A somehow selective analogy and a crude attempt to simplify a complex issue.

John 18:36-37

36Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

37"You are a king, then!" said Pilate.
Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king. In fact, for this reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

The author misses some important points. Liberal democracies are not a problem, but a relief from religious tyranny!

Anyone who reads Catholic doctrine on contraception, or who claims the literal truth of the holy books, really needs help. The great thing about liberal democracies is that they are based on our ability to reason, not on supernatural superstitions, for which there is no substantiated evidence.

In today's society, there are many views and many beliefs. Our only choice, for all of us to live amongst one another, is to be tolerant and accept that people should have freedom of religion. But we also want freedom from religion, for those of us who think its all a heap of nonsense...

It now remains for the religious to actually learn tolerance. No we don't accept your weird beliefs or morals. Yup, we think that you are deluded. As you have no substantiated evidence for your many claims, don't try to force that stuff on us!

Fact is, religion should be no more then a lifestyle choice.
Believe what you will, but accept that we think its all nonsense and you have no right to force anything on us, as you have no evidence for your many claims.

It seems doubtful whether Yobbo has actually understood the case that Sellick is making in his account of Cavanaugh.

He has read Sellick through a liberal democratic framework - as religious and intolerant as any the intolerance that he is attempting to oppose.

the Christian church has made a major mistake in thinking that it has a stake in being a religion.

Handing over of the control of our bodies to the uncontested power of the state is to surrender ourselves to unthinking participation in violence generated in pursuit of the survival of the nation state. The death toll of those whose lives have been offered up on the altar of nationalism, in the cause of the survival of the state, has been appalling, beyond our imagination in the period since the sixteenth century. The (relative) silence of Christians in failing to name this reality for what it is, to tell the truth about this has been and remains a scandal that hangs over our claim to be followers of Jesus "who came preaching peace."

… the term "religion" has accompanied the domestication of Christianity. It has facilitated the marginalisation of the radical claims of the gospel and the transfer of the Christian's ultimate loyalty to the supposedly rational spheres of nation and the market. The church is now a leisure activity: the state and the market are the only things worth dying for. The modern concept of religion facilitates idolatry, the replacement of the living God with Caesar and Mammon. (William Cavanaugh "God is not Religious" in God is Not… edited by D Brent Laytham, Brazos Press, 2004, p.112)

I agree the Christian gospel has been sidlined as an option by personal choice, rather than the basis of the Christian society. Materialism and personal indulgence in consumerism has become the idolitory of the present society and has swamped the devotion of the Church attendees. Attention to the principles of the Gospel is ignored by Christians for the indulgence in selfishness. "I'll just do what I find pleasure in", is the basis of one's judgment.

Doug,
Where have you been all my posts? At last someone who understands!

Doug you are quite correct. I have become intolerant of the intolerant!

Fact is that alot of the time, the nation/state is hijacked by the true believers, to fullfill their own agenda, just look at George Bush and Co. Thats the very point that Rodney Stark missed.

The very notion that religion has some kind of patent on morality, caring, sharing and love, is total poppycock. The world is full of humanists who achieved their values without resorting to supernatural dogma that they want to enforce on others.

In fact some of the most greedy and materialistic people I know are so called true Christians, they have bought their ticket to heaven, in case its true.

Religion is free to preach to the flock of true believers, but please leave the rest of us out of your little fantasy world.

“Because secular society has no common goals it goes along with whatever force is at hand.”

The idea of “common goals” is interesting and tends to liken mankind, more to the social nature of ants, working within the framework of a “common goal” than the creatures which we are, distinguished from ants and “lower orders” of animals by our individual “freewill”.

A society moulded by a single hand, presumably with a “common goal”, such as a catholic society, did not produce better outcomes but if considered over the life of such church-state collaborations, produced and institutionalised the worst of “common goals” and a barbarous repression enforced with the use of terror and torture on a massive scale.

