Russia to introduce Orthodox religious education in schools for the first time since the Tsars

Good for Russia. Good for us.

It's time to level the playing field between the moral relativists and people of faith. They're succeeding in extirpating religion from our culture under the separation banner. You see, supposedly moral relativism is not a religion. Therefore, moral relativists are free to proselytize their ideology from kindergarten to post-graduate school in the public schools. Because we could afford a choice, we preferred to send our kid to a high school of another faith rather than to a secular private or public school. And he is better for the experience.

". . . to insinuate that the Eastern Orthodox Byzantines were not involved in taking back what was conquered by the Muslims is to ignore an incredible amount of history."

To state that the Byzantine conquests were motivated more by religion than politics is absurd. That is like saying that the Romans conquered Gaul to spread their religion. Or that the Byzantines attacked the pre-Islamic Persians -- or attempted the reconquest of the Western Empire in Justinian's times -- primarily to spread Christianity. Yes, there were religious aspects to those wars, but they were not crusades. Those were secular wars fought for secular reasons.

Those were secular wars fought for secular reasons

Your reference to the Crusades as secular wars is way off the mark. In fact, the Crusades embodied the religious theory of the "just" war in defense of the Christian faith and the idea that reclaiming lost lands for Christendom was just and moral which it was. That is what they were about except for the disaster of the 4th Crusade, a catastrophe whose repercussions are felt today. In a larger historical context the Crusades were an attempt to defeat/hold back/ the terrible enemy Islam - an enemy which had already devastated formerly Christian lands and could not be held in check by Byzantium alone.

In any case, all Christians have the duty and obligation to spread the faith to non Christians either actively through martyrdom and evangelism or passively through good works and charity.

"Your reference to the Crusades as secular wars is way off the mark."

I did *not* refer to the Crusades as secular wars. I stated that in the Roman conquest of Gaul, or Byzantine efforts to reconquer parts of their empire taken by others while (listen carefully now) "there were religious aspects to those wars, but they were not crusades." (And notice, crusade is lower case, to indicate a class, rather than upper case (Crusade) to indicate a proper noun, which would be appropriate for the Western Crusades.) I stated that "Those were secular wars fought for secular reasons." (Referring to the Roman and Byzantine wars, just in case you are unclear on the concept.)

May I suggest that you read things more carefully before reacting. Arguement are more cohesive if you argue the facts presented rather than inaccurate interpretations.

To state that the Byzantine conquests were motivated more by religion than politics is absurd. That is like saying that the Romans conquered Gaul to spread their religion. Or that the Byzantines attacked the pre-Islamic Persians -- or attempted the reconquest of the Western Empire in Justinian's times -- primarily to spread Christianity.

Hmm, you appear to be confused.

1. Romans indeed did not conquer Gaul for religious reasons - both Latins and Gauls were Indoeuropean pagans whose religions were not so different and pagan Romans were quite syncretic (ecumenical).

2. Wars with Persia had little religious motive - Christian Rome and Zoroastrian Persia were primarily competing empires. The spread of Christianity at that time was based on slow gradual missions.

3. Western Europe at the time of Emperor Justinian was ALREADY Christian. The objective of the war was first to reestablish the authority of the Empire over its historical craddle in Italy. The religious component was the following - the Germanic barbarians like Goths, Visigoths, Vandals and others were followers of the Arian heresy - while ruling over the Orthodox/Catholic population. Orthodox/Catholic population was looking for help and leadership toward the Emperor in the Constantinople or toward key local bishops or toward the Pope in Rome. (Only later Popes established the aliance with Catholic Franks and helped their king to become Western Emperor and defender of the Faith after the Langobards/Lombards reduced the Byzantine rule in Italy and Muslim threat became urgent in the West as well).

I mean the positive ones which add to the set, not the ones which are negative ie remove/negate something.

Well, I think when you reintroduce a foreign notion -- like Calvin's reintroduction of inexorable pagan fate or other bits of pseudo-science and "New Age" nonsense revolutionaries are MOST CAREFUL to ostensibly source from "within the set" with a Big Lie -- you are adding something that's just in total contradiction to truth rather than negating or removing from the deposit of the 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.