GameBanshee Forums

Brilliant post, Lost One.

[QUOTE=Morlock]I just wrote a great long post, but for some reason it didn't work so it was lost forever.

Either way, I assure you all of it's brilliance, so please reply to it anyway. [/QUOTE]

Excellent points, Morlock!

In my humble opinion, religions have no place in politics. I think that if an individual wants religion in their personal life, let them, and let them act accordingly. But it has no place in public politics.

[QUOTE=Lost One]
Thanks to religion did Europe conquer lands in Africa, the Americas, and certain bits of Asia. I mean, every invasion, every new conquer was in the name of the Church and had the backing of the Pope. So, like it or not, religion has always been a great part of european politics, and taking it off now is a stinging blow to religion.
[/QUOTE]

I dont agree with that. I think that by avoiding that, Europe is now thinking about the mistakes. Slavery, cultural disruption, uninformation, mass control, it has all been made on the interests of the churches and churches leaders, if not with theyr subtle influences.

I dont think any religious system must be banned, no, that is not my point.

I mean, it was a great parto of european politics of world monopoly. It shall be no longer. If our world tends to be cientific, and capitalist, we must not try two different concepts while taking one decision. And the church, may the Pope forgive me, has very wrongs ever since it was born.

Yes, I am Roman Catholic. At least I was. I know church from the very inside. I was meant to be a priest. Thats why I think they should not meddle with politics.

Here in Brazil we have a few churches entering the political business. That is not bad. That is awfull. Churches have become an endless river of cash for some people, and the masses are being manipulated - as in George Orwell's 1984, by some kind of Big Brother - in exchange for a place in heaven or such. The economic power rules them. And that is just not right. I used to work in a bank, and lots of people who had no cash at all (with incomes from 200 - 300 reais (1 dollar = 3 reais)) shared 30% of theyr income with the church, and starved or something while those priests are just fine, laughing and praying the word.

I'm afraid I'll not be impartial to this, but I mean, I really hate the way many, not all, but many churches deal with politics and the garthering of newbies to theyr faith.

I dont agree with that. I think that by avoiding that, Europe is now thinking about the mistakes. Slavery, cultural disruption, uninformation, mass control, it has all been made on the interests of the churches and churches leaders, if not with theyr subtle influences.

Yes, as I said, you have to take the good with the bad. Much like the Church has had interest in preserving its faith and controlling Europe...countries do the same thing, or basically, just about any organization. It's a matter of survival.

If our world tends to be cientific, and capitalist, we must not try two different concepts while taking one decision. And the church, may the Pope forgive me, has very wrongs ever since it was born.

The Pope is very limited in what he can do. Any radical decisions he makes can have tremendous negative consequences for the Church. My thread on A Positive Outlook on Religion has more about this.

Here in Brazil we have a few churches entering the political business. That is not bad. That is awfull. Churches have become an endless river of cash for some people, and the masses are being manipulated - as in George Orwell's 1984, by some kind of Big Brother - in exchange for a place in heaven or such. The economic power rules them. And that is just not right. I used to work in a bank, and lots of people who had no cash at all (with incomes from 200 - 300 reais (1 dollar = 3 reais)) shared 30% of theyr income with the church, and starved or something while those priests are just fine, laughing and praying the word.

By this, I think you are talking about the Evangelic Churches. I have to agree that I do not like them either and how it is had a negative influence on politics, at least here in Brazil. Garotinho, the Rio governor is basically being kept in power because he always carries the Evangelic book with him, as there are lots of Evangelics here. As for the poor people dying because of the church, I do not agree with that. First of all, the non-Evangelic churches here do not require donations (or dizimas) as we call it. I think Evangelicism, a relatively new thing, has come as a result of the materialistic world we live in. In the fact that in an Evangelic mass is basically a show for everybody to enjoy, where the alleged priests use ties and suits and preach to God while disregarding the traditional rituals of the Christian or Catholic faith, and going around collecting money. In their beliefs, God can grant you money, health, and all that. I also sincerely criticize them, but you cannot confuse Evangelicism with Catholicism, which is what you have in Europe.

