I can't actually think of a single Christian extremist government in the world.... :?
What about the Vatican? :D
The Vatican is a country ruled by Catholics but not extremists.
Well, to me a head of state ruling by the grace of God sounds pretty extreme to me. :wink:
Because you confuse terms: André wrote about Christian extremistgovernment and so he meant extremists within the whole population of Christians. Obviously, the Vatican city is not ruled by extremists but just regular Catholics.
Ok, I understand that many people are oblivious of the fact that the government of the Holy See wields only ecclesiastical authority. Its temporal power is symbolic at best and it is only through a quirk of history that the Vatican was able to remain its status as a political entity.
The Pope can at best, be compared to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Patriarches of the various eastern orthodox churches or the Dalai Lama. We don't compare him to dictators or kings or presidents.
It is sad that Roman Catholicism is often misunderstood and misinterpreted. But then again, isn't it in the Netherlands where a Roman Catholic isn't allowed to ascend the throne? _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
But then again, isn't it in the Netherlands where a Roman Catholic isn't allowed to ascend the throne?
A Roman Catholic is not allowed to ascend to the throne in the UK due to an archaic law which arguably did have some reasonable purpose when it was created in the 17th century. I'm not sure about the Netherlands, but it would be interesting if it were the same there.
But then again, isn't it in the Netherlands where a Roman Catholic isn't allowed to ascend the throne?
A Roman Catholic is not allowed to ascend to the throne in the UK due to an archaic law which arguably did have some reasonable purpose when it was created in the 17th century. I'm not sure about the Netherlands, but it would be interesting if it were the same there.
It's the same. I believe they partly changed the law when the crown prince wanted to marry the catholic maxima
André & KSa : I was speaking about christian extremists not about christians in general. You probably felt as hurt or perplexed as some muslims were at the sight (or the knowing) of caricatures about Mahomet because you failed to see I was talking about christian radicals only (just like the caricatures targeted muslim extremism only).
We don't perceive things the same way, that's for sure. For instance Queen Elizabeth is a Head of State and the head of a church — which I find revolting due to my personal opinions — but I don't think she's a christian extremist : her double title just an exotic oddity. However, Bush is supposed to be a Head of State only — what is more, a State that's supposed to be secular —, but he nonetheless displays his christianism or his personal religious beliefs (like the existence of a divinity claimed to endorse wars triggered by a very temporal organisation : the US government) on TV while on duty. To me, that's a sign of christian extremism.
Actually no, Greg, I didn't feel hurt, or perplexed, or for that matter angry at what you wrote. (And incidently, I also didn't storm out, killing non-Christians in order to punish you for expressing your views, since I consider it your right to express your views.) I simply disagree with you (as I agree with you on many other things).
I don't regard Bush as a Christian extremist. A Christian conservative, yes. I disagree with many (most) of his political views. I also disagree with him on several of his religious views (gays, for example :wink: ) But why should he remain silent on his religious views just because he's the president? It's still for the voters to decide whether they agree with him or not. I wouldn't vote for the woman Elaine mentioned on another thread in the religion forum, because I disagree with her views. I hope she loses her election. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to express her views. I strongly disagree with our African Christian Democratic Party, but I don't want them banned, even though they're actually more extremist than Bush.
I appreciate that you didn't refer to all Christians. But as far as I'm concerned, there are no Christian extremists who have achieved what you've described (in modern times). I reiterate that I can't think of a single Christian extremist government in the world. Christian extremists remain fringe groups everywhere, in South Africa, in the US, in Britain, and in France. And they will always remain fringe groups, because they are rejected by the majority of Christians. The fanatics you see at demonstrations, marches, protests, don't have the support of the majority of Christians. _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
André, let me say that I'm really fed up with those anti-christians constantly reminding me about atrocities of my religion in the XIII or XIV century... We will never forget it but yet how long are we supposed to be blamed for the sins of our predecessors?
I’m far from competing in the "who was worse" contest but let me remind assassinated priests, raped nuns, looted catholic churches during the French Revolution, millions of casualties in the communist countries, where the political system by definition rejected religion, or other atrocities committed in the name of atheism…
Agree. We shouldn't forget the past, but it's no use pointing fingers about the past, nobody is blameless. _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
Perhaps Bush and the US still live in the Middle Ages, where all disputes were discussed within a theological framework. A secular approach was not imagineable, no matter how evil your agenda was! :wink:
BTW I believe in the the priesthood of all believers. Therefore I was mildly shocked when Muslims wanted me, a Protestant, to apologize for what that crazy Vatican guy had said!
