http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/09/12/pope.france.secular.ap/index.html
"Religion and politics must be open to one another" says current pope Benedict XVI(former nazi youth and ultra-conservative cardinal Ratzinger). The fight between the Catholic church and secular rulers has been ongoing since the investiture controversy of the middle ages (11th century), but since the early modern era, popes have tended to have the good sense not to launch all-out attacks on secular rule. Ratzinger, however, seems intent on forcing Catholic values onto states, thus challenging divisions between state and church dating to the Revolutionary Era of the late 18th century.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
fuck the pope that filthy evil creature!
Wow. That actually came reasonably close to making sense. A personal record! Now, any comments from those zoners who are currently in possession of a brain?
I think (or hope) that the west is well beyond listening to what the cockbag Pope has to say when formulating public policy. If you take out the word "cockbag," it reads like an informed opinion - but he's a cockbag, so let it be.
So would the pope feel the same way if the religion were Judaism or Islam? What about Buddhism or Hindi? Or, imagine, an atheist as head of state. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
Couldn't you just see laws shift per election cycle according to the religion of individual leaders? And then what? Those laws should be respected by those of various religions? Or would he have only Jews following the laws of their Jewish leaders and so on... because somehow I doubt the religious right would follow the teachings and 'laws' of any other religion but Christianity. And what of the population? Should each religion have their own leader? Their own government or country? Maybe that's what he wants... toss out the nonbelievers, the infidels, so those of 'the faith' will be true to the laws of church and state. Sounds like extremism to me.
And my reply sounds like little more than rambling. Sorry, but I can't stand this kind of crap.
Couldn't you just see laws shift per election cycle according to the religion of individual leaders? And then what? Those laws should be respected by those of various religions? Or would he have only Jews following the laws of their Jewish leaders and so on... because somehow I doubt the religious right would follow the teachings and 'laws' of any other religion but Christianity. And what of the population? Should each religion have their own leader? Their own government or country? Maybe that's what he wants... toss out the nonbelievers, the infidels, so those of 'the faith' will be true to the laws of church and state. Sounds like extremism to me.
And my reply sounds like little more than rambling. Sorry, but I can't stand this kind of crap.
I don't think he was saying that the two need to go hand in hand. Rather that they both need to be able to exist at the same time.
Obviously he knows the two can't intermingle successfully. Otherwise, he may be a little off his pulpit.
I don't think that either stance can conclude a prophalactic response, but thanks for the new word!
UPDATE:
The Pope just signed on to do 3 shows with Cheryl Crow for the Obama camp.
McCain is currently fumbling thru his rolodex looking for Mandela's number.
Obviously he knows the two can't intermingle successfully. Otherwise, he may be a little off his pulpit.
I don't think that either stance can conclude a prophalactic response, but thanks for the new word!
UPDATE:
The Pope just signed on to do 3 shows with Cheryl Crow for the Obama camp.
McCain is currently fumbling thru his rolodex looking for Mandela's number.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Wow. That actually came reasonably close to making sense. A personal record! Now, any comments from those zoners who are currently in possession of a brain?[/QUOTE]
you cant even compare to me when it comes to intelligence
you cant even compare to me when it comes to intelligence
Congrats, Papa.
Right back to Middle Ages.
Right back to Middle Ages.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Poo, again wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Right back to Middle Ages.[/QUOTE]
I bet he lived during the Middle Ages.
Ratzinger and the hills. Since the beginning of time.
I bet he lived during the Middle Ages.
Ratzinger and the hills. Since the beginning of time.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Treasure Moment wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Wow. That actually came reasonably close to making sense. A personal record! Now, any comments from those zoners who are currently in possession of a brain?[/QUOTE]
you cant even compare to me when it comes to intelligence[/QUOTE]
He's got us there!
you cant even compare to me when it comes to intelligence[/QUOTE]
He's got us there!
Is religion really the problem, or is it the people who abuse it?
The Vatican has little power when it comes to taking control of politics, even from Catholic majority nations.
So, that's just his opinion. A dumb one that is, but nothing to worry about.
So, that's just his opinion. A dumb one that is, but nothing to worry about.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Philly Guy wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Is religion really the problem, or is it the people who abuse it?[/QUOTE]
People who abuse the power. And religion is a good "excuse" to do it.