Anyway, I agree that religion should not interfere too much in a country's politics. However, for the sake of respect and its eternal history with Europe and making it what it was, I thought that the name of God should have stayed, if only as an image.

(btw, if you wish to continue this discussion regarding faith and religion...take it to my thread A Positive Outlook on Religion which is basically about that...and perhaps more suited than here).

[QUOTE=Lost One]I think God should have a name in Europe's constitution. You say that religion and politics do not go hand in hand, well, religion did dictate politics throughout the whole of medieval history. The clergy were above the nobles, and the King or Queen had always been representatives of God.[/quote]

While you are entitled to your opinion about any mention of deity in the EU constitution, the clergy were definitely not above the nobility in medieval/Renaissance European history. The Three Ordos, as they were called, were the clerical, nobility, and peasantry. In all documents that refer to this, the clerical are described as having a teaching mission. They are emphatically not above the nobles, who frequently filled their ranks upon appointment by a ruler, local Bishop, or the Pope (depending upon the area and time in question). In all matters of secular state, the nobility were supreme. Where religious observance was in question, the clerical ruled. When there was any dispute between the Ordos, the matter was referred up a lengthy, torturous legal ladder, where secular and sacred leaders could and would contradict one another, often leading to no resolution at all. Had the clerical been supreme, there would have been no questioning their rule. I can provide numerous examples, if you'd like.

Thanks to religion did Europe conquer lands in Africa, the Americas, and certain bits of Asia. I mean, every invasion, every new conquer was in the name of the Church and had the backing of the Pope.

The Pope had nothing to do with efforts to colonize and enslave either the Americas or Africa, and never provided any blessing before the fact. (One did approve a Spanish/Portuguese document dividing the "New World" between these two powers, but only after they'd conquered South America.) The Castillian colonization of Central and South America was undertaken (as Braudel describes in The Wheels of Commerce) to supply an enormous source of silver, which the Spanish kings traded to India and China (who used a bi-metal system where silver was more valuable, gold less so). Between the gold they mined and the gold they traded for, the Spanish were able to balloon a military force that made them the main competitors at the time with the French in control of the Mediterranean basin. Priests went along the ships, but they had absolutely no say in local rule. It was tacitly understood from the start that the New World campaigns of the Spanish kings were secular.

As for North America, French Catholicism was even more hand's off. And the English, who eventually came to control more of the colonies in North America, were Protestant, and violently anti-Catholic at the time. They made minimal efforts at best to convert natives they found.

I'd also like to mention the fact that the majority of European population are in fact religious (well, Christian)...so, if it isn't the majority that governs the face of politics, then shouldn't their religion come into play too?

Every survey I've seen shows that most Christians hardly attend their temples of worship, and feel free to follow teachings which blatantly contradict some of those most sternly held by their respective Churches. In nearly every European democracy where religion has had a strong political profile, they have repeatedly voted that religion out of any secular control--most recently, even devoutly Catholic Ireland has repealed anti-abortion laws. This would seem to indicate that people hold ties to their religions that are based on culture and sentiment, rather than on a complete identification with a belief system such as many French might have espoused in the 16th century, or Anglicans in Britain in the 19th. I suppose the matter of mentioning a Christian god in the EU could be placed on an EU referrendum, but I doubt even the influence of various Churches would push this one through.

It would only be reasonable. After all religion has done for Europe (you have to take the good with the bad),

For any religion to be mentioned in the EU Constitution, it has to be literally identified with Europe, in the sense that Judaism is identified with Israel--something root and branch, utterly inseparable from the legal, political, and cultural framework of each European nation. Perhaps at one time this was true for at least a few nations, but that's debatable; we now know that even when the Roman Catholic Church "claimed" religious supremacy over vast swaths of Europe, its control in rural areas (where animist beliefs still flourish) was frequently negligible, and there were always challenges, often successful, from the social and ruling elite. In any case, doing something "for" Europe, whether good or bad, isn't the same thing as being identified as quintessentially defining Europe and its current occupants. Just my two cents.