BTW I believe in the the priesthood of all believers. Therefore I was mildly shocked when Muslims wanted me, a Protestant, to apologize for what that crazy Vatican guy had said!
I find it very interesting that they suggested that. Do you think it might be partly that they (some Muslims) don't have the same individualist mentality that Westerners tend to have?
Location: San Francisco, Noord-Kalifornië, Noord-Amerika
Posted: Tue Sep 19, 2006 4:33 am Post subject:
greg in noord-frankrijk wrote:
However, Bush is supposed to be a Head of State only — what is more, a State that's supposed to be secular —, but he nonetheless displays his christianism or his personal religious beliefs (like the existence of a divinity claimed to endorse wars triggered by a very temporal organisation : the US government) on TV while on duty. To me, that's a sign of christian extremism.
Agreed. I think of Bush as a Christian extremist because of the times he's stated or implied that god is on the side of America. How about his statements in reaction to the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit? He said that the offending words ("under God") in the Pledge (which is scary enough on its own) are a "confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence" and "We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God" and "Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." That really scares me.
So far, at least, Bush's views are not official state policy. But there are too many people in this country who share his views for me to NOT worry about it.
However, Bush is supposed to be a Head of State only — what is more, a State that's supposed to be secular —, but he nonetheless displays his christianism or his personal religious beliefs (like the existence of a divinity claimed to endorse wars triggered by a very temporal organisation : the US government) on TV while on duty. To me, that's a sign of christian extremism.
Agreed. I think of Bush as a Christian extremist because of the times he's stated or implied that god is on the side of America. How about his statements in reaction to the Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit? He said that the offending words ("under God") in the Pledge (which is scary enough on its own) are a "confirmation of the fact that we received our rights from God, as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence" and "We need commonsense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God" and "Those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench." That really scares me.
So far, at least, Bush's views are not official state policy. But there are too many people in this country who share his views for me to NOT worry about it.
Deborah : your being scared makes me feel assuaged . All the more so as I'm sure you're not the only one to feel that way in the US.
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
Actually no, Greg, I didn't feel hurt, or perplexed, or for that matter angry at what you wrote. (And incidently, I also didn't storm out, killing non-Christians in order to punish you for expressing your views, since I consider it your right to express your views.) I simply disagree with you (as I agree with you on many other things).
MdR = LOL !!!
Of course we disagree : you're a christian and I'm faithless.
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I don't regard Bush as a Christian extremist.
I do. A christian extremist, a Republican extremist, a warmongering extremist, an ignorant extremist etc.
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
A Christian conservative, yes.
I'd say : « A soup-seller interested in christian-conservative votes, yes. »
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I wouldn't vote for the woman Elaine mentioned on another thread in the religion forum, because I disagree with her views. I hope she loses her election. But that doesn't mean she doesn't have the right to express her views.
I agree. However, claiming that a politico is a christian extremist doesn't mean he's got no right to his job. And Bush has had opportunities aplenty to spit his nonsense. It's worked for 48 months at least.
André in Zuid-Afrika wrote:
I reiterate that I can't think of a single Christian extremist government in the world. Christian extremists remain fringe groups everywhere, in South Africa, in the US, in Britain, and in France. And they will always remain fringe groups, because they are rejected by the majority of Christians. The fanatics you see at demonstrations, marches, protests, don't have the support of the majority of Christians.
As a (nominally) christian-backgrounded guy, I quite understand (and agree with) what you said. But the danger doesn't come from Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet (the christians who want their mass in Latin, perform exorcisms etc). The danger comes from trash-TV-like christianism, which is the opposite of fringe groups and which Bush epitomises perfectly.
Greg, are most Frenchmen cultural Catholics? I have the impression that they are.
You must realise that as far as Christian extremism is concerned, the usual culprits are churches which hail from the Southern Baptist creed. I have nothing against Baptists in general and indeed, I have many Baptist friends in my circle. There is no unified Baptist church unlike the Roman Catholic prelacy but in general, they are more conservative, more rigid and less tolerant of other faiths.
