you certainly generate some lively discussion. Thats great.My own two cents, the power to "test" voter intelligence would have to lie in the State, the entity you trust the least. (with good reason) the lumpen proletariat has always been problematic for thinking people, how to not be condescending yet demand some reasonable standards? Nice work.
As for your comments about the church on my blog, you believe the Church has not been involved in politics? I think any display of power involves pure politics and they have been intertwined with empire since Kings and priests first shook hands.
Your first point is a good one. I often write these columns on the fly. I have no problems if my ideas change; they have in the past, they will probably continue to do so in the future. This was merely one of hopefully many attempts to solve the problem of government.
I think any display of power involves pure politics and they have been intertwined with empire since Kings and priests first shook hands.
My history is admittedly lacking. I'm trying to brush up on it, as well as other things of course. For good or for ill, the learning never stops; I tend to think this is for good.
The unique thing about the Church is that while political according to your definition, she has done a pretty good job of staying outside the politcal realm in the sense of affecting the state directly. This is only an observation based on limited readings, but I give two examples.
Despite protests by some orthodox Catholics, the Church has not dealt with "Catholic" politicians who do not adhere to her teachings. She would probably have to condemn so many people, Catholics would not be allowed to vote, but in any event, the point is that she does not mess needlessly in politics, at least in this case.
The other example is the myth known as Hitler's Pope. Although the Pope did not actively condemn the Nazis in homily after homily, he did not sanction the regime in any way, and if fact saved many, many Jews. The Pope knew that if the Nazis won, he would have to contend with them. While this could be seen akin to taking niether side, just as some of the angels in Paradise Lost, this is not actually the case. The Pope, after all, had no legions. Getting the Vatican pillaged would make for many martyrs, but it wouldn't do anything to stop the German war machine.
Of course, there was the inquisition, which was mixing of Church and state. This black mark is evidence of why the two should not meet if need not be.
If I'm wrong, please correct me. The learning must continue.
2 comments:
you certainly generate some lively discussion. Thats great.My own two cents, the power to "test" voter intelligence would have to lie in the State, the entity you trust the least. (with good reason) the lumpen proletariat has always been problematic for thinking people, how to not be condescending yet demand some reasonable standards? Nice work.
As for your comments about the church on my blog, you believe the Church has not been involved in politics? I think any display of power involves pure politics and they have been intertwined with empire since Kings and priests first shook hands.
Your first point is a good one. I often write these columns on the fly. I have no problems if my ideas change; they have in the past, they will probably continue to do so in the future. This was merely one of hopefully many attempts to solve the problem of government.
I think any display of power involves pure politics and they have been intertwined with empire since Kings and priests first shook hands.
My history is admittedly lacking. I'm trying to brush up on it, as well as other things of course. For good or for ill, the learning never stops; I tend to think this is for good.
The unique thing about the Church is that while political according to your definition, she has done a pretty good job of staying outside the politcal realm in the sense of affecting the state directly. This is only an observation based on limited readings, but I give two examples.
Despite protests by some orthodox Catholics, the Church has not dealt with "Catholic" politicians who do not adhere to her teachings. She would probably have to condemn so many people, Catholics would not be allowed to vote, but in any event, the point is that she does not mess needlessly in politics, at least in this case.
The other example is the myth known as Hitler's Pope. Although the Pope did not actively condemn the Nazis in homily after homily, he did not sanction the regime in any way, and if fact saved many, many Jews. The Pope knew that if the Nazis won, he would have to contend with them. While this could be seen akin to taking niether side, just as some of the angels in Paradise Lost, this is not actually the case. The Pope, after all, had no legions. Getting the Vatican pillaged would make for many martyrs, but it wouldn't do anything to stop the German war machine.
Of course, there was the inquisition, which was mixing of Church and state. This black mark is evidence of why the two should not meet if need not be.
If I'm wrong, please correct me. The learning must continue.
Post a Comment