Just as the “Divine Right of Kings” carries little credence in these days of mere “constitutional monarchs”, contemporary society does not resemble the rigid and stratified structure of the middle ages society, where “scribes”, (who needed to also be priest in order to be allowed to read and write) were men of power, who used that power (the definition of the common goal) to institutionalise and inflict their monolithic religious views (the common goal) across society in general.

If the “price” for exercising “freewill” is the loss of the “common goal”, then it is a bargain, which every individual should be very pleased about.

“The church must get used to the fact that it exists as an alien body in a strange land.”

And on that note we can certainly agree.

(However, I still do not understand, why all the tax dispensations?)

Finally of God and Religion. Anyone who pretends they are the same is deluded.

We can each find our own way to God without the intercession of religions or the religious. What is in a mans heart is what matters. Not the robes, organisation or authority of any theology, Christian, Muslim, new or old.

The continual defining of "democracy" with other words, in this case "liberal democracy" simply demonstrates the main issue. We don't have democracy in Australia.

This writer defines our government type as liberal democracy. I would suggest oligarchy is closer to the truth.

I am also baffled by people who quote parts of the Bible or other books written by man as some sort of proof of a particular religion or point in history. The Bible is simply a collection of stories collected and collated a couple of hundred years after someone named Jesus was apparently preaching his idea of religion. Nothing more.

Interesting post sells. I agree with much of what you have said. My point of departure is the use of either or logic.

The church has indeed not done a great job of being a church, and there is a lot of focus on the culture war at the moment, with many evangelicals trying to transform the culture from a top down approach. To abandon all attempts at legislating good morals (as they are the best way for a society to prosper), or defending the existence of God is both unloving and foolishness. To ignore the great commission and loving our neighbour would also be unloving and foolishness.

It is only in the combination of the two can we truly be good and faithful servants, investing all the opportunities and talents wisely. To abandon the former will put Christianity on the same level as the flying spagetti monster, a hopelessly implausible story. To abandon the later, leaves the job half done, with no demonstration of the true power of God's grace.

Consider the parable of the sower, where some seed fell on rocky ground and some fell on good soil. Defending the existence of God and creating a moral society is like ploughing the ground to break up the rocks, so that it becomes good soil. The Christian community's witness of grace, love and truth is the throwing of the seed. Both aspects are needed.

It is interesting to note how atheists and secularists try to deny the Church of Christ a role in society. Their ill informed views of what the gospel of Christ is about as demonstrated by Col Rouge as he tries to identify it with some aspect of pseudo-Christian history. A history that has no resemblence to the teachings of Christ or the truth of the gospel.

Quote, "A society moulded by a single hand, presumably with a 'common goal', such as a catholic society, did not produce better outcomes but if considered over the life of such church-state collaborations, produced and institutionalised the worst of 'common goals' and a barbarous repression enforced with the use of terror and torture on a massive scale."

RobbyH is amazed that Christians quote the text of their belief. Again she is ill informed about the gospel of Christ and assumes it is merely a text and not an eternal grace of living.

Quote, "I am also baffled by people who quote parts of the Bible or other books written by man as some sort of proof of a particular religion or point in history. The Bible is simply a collection of stories collected and collated a couple of hundred years after someone named Jesus was apparently preaching his idea of religion. Nothing more.

It seems that this argument states that without Christ in our lives, all society would devolve into hedonistic, immoral ways.

Patently wrong.

Christ serves/served a purpose. In his time and intervening years, People less educated did not fully comprehend the complex world around them and their place in it. Hence a ‘guiding light’ in times of need. ‘God’ abated the fear of the times. Now, with education for all (well, sort of…) people are much better informed, the mind is capable of considered thought and people understand the world better.

So, where does this leave Christ? Obsolete? Mission accomplished? Somewhere in the middle?

We have left a man-made doctrine, based on documents and beliefs from a society with little understanding of the universe and less understanding of themselves. Holding onto these dogmas is limiting and damaging to both the world and the person.