I must say, I look at non-Catholic Christians as I'd view Muslims or Jews or Taoists. No, I would not use the language of hardline Muslims by calling them apostate infidels. But I really have nothing in common with them.
I am given to understand that President Bush comes from a Methodist family. I hope I do not cause grave offence to any Methodists here, but I simply cannot understand the Puritanical excesses of the Wesleyan branch of Christianity. Why are the simple pleasures of life such as alcohol and gambling frowned upon?
Greg, you must understand that extremism does not exist among Roman Catholics today. In fact, I have been told that Roman Catholics in France are one of the most euceminical (sic?) in the world.
As long as they do not deviate from standard church teaching, what's wrong with that? Societies such as the St Vincent de Paul or the Legion of Mary are sterling examples of moderate Catholic movements with humanitarian aims. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Perhaps Bush and the US still live in the Middle Ages, where all disputes were discussed within a theological framework. A secular approach was not imagineable, no matter how evil your agenda was! :wink:
BTW I believe in the the priesthood of all believers. Therefore I was mildly shocked when Muslims wanted me, a Protestant, to apologize for what that crazy Vatican guy had said!
Fredrik,
First, I must admit I’m NOT surprised with the contempt to the Pope you showed by the words: “crazy Vatican guy”. I’m accustomed to much stronger epithets coming out of Protestants mouth. I can only tell you that the Pope John Paul II respected all the protestants in the world what he proved many times. He would never say or even think something like this in his entire life. I’m sure that the Pope Benedict thinks quite similar.
Second, what did the Pope Benedict say? Did you read or listen to the lecture he gave in Ratisbone? I’m afraid you didn’t. One phrase of this comprehensive, in-depth theological analysis has been taken out of context. This has caused improportional reactions in certain Islamic circles resulted in casualties, churches on fire, caricature of Benedict with the swastika etc. Even if there was something in it that offended Muslims it wasn’t deliberate.
Not wanting to add fuel to fire here, but Ksa knocked the nail in the head when he said that Protestant Christians generally have a lack of respect for the Holy Father. Even the much beloved John Paul II was not spared the brickbats - I still remember a Presbyterian here saying something like: Hallelujah! The Pope is dead.
If we were in Northern Ireland, he might just be shot dead.
I suppose there are also Protestants around who'd also criticise Mother Teresa for the fact that she was a Catholic.
So I think a religious dialogue between the great faiths of the world, while essential, is still not as important as developing an understanding between all the Christian churches.
I used to entertain a fantasy notion where all Christian denominations are once again united under the aegis of the Church of Rome. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but it never hurts to dream. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Location: El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Angeles del Río de Porciúncula
Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 7:33 pm Post subject:
loic wrote:
I used to entertain a fantasy notion where all Christian denominations are once again united under the aegis of the Church of Rome. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but it never hurts to dream.
No offense, but I'm actually puzzled why you would entertain such a notion, considering that institution's shady history.
Greg, are most Frenchmen cultural Catholics? I have the impression that they are.
Me too. To the extent many of them are baptised ou would have their children baptised soon after birth, would marry at the church (if they marry at all), would like to be buried with a cross on their tombs etc. But I believe most of them do not haunt churches.
You know, there's a church in every village of France and there are 36.000 municipalities in the country...
loic wrote:
You must realise that as far as Christian extremism is concerned, the usual culprits are churches which hail from the Southern Baptist creed. I have nothing against Baptists in general and indeed, I have many Baptist friends in my circle. There is no unified Baptist church unlike the Roman Catholic prelacy but in general, they are more conservative, more rigid and less tolerant of other faiths.
I'm not too familiar with US christian cults of protestant obedience but I know they're really different from (French) catholicism.
loic wrote:
I am given to understand that President Bush comes from a Methodist family. I hope I do not cause grave offence to any Methodists here, but I simply cannot understand the Puritanical excesses of the Wesleyan branch of Christianity. Why are the simple pleasures of life such as alcohol and gambling frowned upon?
I don't know what's the difference between methodists and baptists (etc) but I can tell you Bush is instrumentalising religion — or religiosity to be more accurate.
loic wrote:
Greg, you must understand that extremism does not exist among Roman Catholics today. In fact, I have been told that Roman Catholics in France are one of the most euceminical (sic?) in the world.