People who abuse the power. And religion is a good "excuse" to do it.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Those laws should be respected by those of various religions? Or would he have only Jews following the laws of their Jewish leaders and so on... because somehow I doubt the religious right would follow the teachings and 'laws' of any other religion but Christianity.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting you should say this. In the modern era, we (i.e. most countries) employ 'territoriality of law', meaning that you are subject to the laws of the state within whose borders you are present at the time. Earlier, from (late-)antiquity to the early modern era, Europe worked with 'personality of law', meaning that the laws you were subject to, depended on your identity: for instance, you were subject to Frankish laws if you were a Frank, Germanic laws if you were a German (in the old, tribal sense; there was no such thing as 'Germany' until at the very least the 18th century, or, more commonly accepted, until 1866), Jewish if you were a Jew, etc. This was very handy for merchants (who, incidentally, usually had their own quarters in trading cities, where they were in charge. Sometimes a single building, sometimes an entire neighborhood), but with the rise of nationalism (and thus, the idea of sovereign nation taken precedence over that of descent), territoriality gained favor.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting you should say this. In the modern era, we (i.e. most countries) employ 'territoriality of law', meaning that you are subject to the laws of the state within whose borders you are present at the time. Earlier, from (late-)antiquity to the early modern era, Europe worked with 'personality of law', meaning that the laws you were subject to, depended on your identity: for instance, you were subject to Frankish laws if you were a Frank, Germanic laws if you were a German (in the old, tribal sense; there was no such thing as 'Germany' until at the very least the 18th century, or, more commonly accepted, until 1866), Jewish if you were a Jew, etc. This was very handy for merchants (who, incidentally, usually had their own quarters in trading cities, where they were in charge. Sometimes a single building, sometimes an entire neighborhood), but with the rise of nationalism (and thus, the idea of sovereign nation taken precedence over that of descent), territoriality gained favor.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Those laws should be respected by those of various religions? Or would he have only Jews following the laws of their Jewish leaders and so on... because somehow I doubt the religious right would follow the teachings and 'laws' of any other religion but Christianity.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting you should say this. In the modern era, we (i.e. most countries) employ 'territoriality of law', meaning that you are subject to the laws of the state within whose borders you are present at the time. Earlier, from (late-)antiquity to the early modern era, Europe worked with 'personality of law', meaning that the laws you were subject to, depended on your identity: for instance, you were subject to Frankish laws if you were a Frank, Germanic laws if you were a German (in the old, tribal sense; there was no such thing as 'Germany' until at the very least the 18th century, or, more commonly accepted, until 1866), Jewish if you were a Jew, etc. This was very handy for merchants (who, incidentally, usually had their own quarters in trading cities, where they were in charge. Sometimes a single building, sometimes an entire neighborhood), but with the rise of nationalism (and thus, the idea of sovereign nation taken precedence over that of descent), territoriality gained favor. [/QUOTE]
So if I understand this correctly, "personality of law" means those who come to the US from, say, Saudi Arabia, would be within their rights/laws to stone a woman to death for a perceived infraction, while a female American in Saudi Arabia would be free to wear a halter top and short-shorts while driving herself, un-chaperoned, to a co-ed party with strangers. Yes?
Maybe for the times it worked, but can you see that working now?
At this moment, in Colorado, there is a company with a large Muslim (Somali) employee pool. These employees have walked out on the job because they've been told they cannot have their evening break time altered to allow for prayers at sunset during Ramadan. Apparently, the company has already made other adjustments to ensure the job does not hinder their ability to practice their religion. But, for whatever reason, they can't allow this additional change. And so, there’s fury as well as work slow-downs and walk-outs.
Now, I'm sorry, but in my opinion, if you have a job, you follow the job description. If you're allowed two fifteen-minute breaks, and they don't coincide with your plans for the day, that's too bad. Why should a business - which has to produce a product and deal with other businesses in a business-like manner, within business hours, etc - have to alter its production schedule? What if Jewish employees there insist on leaving before sunset while Muslims insist on breaking for prayer five (?) times a day and Christians take the day off because it's Ash Wednesday and they want to go to church? What happens to the business? I see it the same for a country practicing "personality of law".
Unless there were to be a total breakdown of the Western world as we know it, this can’t happen and, most certainly, the pope knows that. That kind of thinking is dangerous, IMO, and impractical. Of course, as Microwave suggested, coexistence makes sense - though we still struggle with that. However, the way I see it, coexistence must be within the non-religious laws of a country, otherwise this battle of beliefs will never subside.
[/QUOTE]
Interesting you should say this. In the modern era, we (i.e. most countries) employ 'territoriality of law', meaning that you are subject to the laws of the state within whose borders you are present at the time. Earlier, from (late-)antiquity to the early modern era, Europe worked with 'personality of law', meaning that the laws you were subject to, depended on your identity: for instance, you were subject to Frankish laws if you were a Frank, Germanic laws if you were a German (in the old, tribal sense; there was no such thing as 'Germany' until at the very least the 18th century, or, more commonly accepted, until 1866), Jewish if you were a Jew, etc. This was very handy for merchants (who, incidentally, usually had their own quarters in trading cities, where they were in charge. Sometimes a single building, sometimes an entire neighborhood), but with the rise of nationalism (and thus, the idea of sovereign nation taken precedence over that of descent), territoriality gained favor. [/QUOTE]
So if I understand this correctly, "personality of law" means those who come to the US from, say, Saudi Arabia, would be within their rights/laws to stone a woman to death for a perceived infraction, while a female American in Saudi Arabia would be free to wear a halter top and short-shorts while driving herself, un-chaperoned, to a co-ed party with strangers. Yes?
Maybe for the times it worked, but can you see that working now?
At this moment, in Colorado, there is a company with a large Muslim (Somali) employee pool. These employees have walked out on the job because they've been told they cannot have their evening break time altered to allow for prayers at sunset during Ramadan. Apparently, the company has already made other adjustments to ensure the job does not hinder their ability to practice their religion. But, for whatever reason, they can't allow this additional change. And so, there’s fury as well as work slow-downs and walk-outs.
Now, I'm sorry, but in my opinion, if you have a job, you follow the job description. If you're allowed two fifteen-minute breaks, and they don't coincide with your plans for the day, that's too bad. Why should a business - which has to produce a product and deal with other businesses in a business-like manner, within business hours, etc - have to alter its production schedule? What if Jewish employees there insist on leaving before sunset while Muslims insist on breaking for prayer five (?) times a day and Christians take the day off because it's Ash Wednesday and they want to go to church? What happens to the business? I see it the same for a country practicing "personality of law".
Unless there were to be a total breakdown of the Western world as we know it, this can’t happen and, most certainly, the pope knows that. That kind of thinking is dangerous, IMO, and impractical. Of course, as Microwave suggested, coexistence makes sense - though we still struggle with that. However, the way I see it, coexistence must be within the non-religious laws of a country, otherwise this battle of beliefs will never subside.