Old School Power Discussion

inthesomeday

Immortan
Joined
Dec 12, 2015
Messages
2,798
Most people around here aren't really comfortable speaking beyond capitalism, so let's have a discussion about something that I've thought about recently that is more in tune with classical liberal thought; in fact, one of the most important and defining ideas thereof.

What exactly is the separation of church and state? Is it possible, especially in the type of environment in which the idea first developed, in which the church had near absolute power over every aspect of the average person's life? What is the use of this idea; if the church itself is completely abolished, and the state takes over its duties, what is the functional difference, and why does the classical liberal thought prefer the state's authority to the church's authority if they function the same way?

If the state is shown to derive its power from the implicit and explicit force of a ruling class, and the church is shown to derive such from the same, but both claim a demonstrably false mandate (God and popular sovereignty), what is the difference in the authority of each?
 
Is it possible, especially in the type of environment in which the idea first developed, in which the church had near absolute power over every aspect of the average person's life?

More specifics please. The idea of separation of church and state in the US came about mainly because the various religious sectarians were terrified of the prospect of a government dominated by a different sect than their own.
 
More specifics please. The idea of separation of church and state in the US came about mainly because the various religious sectarians were terrified of the prospect of a government dominated by a different sect than their own.

In ~17th - 18th Century Europe.
 
what is the functional difference, and why does the classical liberal thought prefer the state's authority to the church's authority if they function the same way?

Isn't it obvious?

1. Because they don't function the same way. The church answers to its dogma while the state answers to the people.

but more importantly

2. Because there is one state but thousands of churches
 
In a nutshell some history:

The biggest battle between Church and State was fought in the 11-12th century.
The Church at that moment still the one and only Holy Roman Catholic Motherchurch of Rome.
What happened later on in the 17-18th century, was an aftermatch, whereby the state was mostly interested in the earthly wealth and possessions of the Church, including the power to prevent this accumulation of wealth to the churches.
The last stage is around 1850 where ideological movements want to clean religious thinking from the earth, to liberate the mind of the masses.
Much of this (both 17-18th century as 1850 with Marx, Nietszche, etc) BTW based on the original thoughts as expressed by Machiavelli in the "Discorsi" (not the Prince)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy

"The Investiture Controversy or Investiture Contest was a conflict between church and state in medieval Europe.[1]
In the 11th and 12th centuries, a series of popes challenged the authority of European monarchies. At issue was whether a pope or a monarch had the authority to appoint (invest) local church officials such as bishops of cities and abbots of monasteries.
The investiture controversy began as a power struggle between Pope Gregory VII (1072–85) and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor (1056–1106).[2] A brief but significant struggle over investiture also occurred between Henry I of England and Pope Paschal II in the years 1103 to 1107, and the issue played a minor role in the struggles between church and state in France, as well.
By undercutting the imperial power established by the Salian emperors, the controversy led to nearly 50 years of civil war in Germany, and the triumph of the great dukes and abbots. Imperial power was finally re-established under the Hohenstaufen dynasty. Historian Norman Cantor:
The age of the investiture controversy may rightly be regarded as the turning-point in medieval civilization. It was the fulfillment of the early Middle Ages because in it the acceptance of the Christian religion by the Germanic peoples reached its final and decisive stage … The greater part of the religious and political system of the high Middle Ages emerged out of the events and ideas of the investiture controversy.[1]
The conflict ended in 1122, when Emperor Henry V and Pope Callixtus II agreed on the Concordat of Worms. It differentiated between the royal and spiritual powers and gave the emperors a limited role in selecting bishops. The outcome seemed mostly a victory for the Pope and his claim that he was God's chief representative in the world. However, the Emperor did retain considerable power over the Church"
 
Most people around here aren't really comfortable speaking beyond capitalism, so let's have a discussion about something that I've thought about recently that is more in tune with classical liberal thought; in fact, one of the most important and defining ideas thereof.