To quote a not-so-great man “What is in a mans heart is what matters.” (Thanks Col). It’s the character that any God would be interested in, not how the dogma is slavishly followed or how hysterical one becomes in praising its name. If analysed, two are pretension and image only, the other has substance. Guess which.

Humans have ‘grown up’ and are capable of considered thought – both about the world and their place in it. People are capable of choosing a course of action – and to be held accountable for it. In those rare cases where responsibility can be shifted, there is the State to accommodate and find answers to remedying the shift in future.

To believe that a lack of religion (or belief in God) will lead to a ‘do as I feel’ society is insulting to the good, ethical people in it and blind to the fact that there are as many ‘religious’ people doing wrong as not.

Ethics/values/morals are followed and useful as they assist the individual as well as order society. Not because ‘someone told me to do it’. To believe humans aren’t capable of this on their own simply shows the lack of faith one actually has.

Excellent posts Reason and Col.

The foundation for morals/ethics that many religious people choose to ignore is that of philosophy. It is a method of rational inquiry into any issue.

In this case as a basis for moral and ethical values, philosophy is free of dogma; it allows people to ascertain for themselves a valid and meaningful way to exist in harmony with others and with the environment.

I am always insulted when it is argued that one cannot live a moral life without religion. This is a form of blackmail, which occurs frequently on this forum.

The beauty of philosophy is that it can be applied to any field of thought from science or politics through to religion itself.

Peter

I found you post enlightening by both your recognition of Liberal Democracy as the best system currently available and your belief's it is not perfect, has a serious flaw (Currently) and it can be improved upon.

I agree with your quote from Cavanagh.

My first thoughts went to the historical construction of our society. We have in many ways divorced ourselves as a community from many of the positives of our Hebrew herritage in favour of the pursuit of the goals of logic, science and philsophy from our Greek herritage.

That is reflected in a pursuit for wealth and also as Cavanagh holds a pursuit of individualism. I'm no activitist for collectivism but I do adhere to a belief that a spiritualism should help mould and be the cause of a cohesion within our liberal democracy. While I believe the dual pursuits of wealth and individualism are not a bad object in themselves I also think when they are unaccompanied by a spiritual pursuit then the great danger is much as Cavanagh predicts.

I don't believe the economic or individualism aims have solely led to a degradation in Liberal Democracy.

I'd hold many of the intrinsic values of much of the Hebrew strand hhaven't been supported widely enough within our community. A reasonable question could be; How much relevance do the Ten Commandments hold today. How little of them are reflected within our laws. Take the issues of homosexuality and abortion. Both are centered upon the rights of the individual without regard for the effects these rights and their consequences have on the overall spiritual welfare of society. The teachings of Christ and the Bible see both as abominations. As a spiritural person working with people and groups you'd have an understanding how the malaise of a individual also has longer-term detrimental effects upon the overall group.

I think these issues and others, have had an accumulated effect and lessened our community's spirituality adding to degradation of Liberal democracy.

I don't intend criticism. I favour no particular God nor any position petraining to homosexuality. I am anti-abortion.

The Church's inability to maintain numbers in a liberal democracy is not th fault of society. It is the fault of the Church itself.

When people are free to spend their leisure time in a variety of ways - the Church needs to sell itself better. It needs to prove itself worthy of patronage, just like any other organisation.

It needs to prove to people that they will get greater satisifaction, greater fulfilment, form greater relationships than if they were spending a day at the football, a night at the ballet or sitting in front of the couch.

They need to be the most attractive choice. They need to promote themselves. If they think people need salvation - sell it.

Although, one point I tend to agree with Sells is the role of church being usurped by Government.

This is not what a liberal democracy should have. Our Government is far too big, taxes far too much and spends too much money on useless bureaucrats.

