extremely talented actor, and I don't just mean from LOTR and X-Men.But watching him act I never know whether he's concentrating on the acting of on his male co-actors... he's always looking at them so, um, intimately :eek::p

Show me any theocracy in history that wasn't a back assward hellhole full of injustice and human rights atrocities.


I'll be waiting.

The Vatican. Arguably one of the most beautiful and cultural piece of land on this earth. Has paintings from almost every acclaimed painter, sculptures from the top sculptors, and a collection to make even the Museums on par with the Louvre to seeth in jealousy at times.
Also one of the most learned, philosphical and educated places. The Vatican has reputedly the largest collection of ancient writings, albeit they don't allow the outside world to survey them much. However I don't believe any other instution possesses or collected so many writings from some of the best minds in history. Original writings from Aquinas and Augustine, who would were philosphical greats of their time and still are, etc..
Also many, many greek, ancient, arabic and aramaic texts about science and mathematics. Copies (in some cases hundreds of years old) of all Greek great minds and philosphers. It is part of the Catholic dogma to not be ignorant. In any Jesuit school one is still required to read Greek texts which are anything but christian for general knowledge and enlightenment,....

Most citizens of the Vatican can speak at least 3 languages. Latin is the official language of the City. Meaning all priests there generally speak in Latin to eachother officially. The Vatican guard strictly speaks German (swiss-variant) according to tradition.

- Heck the "father of Genetics" was a monk,.... Gregor Mendel was the gardener in his monastery when he wrote his thesis and theories on inheritance.

- The Big Bang theory was proposed by a Belgian Priest. Georges Lemaître a Belgian Roman Catholic priest, honorary prelate, professor of physics and astronomer.

I could go on and state more examples, how some of Science's greatest successes and revelations were made at the hands of religiously devout priests and monks.

But you get the point. The attitude that if you are religious you must be dumb or stupid is incredibly insulting and prejudiced. It is on par with having an attitude that because you are "Black" you love watermelons, have a big lip, stutter like a fool, have an IQ of 10 and good for nothing except picking cotton.
Belief in a higher deity is not related to intelligence. Some of histories greatest minds were religious, does this make them imbeciles? I merely think, religion is a personal issue. If you choose not to profess or practice a faith, good for you. However to act as if you are superior in mental functions because of this,... is blatantly said,.... being an insecure elitist asshole.

-snip-
I wouldn't call vatican city a theocracy. It may be a state/nation through technicalities, but it's obviously not the sort of thing Khagdar meant.

But watching him act I never know whether he's concentrating on the acting of on his male co-actors... he's always looking at them so, um, intimately :eek::p

Now you've done it. Anyone wanna bet on how long it'll take Fass to descend on this thread to call us homophobes? :p

I wouldn't call vatican city a theocracy. It may be a state/nation through technicalities, but it's obviously not the sort of thing Khagdar meant.

Run by a religious head? The rank only accessible by being in the said religion and order. I think it sounds like a theocracy by the finest definition. On top of being a sovereign nation, with it's own army and europe's oldest monarchy, counting almost 2000 years since Peter first ascended the chair which was named after him.

Run by a religious head? The rank only accessible by being in the said religion and order. I think it sounds like a theocracy by the finest definition. On top of being a sovereign nation, with it's own army and europe's oldest monarchy, counting almost 2000 years since Peter first ascended the chair which was named after him.

It's pretty hard to opress 700 or so people who choose to embrace this catholic lifestyle. Imagine if it was ruling over hundreds of thousands of people, who did not choose which country they would live in. Imagine how terrible it would be if everyone was forced to obey the vatican, even if you wern't a strict catholic. I choose freedom.

Run by a religious head? The rank only accessible by being in the said religion and order. I think it sounds like a theocracy by the finest definition. On top of being a sovereign nation, with it's own army and europe's oldest monarchy, counting almost 2000 years since Peter first ascended the chair which was named after him.
link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#The_Vatican)

The Vatican? Wow. Well, I'm going to side with Hydesland on this. Its hard to oppress people who live there by choice, and agree with every decision you make.


Now if, for example, we have a theocratic Totalitarian state with people who did not come there by choice... that's another matter.


As for some of the people who are saying Religious != stupid, I agree. The potential for brilliance is not excluded from those who have faith in a deity. The problem lies in when extremists try to use religious moral ground to constitute an argument against a major, ground-breaking scientific process, for example.