What exactly is the separation of church and state? Is it possible, especially in the type of environment in which the idea first developed, in which the church had near absolute power over every aspect of the average person's life? What is the use of this idea; if the church itself is completely abolished, and the state takes over its duties, what is the functional difference, and why does the classical liberal thought prefer the state's authority to the church's authority if they function the same way?

If the state is shown to derive its power from the implicit and explicit force of a ruling class, and the church is shown to derive such from the same, but both claim a demonstrably false mandate (God and popular sovereignty), what is the difference in the authority of each?
1. I think if the state is only beholden to the wishes of a ruling class then the power is illegitimate
2. I believe the state should not have certain powers, for instance, the state should not have the power to dictate your opinions or prevent you from expressing them.
 
Why should any religion have the say over what I believe, say, or do? I don't believe in what they believe in, and I've noticed over the past 50 years (when I was old enough to notice things) that so many times, what they preach is not what their adherents practice.

At least Canadians grow up knowing that most politicians are hypocrites who represent the government or party to us, rather than the constituents to the government/party (as it's really supposed to be). We don't worship our politicians or our flag, and kids are no longer indoctrinated as much as they were before, with mandatory school prayers (unless attending a faith-based school). Or at least I hope the latter is true. Prayers have no place in public schools, unless they're part of a course of study and the material is presented in an entirely neutral, unbiased way.

1. I think if the state is only beholden to the wishes of a ruling class then the power is illegitimate
2. I believe the state should not have certain powers, for instance, the state should not have the power to dictate your opinions or prevent you from expressing them.
Some people have labeled Canada's hate speech laws as "thought control."

It isn't. People are free to think whatever thoughts they want, no matter how disgusting they might be. The problem happens if someone decides to incite hatred and/or violence in public, either in person or in writing. And of course there's the issue of teachers indoctrinating students to hate certain groups. My own view is there's not a lot of difference between Jim Keegstra indoctrinating his social studies students to hate Jews and teachers in Catholic schools indoctrinating their students to hate LBGT people. In both examples, the teacher(s) in question use(d) lies and misinformation to influence their students' thoughts and beliefs. Keegstra was charged under the hate laws, tried, convicted, fined, and his teaching license was revoked.

I'm wondering when the teachers preaching hate in the partially taxpayer-funded Catholic schools will have their licenses revoked for violating the hate laws and violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in their hiring practices.
 
there are people on both sides who push for ever-growing, controlling governments (Valka up there is a good example), so that's not going to happen.
Whut???

Where did you get that idea?
 
Well.. the fact that you're in favor of hate-speech laws that prevent people from stating their opinions. :dunno:
 
Well.. the fact that you're in favor of hate-speech laws that prevent people from stating their opinions. :dunno:
People can state their opinions all they want in private. I had a conversation with the housekeeping helper a couple of days ago that made for a few uncomfortable minutes (about Muslims; she took the "All terrorists are Muslim" stance and I corrected her on that).

Am I going to report her for hate speech? No, of course not. Her opinions are her opinions, and she's allowed to think whatever she wants. Since her audience consisted of my cat and me in my home, it's not that big a deal. I'm capable of standing up for my own views and my cat doesn't care. If she stated that in a public speech, inciting violence against Muslims, that would be a totally different thing.
 
The short answer being that religious leaders cannot be trusted. They have an agenda which is different from, and often contrary to, the agendas of the population or the government. And if it only ended there, that would be OK. But once you start giving religious leaders secular power, the religious leaders become ever more divorced from acting in accordance to what would be a mainstream view of their religious faith. Religious are run by men, and men are fallible. But worse than that, religious positions that have power tend to attract the very worst of people to gain that power.

Now when you unify the power of religion with the power of the state, and the leaders of religion are every more power mad, corrupt, or hold extremist views, then the results for everyone else are a horror show. The religious leaders insist that they are Right, because God has told them they are Right, and anyone who disagrees is an enemy of God! This never ends well.