There is no role for any large organisation be it church or state to impose its will. People should be free to make their own money, spend it themselves and associate with whom ever they want.

t.u.s

Peter, from a philosophical viewpoint, it seems that the church has its role as does a government. Was it not Thomas Jefferson who claimed that history has proven that in a democracy it is hard for church and state to work as one. However, this is not to say that church and state cannot work in harmony in what we might call a liberal society.

Earlier in such a discussion we might point out how the liberal concept has been so much abused since John Locke used it after the 1688 Glorious Revolution in Britain, not as a message of freedom for all society, but as freedom for the public to protest against an over-bearing authority as did happen peacefully during the 1688 Revolution, the principle also being used to back up the American War of Independence many years later.

Part of this principle was also freedom for the businessman or entrepreneur to trade or compete for the good of the country. Adam Smith later advanced the principle with his Laissez-faire giving much more freedom both in business and marketing. But Smith did warn that because competition involved very much the weakness of human greed, as John Stuart Mill also pointed out later, something had to be done about the working class, some sections still akin to slavery which was still thought of as a God-given right of superior ownership.

Discussing mainly Western society, as liberalism back before around 1850 only meant more freedom for the ownership classes, it might be said that because enlightenment has moved true liberalism into the underclass, the term should now be only a true social one, not one used to denote freedom from the government in what Adam Smith would surely admit was the greedy game of free market capitalism. so necessary these days as part of our Western existence.

To find the true goodness of Christianity, most moral philosophers now prefer to refer to the Sermon on the Mount, knowing that its principles became spoilt as greed and business success, became high points in the life of a good Christian.

Christianity we must remember also gave us the Dark Ages, said by some historians, only saved by travelling Muslim scholars, influenced so much at the time as well as earlier probably by Mahomet, through the ancient teachings of Aristotle, in which the concept of reason was so much needed to balance that of faith.

We only have to read good Western history books to find how St Thomas Aquinas later accepted the reasoning of those earlier Muslim scholars, some modern researchers saying it was the acceptance by Aquinas of a balance between Revelation and Reasoning that triggered the advance towards our modern day civilisation, still with many growing problems, nonetheless.

Finally, digressing a little from the main topic, we could say that mostly through Western advancement, first triggered by Muslim thinkers passing on Greek philosophy, Islam has itself escaped into its own Dark-Age, where faith in an after-life is being used much much more than the more earthly and practical elements of deep reasoning, that very likely Mahomet himself also understood.

Not that we might wish that Muslims should take on our Western ways. Modern philosophers would admire them more if they found their own way out, as seems to be happening in Malaysia, which all good Christians should devoutly pray for, using all the concepts of modern fair play and decency.

Magnificient Bushbred

If History shows us anything, it shows how DANGEROUS it is for the Church and STATE to be 'one'. (Holy Roman Empire under Constantine, the evil Popes) If not the Church trying to run the state, the state will be trying to run the Church.

The Church has as it's primary calling in the community to be "Salt" (to preserve) and "Light" (to illuminate.) A state without a Church is a state without direction. A Church 'as' a state, will become dry, formal and cultural.

The pattern in the Old Testament was that when the State erred, the prophets spoke up, often at the cost of their lives or at least their comfort as they were thrown into prison. Nevertheless, God speaks, and awakens.. and makes known.. He does not force.

Our role as Christians (those of us who are) is the same. A prophetic 'voice' into the State, calling it to account on matters of Justice and Truth. The kingdom of God exists quite apart from any State aparatus.

Secular and Liberal democracy, always will need that 'voice' to guide it. Though I realize our secular or atheist friends might not quite see it that way.

