There are no fundamental differences
between the Laws of Church and the Laws of State
all of us admire good neighborliness
with the same Good Heart
atheist and deist alike
Is this original, or a quote from somewhere?
Pretty broad statement… I can think of a few laws of the church that have no bearing on what the state should be concerned with… The biggest these days is surrounding marriage… I would agree with the big ones though, dont kill and steal…
If it is common sense
what matter who states it?
Is it not time
that we start paying strict attention to the message itself
and stop idolizing the messenger
lawyers
and congresses of law-makers
can go on thinking up new laws
and arguing over them
infinitely
or so it would seem
Yes.
These days, the State has usurped the Church entirely with all of the same trappings in disguise. That is why it cannot tolerate the competition.
They call it being a Pharaoh; a “Priest-King”.
whatever
whoever chooses to lead
must be both moral and practical
in that order
Metaphysicians
would be the best candidates
What do you mean: ‘The Church’. There are scores of different churches in America. What’s more, all of those churches themselves have different rules. In some churches, it’s ok to be gay, in other churches it’s not so cool. The Catholic church claims condoms to be a moral evil, but many protestant Chrches have no problem with them.
If different churches have different canons which aren’t compatible with each other then it is evidently the case that not all church canons can be consistent with the law of the state.
I take him to mean institutionalized religion in general =/
Since the Stone Age
the “Church” has always been that sacred part of the human psyche
that intuitively knows what is right
and what is not right
It was a pure state of the saintly soul of man
before it became confused by the grammatical limits of Scripture
and the machinations of the scribes
in endless interpretations of who and what God is
No man (or child) really needs another man
to instruct him in what is moral
the real Church is inside Everyman
and so is the real State
all that parents need to do
is remind the child of that fact
making congregations of Churches
and congresses of States
passe
with all bowed before an internal Truth
Both God and Man
are inherently Good
and Creative
and Loving
and are in fact
inseparable
The difference is in the appeal. Both involve an appeal to authority and an interest in some ethic, sure. However, one appeals to the idea of an afterlife, whereas the other other appeals to a quality of life.
This is why religious fundamentalist nuts should have no place in office. They follow a respective ethic in adherence with some age old text. The ethic of the State should be relative to its shortcomings, and should be adaptive in some respects. In my opinion, the church would seem impose limits on individual liberties as concrete commandments, while the state should only limit those liberties which infringe upon the liberties of others.
In short, the fundamental difference is in the purpose of the laws. My well being in society, or the material world, should not be contingent upon my belief in something ethereal. One says don’t kill or steal because God doesn’t abide in those activities, the other says the same because they are maxims upon which a successful society can rest.
If the two were not fundamentally different, we would not need humanitarians to balance the conduct of a society. As it is, we do need humanitarians, sorely.
Not always. Practicality must take preference in some circumstances (ex. masturbation, homosexuality, self defense, war).
Some sure as hell do. The human psyche is not so rigid and predictable. Some people lack the faculties of conscience and certain emotional responses.
All religions believe that the soul has an after-life
lived in several heavens
before we achieve The High Re-Union
of Nirvana
what we have to realize in this life
is that this Good Earth
is one of those heavens
not yet perfected
but able to be stewarded into a cultivated Eden
by the souls who currently occupy it
a vast task already half completed
by 100,000 generations of soulful ancestral effort
One thing I am certain of
if we mess up this planet
during this crucial generation
while the Key of Responsible Global Stewardship dangles before us
we go down
not up
seven levels of hell lie in the afterlife below us
The Pearly Gates guard Holy Ground
no toxins are allowed to enter
I would agree with this if not for what we’ve made of it. This place is more of a Hell than it will ever be a Heaven.
You are absolutely correct I think in pointing out that there are no fundamental differences between the laws of church and the laws of state because in a way the state has become a sort of religion in it’s own sense where governments retain a sort of ritualistic cult like sense of authority that only a church can have.
The state is equally overbearing telling people how they should or ought to live their lives just like any other religion.
What most people don’t realize is that religion and the state fulfill the same role of authority where the state as it stands today owes it’s very existence to religion somthing of which it owes it’s entire existence to.
It’s only then one comes to the conclusion that the state is merely another pulpit.
There is nothing moral or ethical about society as it stands today and throughout history in it’s existence.
Society has never been moral and ethical where instead it merely masquerades or pretends to be in order to manipulate and cow the masses into a sedated form of control.
Practical is just a loafty way of misdirection and creating a sense of urgency to which people in power claim the excuse that it is necessary to ruin a whole bunch of lives in order to create a semblance of order of which is nothing more that a rigid structure of conformity that treats countless lives as expendable where it seems only the powerful are allowed any sense of pleasure when it concerns living where everybody else is deemed unfit or unworthy in contrast.
The state limits nothing. The state controls all and most would like to delude themselves that they are free or independent social beings.
( Somthing I must laugh at.)
You are independent to think in silence but unable to put your thoughts to action and voice them without first being sifted into the narrow confines of the accepted but limited social channels.
If they go unaccepted one get’s to choke on the air of isolation and seperation until one either repents by conforming or is permanently removed.
The history of government and the state is quite simple. Both have never favored limits of power.
Then what is the purpose of law enforcement, the judicial system, and variety of bureaus and administrations that exist to regulate business?
I think most know they are never truly “free”. Independence in terms of sociability must exist to some degree, though I will admit it is influenced by propaganda in/of the state.