It's pretty hard to opress 700 or so people who choose to embrace this catholic lifestyle. Imagine if it was ruling over hundreds of thousands of people, who did not choose which country they would live in. Imagine how terrible it would be if everyone was forced to obey the vatican, even if you wern't a strict catholic. I choose freedom.


However that is never how the Catholic Church worked. The leader was a spiritual head never a political entity so to say. Each sovereign was lord of their respective nation, however he/she had advisors from the Catholic Church and if the leader of the nation was a Catholic themselves they were expected as any other Catholic to follow the rules of Catholicism, no matter their rank.
Meaning the Pope was never an actual Lord over most people as a leader of a nation. In the end the Monarch was always free to remove themselves from the Catholic Church's favor and advice, as some did.
So under the Vatican you would never had have to face such a choice, as calling the Pope your actual landlord and political leader of your nation. However it is still a theocracy since it runs its own affairs on a small piece of private land that belongs only to itself and no other nation.

However that is never how the Catholic Church worked. The leader was a spiritual head never a political entity so to say. Each sovereign was lord of their respective nation, however he/she had advisors from the Catholic Church and if the leader of the nation was a Catholic themselves they were expected as any other Catholic to follow the rules of Catholicism, no matter their rank.
Meaning the Pope was never an actual Lord over most people as a leader of a nation. In the end the Monarch was always free to remove themselves from the Catholic Church's favor and advice, as some did.
So under the Vatican you would never had have to face such a choice, as calling the Pope your actual landlord and political leader of your nation. However it is still a theocracy since it runs its own affairs on a small piece of private land that belongs only to itself and no other nation.But the people of this nation are not subject to any kind of religious or even divine law. The laws of Italy apply.

Link again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#The_Vatican)

However that is never how the Catholic Church worked. The leader was a spiritual head never a political entity so to say. Each sovereign was lord of their respective nation, however he/she had advisors from the Catholic Church and if the leader of the nation was a Catholic themselves they were expected as any other Catholic to follow the rules of Catholicism, no matter their rank.
Meaning the Pope was never an actual Lord over most people as a leader of a nation. In the end the Monarch was always free to remove themselves from the Catholic Church's favor and advice, as some did.
So under the Vatican you would never had have to face such a choice, as calling the Pope your actual landlord and political leader of your nation. However it is still a theocracy since it runs its own affairs on a small piece of private land that belongs only to itself and no other nation.

Who says the vatican will revert back to the old papal rule? And the papacy was a terribly corrupt power, you arn't seriously arguing that the papacy was a good entity that never committed atrocities?

Who says the vatican will revert back to the old papal rule? And the papacy was a terribly corrupt power, you arn't seriously arguing that the papacy was a good entity that never committed atrocities?

No they had their fair share of trouble. Happens whenever you get powerhungry people in anything who misuse the system.

But the people of this nation are not subject to any kind of religious or even divine law. The laws of Italy apply.

Link again (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#The_Vatican)

Read your own link. Only the secular laws are subject to be the same as Italian laws. Nothing about religious or holy laws, if they should choose the enact them. A nice loophole that.

It's pretty hard to opress 700 or so people who choose to embrace this catholic lifestyle. Imagine if it was ruling over hundreds of thousands of people, who did not choose which country they would live in. Imagine how terrible it would be if everyone was forced to obey the vatican, even if you wern't a strict catholic. I choose freedom.

The Mayans keep their people suggestive via narcotics.

America was not founded by puritans. Go read a reputable history book.

Assuming the population of Atheists and Christians (or just those of religion) were reversed, we would also be far ahead in science. With stem cell research we would have probably found a cure to just about every disease.

*Sigh* Its good to dream and think about what could have been.

Yes, but on the other hand if we have killed thousands of people by doing so, I don't think that's a good situation. I don't know enough about stem cell research to make a legitimate comment about whether or not people will die, but I think that the fact that there is a debate suggests the possibility

Anyways, this has got me thinking, lets just say for a moment that America was not founded because the Puritans wanted freedom to practice their Christian faith (which I have no problem with

DAMN IT! WHEN WILL THIS MYTH DIE!!!!!!

The Puritans didn't found America. They weren't even the first ones here! Try looking at Jamestown (yes I know about the aboriginals and other visitors so don't even! :p ).

The puritans weren't even looking for Religious Freedom! They had it in Holland. When they got here, they didn't practice Religious Freedom! They set up a quasi theocracy where you could get tossed if you dared challenge the elders.

Shall we talk about their grave robbing?