[HPFGU-OTChatter] Church, state and doing what comes naturally

[Kathryn Cawte]

> --- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "naamagatus" <naama_gat at h...>
> wrote:
> > The problem is that the principle of tolerance is *not* accepted by
> > a large number of Muslims. Of course, it's also not accepted by a
> > large number of Christians, either. The difference is, that in what
> > we call Christian countries the ruling doctrine is secular, not
> > religious at all. Therefore, the inherent intolerance of
> > Christianity is segregated from the political arena.
> > Historically, this split (of secular vs. religious spheres)
> > developed from Christianity itself. From early times it was seen as
> > proper that there should be pope and king - seperate rulers of
> > seperate domains.
>
"psychic_serpent"
> For a while, in some countries that had monarchies with real power
> (rather than constitutional monarchies), the king was head of the
> Church and political leader as well.  This was why it was so
> dangerous to be a member of a minority religion, such as Judaism, in
> a Christian state.  (Anywhere in Europe, in other words, for hundreds
> of years.)  Without any warning, the king could decide to run all of
> the Jews out of the country (actually killing a lot of people in the
> process, rather than just ejecting them).
>

K

As barb points out historically religion, especially religious persecution,
has been run by the State in Christian countries - Mary I burnt all the
protestants she could and then when Elizabeth I came to the throne she
returned the favour to the Catholics. And let's not forget that the Pope
wasn't a seperate institution on his own he had an *army* for goodness sake
at some points and when he didn't he could demand that countries provided
one for him! Religion and politics were deeply intertwined as can be seen by
the titles of a lot of European Monarchs "His most Catholic Majesty" was the
normal way of referring to the Spanish monarch, "Defender of the Faith" was
a title conferred on Henry VIII by the Pope, then he broke from Rome and
became the Head of the Church of England, the Holy Roman Emperor etc etc In
fact if during the medieval period you wanted to live in a country that
*didn't* persecute its religious minorities - you needed to move to a Muslim
country. Other than having to pay extra taxes Christians and Jews lived
persecution free in Moorish Spain - which is more than the Jews could say in
most other countries in Europe. And if you want evidence of how closely
intertwined the state and the religious establishment were look no further
than the standard version of the Bible used in the UK - the King James
Version - because he was the one sponsoring the translation into English.

And another thing - how seperate can religion and the secular spehere be
when technically it is the duty of every good Catholic to try and *kill* the
monarch (as was the case whenever England was ruled by an excommunicated
monarch)!

It was only in the 19th century (I think) that a Catholic could become a
memer of Parliament (which had been banned under Charles II) and a Catholic
still cannot become Monarch. In fact if you marry a Catholic you instantly
remove yourself from the order of succession. The seperation of Church and
state in effect stems from the French Revolution (and they've now taken it
to the extreme that they are trying to claim that if I were to wear an
ostentatious crucifix, or a Jewish skull cap or a Muslim headscarf in a
state school I would be infringing the rights of others), which is where a
lot of the political theories prevelent in the American Revolution came
from.

And on a related note - technically you could say that WWI was started for
religious reasons... the treaty which meant that Russia had to jump to the
defence of Serbia when it was under threat from Austro-Hungary (because a
Serb had killed the Archduke) was a treaty (I do know the name but I can't
spell it so I'm skirting around it) which was signed under the reign of
Catherine the Great giving her the right to interfere on behalf of Orthadox
Christians if they were in danger from the Catholic rulers of Austro-Hungary
(of which Serbia was technically a part) - that then led to a domino effect
whereby Russia also had to mobilize troops on the German border (because the
Germans were bound by treaty to defend Austo-Hungary), the Germans felt they
needed to mobilize their own troops in response and also moved them to the
French border because France and Russia had a treaty ..... etc etc.

Why do I have all that rubbish in my head? Because  only studied two periods
of Russian history and Catherine the Great was one of them and she *really*
sticks in your mind - scary, scary lady, somewhat cool, but scary

K