Bushbred,
Alas, history is always written by the winners. That is, our history is written by the secularists and they give it their own slant of lies and propaganda. The use of “dark ages” to describe the time between the light of Greek thought and the 17th Western “Enlightenment” says it all. This is a judgment based entirely our obsession with natural science and technology. In fact, it was the church that preserved the light of the gospel during the barbarian invasions and they were not dark times at all but a flourishing of theology and art. As far as theology goes, the Enlightenment should be called the Endarkenment since so much was lost, again due to our preoccupation with the physical world. Alasdair MacIntyre’s parable of lost knowledge at the beginning of “After Virtue” is instructive. We now live in a time beyond the cataclysm of the “Enlightenment” in which we have lost the language of virtue and find our selves confused and directionless. I commend it to you.

Brushbred

I can only echo Keith's sentiments - balanced, rational and fair are just a couple of words I could add to describe your informative post. Only the tragically prejudiced could take issue with your words.

Thank you

To quote Bertrand Russell:

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."

Bushbred,
Bravo and hear, hear! I for one would nominate you for our national leader any day…

Philo – so you are denying the Inquisition – what next – denying the holocaust?

As for “It is interesting to note how atheists and secularists try to deny the Church of Christ a role in society. Their ill informed views of what the gospel of Christ is”

What you seem to miss is the “Church of Christ” is, in fact one of any number of diverse and competing religious sideshows which proclaim their own omnipotence whilst decrying the role of their commercial adversaries.

I notice you have ignored my observation that

“We can each find our own way to God without the intercession of religions or the religious.”

Is that because you consider “secularists”, as would, I suspect, the many Church Leaders, both uneducated and unauthorised to express opinions or more the Catholic view, that such disclosure is heresy?
Do you consider it a travesty that excommunication does not mean a thing anymore?

Reason – the content of your post reflects your logon name.

Scout – and the forms of blackmail used by the “religious” has, in the past been of the most depraved and despicable nature.

t.u.s. agree – I might observe the “Churches” have fallen from grace because of the public displays of corruption by the leadership of many churches in their capacity to favour and protect the priesthood at the expense of their congregants and their congregants children.

Well said bushbred

Sells “Alas, history is always written by the winners. That is, our history is written by the secularists and they give it their own slant of lies and propaganda.”

Of recent disclosures to the history of depraved and predatory actions by clerics of several denominations and the associated “cover-ups” by other religious leaders, are at last being written by the “victims”.

Such disclosure being long overdue!

As for “we have lost the language of virtue and find our selves confused and directionless”.

I take it you refer to the “religious” or part thereof and have not included unconfused and focused “secularists” as part of the collective "we"?

Col Rouge,
The truth of the Gospel of Christ is often very different to the life lived by people calling themselves "Christian". You will note most of the letters written to Churches, after Jesus was present, were dealing with problems of people in the Church going off the track from the Gospel. This is the nature of humanity, even Carl Marks would agree with those supposedly following his principles.

The cultural principles of Christianity have public expression like "love your neighbour as yourself" this is not a private matter. It affects other people and it is cultural. To deny Christians their cultural expresion is absurd and is an afront by secularists imposing their values on Christians. Christianity is not a personal supression of one's mind, a mere internalising of ones belief, that atheists want it to be. Christians will speak out when their cultural values are violated. They value all life especially the weak and vunerable that is why they act to protect the unborn child whose mother wishes it destroyed by hacking it to peices in the womb for undignified disposal.

It was the Church that initiated a home for unwanted children but as is the case with some humans they may call themselves Christian, but do not adhere to the Gospel. This behaviour by some does not negate the truth of the Gospel, "love and forgive your enemy".

Peter

Best wishes for the new year, and thank you for another fine contribution to a fundamental issue for humanity’s way forward.

I do not agree with you that Bushbred’s comments on the Dark Age’s saw him jump from the Classic Greeks to the Enlightenment. He made reference to the Muslim scholars and indeed, St Thomas Aquinas, though not factual.

