Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lead by example Pope!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by Jannie View Post


    Is it the job of the Pope to be led by the American politicians or to lead and guide them?
    Neither. "Render unto God what is God's, and unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's."

    The Pope may only guide individuals spiritually; anything more violates the American principle of separation of Church and State.

    Unless, of course, one beleives that the Pope should be taking direction from the governments of the world on how to conduct Catholicism in return.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by Jannie View Post
      Is it the job of the Pope to be led by the American politicians or to lead and guide them?
      The Pope's job is to guide all Catholics, including politicians of course; and to provide advice to all men and women of any religion or belief.

      The Church's guidance can of course result in social and political effects. That is only to be expected, given that Christianity is a religion that isn't a private, secret, personal matter between one man and his God; it has always had tenets concerning how to treat your brothers and sisters, how to behave socially, etc.

      If the Pope and the Church, and, for that matter, any Christian pastor did not remind the Christians, and in general everybody, of what Christ said in Matthew 25 about hosting the foreigners, they wouldn't be doing their jobs.

      Coming now to the US situation, interestingly and ironically, those who involuntarily misunderstand the First Amendment of the Constitution as meaning that a religious leader cannot speak out about political matters "because of the separation of Church and State" don't notice that they are suggesting a violation of that very Amendment. While the Amendment does forbid the establishment of a privileged "state" religion and conversely guarantees freedom of religion, it also guarantees freedom of speech. Those who would like to gag the religious leaders on the basis of a misunderstanding of that Amendment don't seem to notice that neo-Nazis can speak out about politics or deny the Holocaust, in the USA, because of freedom of speech - while they would want the pastors, bishops etc. to practice self-censorship.
      Michele

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

        The Pope may only guide individuals spiritually; anything more violates the American principle of separation of Church and State.


        [/FONT]
        Doesn't your POTUS swear on the Bible ??
        That rug really tied the room together

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
          Neither. "Render unto God what is God's, and unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's."

          The Pope may only guide individuals spiritually; anything more violates the American principle of separation of Church and State.

          Unless, of course, one beleives that the Pope should be taking direction from the governments of the world on how to conduct Catholicism in return.

          The problem is that you cannot effectively separate church from state, unless perhaps in the case of an atheist.

          For the Pope to advise on matters spiritual, is also to advise on morality and ethics. To advise on morality and ethics is also to impact on the politics of 'believers'. You cannot separate the spirit/soul from the body, at least as long as the body lives.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
            The problem is that you cannot effectively separate church from state, unless perhaps in the case of an atheist.
            You can, in the sense intended by the First Amendment.
            I.e., you can have a state that has no "state religion", and no laws discriminating in favor or against any religion. You can also have laws that prevent clergy from working in the state administration, or from running for elective office.
            All of the above measures do not require that religious leaders abstain from doing their job.

            For the Pope to advise on matters spiritual, is also to advise on morality and ethics. To advise on morality and ethics is also to impact on the politics of 'believers'. You cannot separate the spirit/soul from the body, at least as long as the body lives.
            I agree on the above, which should also be pretty obvious.
            Michele

            Comment


            • #96
              Michele - My comment on the problems of the separation of church and state is not based on the theoretical, but more the fact that in reality morality and ethics reach out via humanity involved to impact and in reality/practice connect the two.

              Comment


              • #97
                Try our way .
                https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_F..._and_the_State
                That rug really tied the room together

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
                  Michele - My comment on the problems of the separation of church and state is not based on the theoretical, but more the fact that in reality morality and ethics reach out via humanity involved to impact and in reality/practice connect the two.
                  Well, of course you can't achieve a complete separation as long as both the church and state are run by humans. Note that in this sense, even if the state was run solely by atheists, even atheism has its beliefs and tenets, and even its leaders and loose organizations - thus there still wouldn't be a complete separation of the state.

                  But apart from that, a rule that you can't be a prime minister if you're a priest, or that the state won't protect any religion nor persecute any other, are entirely feasible, in practice too - and recommendable in my opinion.
                  Michele

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Michele View Post
                    Well, of course you can't achieve a complete separation as long as both the church and state are run by humans. Note that in this sense, even if the state was run solely by atheists, even atheism has its beliefs and tenets, and even its leaders and loose organizations - thus there still wouldn't be a complete separation of the state.

                    But apart from that, a rule that you can't be a prime minister if you're a priest, or that the state won't protect any religion nor persecute any other, are entirely feasible, in practice too - and recommendable in my opinion.

                    Here in the UK you still can't become part of the Royal family OR indeed be Prime Minister if Catholic or Jew. Benjamin Disraeli converted to Anglicanism before becoming PM. The 'joy' of mingling church and state. Ironically an atheist PM could advise on official church/state matters.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Wooden Wonder View Post
                      The problem is that you cannot effectively separate church from state, unless perhaps in the case of an atheist.

                      For the Pope to advise on matters spiritual, is also to advise on morality and ethics. To advise on morality and ethics is also to impact on the politics of 'believers'. You cannot separate the spirit/soul from the body, at least as long as the body lives.
                      Or perhaps you may realize there is no soul .
                      First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Michele View Post
                        You can, in the sense intended by the First Amendment.
                        I.e., you can have a state that has no "state religion", and no laws discriminating in favor or against any religion. You can also have laws that prevent clergy from working in the state administration, or from running for elective office.
                        All of the above measures do not require that religious leaders abstain from doing their job.



                        I agree on the above, which should also be pretty obvious.
                        The US has many laws that favor religions. Sin taxes, closing of businesses on Sunday, atheists can't hold office in some states, and a number of others influenced by religion. Many of those religious laws are in effect because leaders decided their religious values should be put into law.
                        First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Michele View Post
                          Well, of course you can't achieve a complete separation as long as both the church and state are run by humans. Note that in this sense, even if the state was run solely by atheists, even atheism has its beliefs and tenets, and even its leaders and loose organizations - thus there still wouldn't be a complete separation of the state.

                          But apart from that, a rule that you can't be a prime minister if you're a priest, or that the state won't protect any religion nor persecute any other, are entirely feasible, in practice too - and recommendable in my opinion.
                          Atheists don't share anything except the fact that they don't believe in any supernatural beings.
                          First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                            Atheists don't share anything except the fact that they don't believe in any supernatural beings.


                            Just supernatural theories.
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by slick_miester View Post


                              Just supernatural theories.
                              Atheists also share this weird thought that perhaps they shouldn't believe things that they don't understand must be caused by magic.

                              First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                                Atheists also share this weird thought that perhaps they shouldn't believe things that they don't understand must be caused by magic.

                                Yeah: if they don't understand it, they just cook the numbers and pass it off as science.

                                Moral behavior is the exclusive province of neither theists nor atheists. Likewise, an ability to delude oneself into believing complete and utter bullshit with religious intensity is likewise exclusive to neither theists nor atheists. Self-deceit respects no religious belief.
                                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X