Yet we push the walls of those social channels until they eventually budge. Look at South Park.
This is just false. Cults, religious fundamentalists, and radical groups go unaccepted for the span of entire lives, yet they are not forcefully removed or made to conform. Epicurean philosophy was condemned for a good span of time, yet Epicureans exist still today. Everything must “conform” to a certain degree, that is the nature of adaptation.
Why the system of checks and balances? Even if it does not work to your satisfaction, it was created for a purpose. If we did not limit power, all forms of government would be monarchies or dictatorships.
The purpose of law enforcement is to maintain the conformity of society by protecting the flow of power and the powerful in order to have a level of control.
Regulation of business along with regulation of just about everything else exists to protect the accepted flows of power from the unaccepted and unregulated uses of power. ( The unregulated or unaccepted power of the common man and commoner.)
More and more are starting to realize this in vast numbers everyday. Another gear in the vast automated machine.
Social mobility is dictated. The choices and options that are presented towards people is not of their own making but instead of the state and society that their lives revolve around.
People have no genuine sense of freedom or independence in that choices and options of their existence is always dictated by another.
Controlled by the FCC.
Do you honestly believe independent communications exist on television without a regulatory commitee?
What’s that supposed to mean? I don’t understand the jest of your defense.
I don’t understand what your trying to convey with the epicurean statement.
Rebellion and disobedience is another form of adaptation or evolution too. Both are instances of mutations.
It’s all about the powerful trying to retain control and trying to counter any unaccepted or unregulated forms of competition against their current authority.
Checks and balances don’t exist to limit but instead act as agents of maintaining a hegemony of power.
Of course it has a purpose. I just disagree with your interpretation of it.
All forms of governments are dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. Did I miss somthing?
Then you agree, the state does impose limits.
To be sure, the “state” is not a single entity working in continual concert. There are several interacting bodies that compose a government. They are closely interconnected, but they do not all share the same motive or agenda. There are disputes within the government all the time.
Look at institutions like Internal Affairs. A government sanctioned institution regulating another government sanctioned institution. If even for the sake of appearances, some ethic must exist and be maintained in a government. Stability and longevity depend on that to some degree.
I think you may be viewing things from the perspective that everything we ‘know’, discover, and do has been somehow filtered and permitted before-hand. On the contrary, much of what we do and discover is not permitted or accepted at first, as history will show.
In short, we are not in the Matrix.
This is natural. This is how animals learn and evolve. Every now and again we discover a choice or option that is not a part of the commonly held system, and it appears as a revelation. But, yeah, parents teach kids based on what they know, which came from their parents, and so on. Are you proposing that the answer to all epistemological questions is some corrupt agenda in the interest of a powerful elite?
Sure we do, it just does not become apparent until a person willfully expands his own mind. If the Bible is the only information I ever knew, chances are that I would be a Christian.
No, of course not. What I said was that we push at the boundaries until they eventually budge a little - like South Park. They are regulated, yet they have also been the first to do many things considered taboo in the past.
You said–
Conformity or removal by force is different, in my opinion, than the concept of adaptation out of necessity.
For example I have a cellphone because I want to adopt more modern answers to necessity, nobody forces me; it is adaptation. On the other hand, it just so happens that my job requires me to have a cellphone. I’ve owned it since I began this job, though. So there ya go, adaptation on one hand, forced conformity on another.
An example of a group that has not been changed by force, even though people actually sought to disband and eradicate it. They’ve changed, and adapted, due to advancements in knowledge and culture.
These are people of authority and power moderating other people of equal authority and power. As I said already, there are tons of disputes within the government. Parties and institutions are constantly looking to get the best of one another. I think your idea of a hegemony of power breaks down into a finer regression where you have smaller groups, within the larger system, fighting for power. The powers that be are not so harmonious in their endeavors.
And I with yours, but I’ll admit that your interpretation is no less true or false than mine. Your argument seems good to me, just a bit exaggerated.
I guess. Of course governments are authoritarian, in that they favor and command some obedience. However, you must consider that the people under these governments must think the institutions to be acting in good faith, benevolence, or in the best interest of the majority. The world would be in a constant state of rebellion otherwise. We don’t accept government rule because we must, countless wars have been fought against corrupt authority – we accept it because that is all we know. When we tear down some form of rule, we immediately erect one that is strikingly similar to take its place. We obviously believe that we need some form of leadership and direction to keep the majority moral. That is what we are discussing by the way, moral institutions (though they may not always act as such, in my own opinion).
And, no, all governments are not dictatorships by definition.
It does but generally not for the reasons the public thinks it does.
No but the powerful have similar goals and aims that through collusion work together in continual concert.
If you watch over my house I’ll watch over yours.
There are several interacting bodies that compose a government. They are closely interconnected, but they do not all share the same motive or agenda. There are disputes within the government all the time.
Even competitors will work together against mutual enemies and inconveniences.
Not really. There is only the need of efficiency. Efficiency and control needs no ethics.
Efficiency only needs a well orchestrated plan and defensive mechanism to function at all.
Indeed that is what I’m saying.
Right and if it is completely not permitted or accepted it becomes removed entirely. History will show that only that which can be used in a controlled enviroment is allowed while everything else is removed or isolated.
Of course we are. The universe is a matrix and we are all slaves to it. Few of us are ever able to break through.
A great deal of social ones are.