hmmmm. I don't remember hearing our founder fathers were a bunch of staunch Catholics. Staunch Christians yes. But was there even a Catholic among them? And when was the last time a Catholic layman voted for a Bishop or Priest, nevermind the Pope. I'm not arguing the merits of Catholicism mind you, just questioning your interpretation of what inspired democracy.
The founders were NOT Catholic. But all Christian faiths trace their beginnings to Catholicism, although some may deny that.
And when was the last time a Catholic layman voted for a Bishop or Priest, nevermind the Pope.
The Church is not a democracy, nor was it intended to be. My point was that the Church in the West succeeded in ousting the state from ecclesial concerns, preventing the state from becoming all in all. A boundary was erected in the culture which permitted Western culture to develop a sense of the worth of individuals that obtained the force of morality. Individuals as free moral agents require liberty in which they may exercise that agency. Without the Church, the state assumes the role of moral arbiter, the collective subjects individuals to the temporary needs of the state, which vary with the tides of politics.
I'm not arguing the merits of Catholicism mind you, just questioning your interpretation of what inspired democracy.
I know. Weigel's book gave me an insight, I think, into Eastern religious culture which developed with the emperor meddling with the appointment of bishops until the fall of Byzantium. Islamic culture never banished the state from religious matters and as a result Islamic culture does not easily assent to the worth of participatory democracy: the moral importance of individuals in the state is far less than in the West. In Islam, the state is more important than the individuals who comprise the citizenry.
These discussions are a way to test my understanding.
Regards.