Aquinas, did not “accept” the Aristotelian reasoning of the Muslims; he celebrated it and went on courageously expounding and expanding it to take them on, respectfully, in philosophical and theological debate. One of his key positions was the particular focus on the uniqueness of each human being impressed in the image of God, with their own power of reason and intellect for which they are individually responsible, as opposed to the prevailing Islamic thought of an intellect residing solely in God and which we share. This is a fundamental intellectual proposition based on a profound spiritual revelation. Of course, our Age of Enlightenment has seen the intellectual truth separated from the spiritual truth - imago dei.

Bushbred may also be enlightened to know that a model of western commerce and systemized industry came out of the monastic enterprises that saw their origins in the “Dark Ages”. In that model for centuries, there was a focus on freeing man for God in service to man, as opposed to the systems of Industrial Age Enlightenment that still see man freed from God, to go and exploit and manipulate man as an individual pursuit of personal power, and in some quarters, the blessing of God..

So dark is not necessarily dark; and the Enlightenment is certainly not that of the “light that darkness could not overcome” ( Prologue of St John’s Gospel) - It is in the process of being darkened

Boxgum,
Nice post. Of course my point about the “Enlightenment” needs to be nuanced, it was not all light and not all dark. I also take your point about Aquinas. I guess I grow increasingly impatient with the secular polemic which will not recognise any scholarship that sees the base of Western civilization in Christianity. This is the new history wars and consists, unproductively, in throwing examples at each other. The inquisition is balanced by the equalitarianism of the gospel, the celebration of rationality as a God given and necessary skill versus the superstition of Medieval Christianity. But this is not about prejudice, the scholarly work has been done and the results are in. Western civilization is overwhelming the product of Christianty.

"Western civilization is overwhelming the product of Christianty."

Hehe, stop kidding yourself!

Look around you even today. It is not the religious, studying their holy books, who make any progress at all, they are all too busy praying, worshipping and fearing judgement day.

It is the free thinkers who question, who experiment, the scientists, the people who take calulated risks, who have been responsible for progress. All that Christianity did was hold up alot of amazing stuff that the Greeks had discovered, rather then build on it.

Next thing you will be telling me that Bill Gates developed Windows
because of his religion :)

Next time you climb aboard a 747, ask yourself if it flies because of science and scientists, or because your priest is praying for you.

If anyone should get some credit for pioneering Western Civilisation its the Greeks. If anyone should be critised for holding up progress, its the Catholic Church.

Oh Philo, Do not associate me with the views, thinking or rabid ramblings of “Karl Marx” (1818-1883), (I assume, that is to whom you were referring).

Regarding his views on everything, I rely on quoting dear Margaret Thatcher who said

“And what a prize we have to fight for: no less than the chance to banish from our land the dark divisive clouds of Marxist socialism.”

On the matter of abortion – I am not responsible for the actions of others. I expect full individual discretion and accept personal responsibility for making all the important decisions in my life. I, naturally therefore, respect others to exercise similar discretion without demanding them to be accountable for any opinion I might personally hold.

AS for “The cultural principles of Christianity have public expression like "love your neighbour as yourself" this is not a private matter.”

IT is a shame more “Christians” have not followed such a creed. Then they would not need the intercession of a Church organisation to do such, anyone holding moral “humanist” values would follow such as a matter of course.

As for “It was the Church that initiated a home for unwanted children but as is the case with some humans they may call themselves Christian, but do not adhere to the Gospel.”

Again, not uniquely “Christian” values but good humanist values.

Regarding abuses of the same system of supposed “Caring for unwanted children”.
Whilst the scheme invariably fostered opportunity for the most depraved abuses to be conducted by perverts, that was not the “sin” of the organised religions.
The “sin” of organised churches was the systematic and entrenched “cover-up” of those hideous crimes by the who leaders of those churches.

Their complicity was by doing nothing and hiding what had been done.
They (the Churches) forewent their responsibility to the children in their charge in favour of keeping quiet.
They put the name of their “Church” above and before their duty of care to the “innocent children” who had been handed into their care and that act so damned them.