[QUOTE=Lost One]<snip>
PS: In case you say religion is bad because of the destructive actions of fanatics of different religions, it is like blaming a soccer club for the actions of hooligans that support it. Much like a hooligan is not a true fan, a fanatic that kills others in the name of Islam, is not a true Muslim. In fact, most religions condemn violence.[/QUOTE]

Using hooliganism when you use it to draw analogies for religion might not work for you - because here in Europe, most clubs (or countries if playing national matches) are held accountable for the acts performed by hooligan-supporters around/near the match. And in grievous cases, even if the acts are not. So even if they aren’t “real supporters” – the club is still accountable to some degree.
So to follow up on your analogy – religion is also accountable to a degree for the acts performed in its name, even by “not real supporters”.

Also if religion is to be attributed and accountable for the good thing it can do to people – then it is certainly also to be attributed and accountable for the bad things. (you have to take the good with the bad)

While you are entitled to your opinion about any mention of deity in the EU constitution, the clergy were definitely not above the nobility in medieval/Renaissance European history.

Well, that may be so, but they were at least, on par with nobility. I said that because I remember a picture in a school textbook, of a cake in the shape of a pyramid with the bottom level being the peasants supporting the next level, nobility, then clergy, then royalty. Of course, this does depend on space & time. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

The Pope had nothing to do with efforts to colonize and enslave either the Americas or Africa, and never provided any blessing before the fact.

I question this...I know that when Pedro Alvares Cabral came to Brazil and discovered it, he came with the authority and name of the Catholic Church, and then the Portuguese did try to convert just about every indian they came across. And from what I've read...most sea voyages into uncharted territory back then had to have authority by the Church and carry at least a priest on ship. So, even if the Pope didn't give his backing, the Catholic Church was very much involved.

Every survey I've seen shows that most Christians hardly attend their temples of worship, and feel free to follow teachings which blatantly contradict some of those most sternly held by their respective Churches. In nearly every European democracy where religion has had a strong political profile, they have repeatedly voted that religion out of any secular control--most recently, even devoutly Catholic Ireland has repealed anti-abortion laws.

Hm...once again, I am disinclined to believe you. I don't read surveys, but talking from personal experience, most Christians do, at the very least, attend mass on Christian holidays...with the vast majority also visiting Sunday masses. Of course, just like in any religion, you have people that are more orthodox and committed than others. You can't narrow it down to Christians only. As for voting out religion out of any secular control, I do not argue with this.

For any religion to be mentioned in the EU Constitution, it has to be literally identified with Europe, in the sense that Judaism is identified with Israel--something root and branch, utterly inseparable from the legal, political, and cultural framework of each European nation.

Well, I do think that all the countries in the European Union do identify with the Catholic Church, in the sense that most, if not all, of the countries comprising it have strong, Catholic roots. However, I do agree that it is not something utterly inseparable from the whole framework like Israel.

Using hooliganism when you use it to draw analogies for religion might not work for you - because here in Europe, most clubs (or countries if playing national matches) are held accountable for the acts performed by hooligan-supporters around/near the match. And in grievous cases, even if the acts are not. So even if they aren’t “real supporters” – the club is still accountable to some degree.

I agree. Religion is accounted for the violence done in its name...but does it mean religion is truly guilty of it? That is another thing. I do not think clubs can control the violent temper of their hooligans...thus, when I see that Barcelona supporter invading the match at the final of the Euro Cup, I do not blame Barcelona for it. Likewise, I do not blame the acts of violence committed by fools using the name of religion on religion itself.

I doubt that the European Union constitution will effect me greatly enough to matter to me but I think its a good idea. What the European Union constitution should do it bring the people together, and unless there was some kind of world wide (simply european wouldn't do, having God in there would be like saying that he was the only/true god, and almost rubbing it in) it would just split people.

Thats not to say it should deny the existance of god, it should let the person decide how they feel. Because this constitution is a template of everopnes rights mentioning god means that that God goes into everones life.

But this isn't about Atheist v Theist. It's between religions.