So you have 2 basic conflicts with that. One is the secular ruler, who doesn't like his power being challenged, and wants to do what he wants, exclusively of the church leading a revolt against him. And second you have people like the Enlightenment leaders who understand that the churches are institutions of men, and not the direct representatives of god himself. And because the churches are fallible, should not be allowed to have that power. Once there are competing churches after the Reformation, and then you have war after war after war where people who claim to be representing God, and God's only legitimate Church, and make war to crush any who do not follow God in exactly the way that they say to follow God, while all along most of them are just pursuing their own personal power and wealth objectives, then if you think about it you know that it never has been about god in the first place. So how do you justify allowing them secular power?
 
"useless, useless"
 
Most people around here aren't really comfortable speaking beyond capitalism, so let's have a discussion about something that I've thought about recently that is more in tune with classical liberal thought; in fact, one of the most important and defining ideas thereof.

What exactly is the separation of church and state? Is it possible, especially in the type of environment in which the idea first developed, in which the church had near absolute power over every aspect of the average person's life? What is the use of this idea; if the church itself is completely abolished, and the state takes over its duties, what is the functional difference, and why does the classical liberal thought prefer the state's authority to the church's authority if they function the same way?

If the state is shown to derive its power from the implicit and explicit force of a ruling class, and the church is shown to derive such from the same, but both claim a demonstrably false mandate (God and popular sovereignty), what is the difference in the authority of each?

In truth, the "separation" of church & state was simply a shift from christianity to other ideologies. Christianity was simply not able to organize a modern state & new ideas were necessary. Our current "religion" is the constitution, which is not anymore derived from the bible. There is a certain problem, because our modern constitutions do lack a certain "vision" that goes beyond a well working state & appeals at a greater goal.

That is also the fundamental problem with islamists. Since their laws are still heavily derived from their holy scripture & they do not accept a secular constitution, they will obviously reject modern constitutions. At the same time, they are not able to organize a modern state, since their holy scripture simply doesn't answer such questions.

Concerning "speaking beyond free market", I am open to good suggestions. I agree that free market societies have severe shortcomings. But you have to always keep in mind, that overthrowing a system without a clear understanding what you want instead might result in a much *worse* system. Imperial China & the Czars were surely corrupt & violent, but Mao was surely much worse.
 
Are not ideologies and religion pretty much the same thing?

Even today we have stuff such as war so in many ways, society have not changed much.
 
Most people around here aren't really comfortable speaking beyond capitalism, so let's have a discussion about something that I've thought about recently that is more in tune with classical liberal thought; in fact, one of the most important and defining ideas thereof.

What exactly is the separation of church and state? Is it possible, especially in the type of environment in which the idea first developed, in which the church had near absolute power over every aspect of the average person's life? What is the use of this idea; if the church itself is completely abolished, and the state takes over its duties, what is the functional difference, and why does the classical liberal thought prefer the state's authority to the church's authority if they function the same way?

If the state is shown to derive its power from the implicit and explicit force of a ruling class, and the church is shown to derive such from the same, but both claim a demonstrably false mandate (God and popular sovereignty), what is the difference in the authority of each?
Different ruling classes produce different outcomes?
 
More specifics please. The idea of separation of church and state in the US came about mainly because the various religious sectarians were terrified of the prospect of a government dominated by a different sect than their own.
That's unfair. Most religiously active Americans at the time of the Revolutionary War belonged to denominations which had an established antipathy towards established religion- Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists, and so on. Scotland and the United Provinces, two very important (if in the latter case more indirect) influences on American religious life, were dominated by Calvinist churches, but no movement was ever made to establish those churches, before or after the Revolution.

The trick is that they were concerned about government intervention in religion, rather than religious intervention in government. That was understandable, given: England, but turned out to be unfortunate in the long run, given: America.
 
Top Bottom