Posted on 06/15/2004 2:12:56 PM PDT by Fifthmark
Your argument isn't made more persuasive with the use of sarcasm. Burning at the stake was a common form of capital punishment employed by the State during the Middle Ages and, as seen in the posted article, torturing the accused "to death" was not the intent.
But removing a month-old blastocyst from woman's body is murder, by god, and we won't have it.
There's a wee bit difference between burning a culpable criminal at the stake and destroying an innocent child in the earliest stages of development. Of course, to an atheist, there is no point in arguing anything to be morally wrong, as morality is merely a social construct that lacks objectivity...right? If you "became an atheist" because you disliked the Inquisition, you probably need to do a little further examination.
An this is different from modern Islam in what important way? And exactly what political philosophy grants religion the authority to question anyone's beliefs, much less endeavor to convert people who do not come voluntarily?
I'm not sure I understand - are you placing politics above God or just confused about from whence true authority is derived? Also, the Inquisition dealt with public manifest heretics who were leading others into damnation with their errors; it did not try to indiscriminately coerce heretics who held their views in private, as the article mentioned:
Remember above all that the Inquisition did not concern itself with the private opinions of the heretics, but solely with the public propagation of the heresy. The Inquisition did not commit any offense against the individual conscience, but acted solely against the exterior activities of the heretics.
It's because of the irrationality of the doctrines of atheism that I was led to the truth of Catholicism, but don't feel like you have to be "shoehorned" into anything. You can have your moral vacuum - as long as you keep it in the corner, away from those who actually want to face reality.
And by what authority does any church question people who state their beliefs in public?
And to answer your first question: yes, I place politics above church authority in matters of coercion, force, intimidation, etc.
If a church wishes to set standards for membership and question members about their qualifications, that's not a problem. But if a person wishes not to be a member, or wishes to publicly question the beliefs of a church, the church has no business questioning anything except that person's membership.
The essential purpose of the State is to protect the welfare of its citizens. If you consider the salvation of each inhabitant through belief in the true religion revealed by God part of that "welfare," then the State has an obligation to support the true religion and repress public dissidence against it while allowing those who wish to privately hold their erroneous views to do so. This is the way that Christendom operated until the advent of Protestantism, which denied the authority of the sole possessor and guardian of the true religion, the Catholic Church, created a rift between the two arms of society and eventually found enshrinement in the Freemasonic notion of "separation of Church and State." This, as you so aptly demonstrate, has led to the subjugation of the Church to the State, essentially turning true authority upside down and placing man before God. We are paying for it in spades.
I find it sick and insulting that some people here want to 'explain', and 'excuse', or even make the 'case' for such crimes. Even the Pope had the honesty of making an apology.
What a joke. God is not a religion nor is he in the midst of religion.
"Religion is a virtue by which men give due reverence and worship to God." Do you not find Him worth this?
Fortunately the American Constitution explicitely prohibits this activity. You will understand why if Islam continues to grow.
I agree.
I'll ask you the same then:
"Religion is a virtue by which men give due reverence and worship to God." Do you not find Him worth this?
Well, Christendom was the greatest opposition that Islam ever knew. We'll see how godless Europe and the Neocon States of America fare against it.
Yes, but I don't believe it requires a religion.
It is my understanding that the people tried by the Inquisition were not just "questioning the Church's beliefs", but actively teaching something different from what the Church was teaching. This led to confusion, and the Church was concerned, as it is now, about regular Catholics being confused and living in a way that is contrary to the Faith, but not realizing it because of what they've been taught by their Pastor, local Church leaders, etc. Then, as now, the Church was concerned about the state of their souls.
This is the reason for the brouhaha about pro-abortion politicians receiving Communion. It is a Sacrament that is a public statement of one's 'communion' with the teachings of the Church. It causes scandal and confusion among Catholics if they see such high profile people being welcomed at the altar for Holy Communion. They may begin to think that being pro-abortion must be OK after all if these folks are not being rebuked by the Church. And, make no mistake, these folks were not rebuked in public before having been done so in private. All this started because some politicians decided to make public the private communication of their Bishops. After that, the Bishops had the duty to comment publicly as well.
That was fantastic. Thank you.
If you have a 'ping' list please add me to it. Thanks.
And why is this a problem? Under what pretext is a person required involuntarily to answer to a church?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.