Well Said Yabby

Jesus never envisaged His Church to inforces a set of morality upon people who have not a heart acceptance of the values. Hense the Church should be essentially seperate from the enforcers of the law, unless the society is the Church. Kingdom changes happen from personal conviction that the purest principles of behaviour for society is a Christ like way.

Daniel as a 14 year old son of Jewish nobility taken into Babylonia by the ruthless Nebuchadnezza, given a name of one of the Babylonian gods yet he maintained his purity even though required to study the Babylonian religion and science. He excelled in all the learning of the Babylonians but it did not undermine his relationship to God. His life is an example for Christians we are in the world but not of the world.

I am new to this forum and have been reading many posts by many people. Some obviously Christian, others obviously not. The barrier it seems to me, is that the Christians think the non-Christians understand Christianity, while the non-Christians think the others are brain-washed. Christianity is not the buildings, the edicts, the laws, the apparent attitude of superiority, the Inquisition, the priests, etc, etc. It is the knowledge that one single man allowed himself to be tortured and murdered to show the world how much his father loved each and every one of us.
Not one person in this world can live up to that, so we all show our human weakness is some way, and therefore become prey to our pride,our despair, our wrongdoings. Me too. And thereby give non-Christians fodder to attack.
True Christianity is the ability to allow God to guide and lead. A true Christian (and there are very few) speaks only the words God says to speak, walks only the path god says to walk, does only the deeds He say to do.
Outside of that, we walk our own path and do and say our own thing. So, the non-Christian can then look at us and say "if you represent God, I don't want him." And that's a fair call.
For those of you who are non-Christians, there is no supporting answer from the Christian side for any of the debates you put forward because "man" did all the nasty things. but it was man, not God.
However, you do need to know that there is a huge history of people who did do the work of God. Pasteur knew his path was led by God when he developed vaccines and saved millions. Columbus believed devoutly he was to find the New world for God. Even Australia was known as the Great South Land of the Holy Spirit long before exploring man had landed on its shores.

If there is no God, why did a totally anti-God country such as Russia have such a thriving underworld of religion. Why is the greatest Christian growth in the world in such an anti-God country as China - where churches are routinely destroyed and the members jailed. Yet over 500,000 people are becoming Christians every week.
You see belief is a funny thing. Everyone has to believe in something, even if it is that they believe in nothing. It seems to me that we have a core in us that craves a base
Now you are free to believe there is no God. Others are free to believe there is. And you know why? Because God gave you that right

SuziQ welcome the the forum good to read your posts.

Never become discouraged by all the negative comments about Christians. There is somthing special in a relationship to God that atheists are afraid of; As you have noted such as USSR and China

Actually, Boxgum, Aquinas was working as a hired gun when he produced Summa Theologica. Aristotle's reputation was such that he was referred to as 'The Philosopher', and the rediscovery of his work, from the hands of the Moors, was dangerous to the Christian church, because any disparity between his words and those of Christian dogma was likely to be interpreted in favour of Aristotle. So the church commissioned Aquinas to 'reconcile' the current dogma and the words of The Philosopher. Not least because an influential reading of the pre-Christian philosophers gave them special credit – the fact of their being located closer in time to Christ was held to give them a more perfect understanding of Christ's words, and immunity from the (for want of a better phrase) Chinese whispers of biblical exegesis. An amusing, albeit fictional, illustration is to be found in 'The Name of the Rose' – the weight likely to be given to a work of Aristotle's on comedy is enough to incite murder in those who saw Christ as no laughing matter.

Aquinas didn't so much 'embrace' Aristotle as co-opt him, for pressing religio-political purposes. Having said that, I am more than happy to admit that he produced a towering work of both philosophy and theology. And yeah, you're right, monasticism produced double-entry book-keeping. I'm just not entirely sure why you're claiming that as a plus.

The strength of the liberal democratic system of government is out lined in an excellent article by Lawrence Mead.

OOps, the link was not transferred. You may find this article at on the Arts and Letters Daily web site.