Extremism does exist among French catholics. It's just reduced to almost nothing and encompasses issues linked to traditionalism (it's prehistoric).
Elaine: Shady? Do not confuse the institution with the person. Yes, there were bad popes. There were mad popes. They enriched themselves at the expense of the church and their self-serving actions continue to haunt us today.
However, do not forget that it was the church which kept alive the spirit of learning during the Dark Ages in Europe when only the clergy were usually the only chaps around with knowledge of reading and writing.
I can even think of a redeeming point for the corrupted excesses of the church. Do you think Gothic architecture could have been born without the patronage of the Roman Catholic church? What about the numerous paintings by the Italian masters that were commissioned by the church? The world would undoubtedly be culturally poorer without them.
Greg: I am not too sure of the difference between Methodists and Baptists as well. What I do know is that Baptists are not baptised at birth and that they only do so once they reach an appropriate age of reason - 16 for them. As I said, there is no unified Baptist creed other than a few commonalities which bind them together.
Nonetheless, I take a very dim view of churches which force the congregation to tithe. I think tithing is a personal issue and should not be compulsory.
To be frank, I found it annoying initially when the President peppered his speeches with religious language. But he is a politician and I suppose he is speaking the language of his audiences - or rather, his core supporters. I think it is a little sad that the GOP's core base is now made up of conservative Protestant Christians and not the traditional sort of Tory who believes in small government and big business. Bush's brand of conservatism alienates me at times and to tell you the truth, I am glad his policy is not practised in my country.
Just as the Democrats are sometimes highjacked by left-wing extremists (the type who advocate the abolition of the nuclear family, unfettered access to abortion even in the third trimester, etc), the GOP is more or less hostage to the religious wing of their party. Bush does not act as independently as you'd like to think - when they ask him to jump, he can only ask, 'how high?' _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Even though I may call the Pope that "crazy Vatican guy"; I usually don't view him with much contempt. As many Norwegian Protestants I have a certain unfulfilled longing for a religious leader, a representative of the unity of Christendom. Therefore I like to watch the Pope celebrating Midnight Mass in St. Peter's on Christmas Eve. But we, of course, are not used to view him as a holy figure, just as some kind of global bishop, primus inter pares, who, in our eyes, of course is not infallible. And that fact makes it easier to accept that he has crazy views on HIV prevention etc.
BTW the Norwegian word for pope, "pave", is also used for disobedient little children, perhaps a legacy of the Reformation!
I too heard that the Pope was misunderstood in Regensburg. He was quoting a Byzantine emperor in the 13th century, and if there was a person who should be anti-Muslim, it had to be the beleaguered Byzantine Emperor, with the expanding Muslims in front of his gates!
And the latest ecclesiastical news from Norway:
In Øygarden, a small island municipality in the extreme west of Norway, the parish council has agreed upon a ban on any gay-friendly priests that might preach in their parish! And if the present conservative bishop of Bjørgvin diocese is replaced with a gay-friendly one when he steps down in two years, this parish wants an alternative, conservative bishop! :lol:
My reaction, apart from amusement, was a rekindled belief in the abolition of ordained priesthood (as it exists in the Church of Norway today) and the introduction of the priesthood of all believers.
Speaking of which, here are my ideas for the ideal church:
- No ordained, wordly priesthood
- Separation of church and state, no royal summus episcopus
- Monasticism as an established institution. Possibly monks (and nuns) as clergy, as in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity.
- A very liberal celebration of the Eucharist, both in the church and at home
- Veneration of the Virgin Mary and other saints
- Lots of holy shrines and joyfull pilgrimages in every region.
- A broad church with a strong Grundtvigian emphasis
(And if the Catholics want to join in:
- No Papal infallibility, only symbolic preeminence for him and other patriarchs)
I must say, I look at non-Catholic Christians as I'd view Muslims or Jews or Taoists. No, I would not use the language of hardline Muslims by calling them apostate infidels. But I really have nothing in common with them.
I have to say that I found this statement rather surprising, loic. As a Roman Catholic, do you honestly not feel as though you have anything in common with at least High Anglicans and High Lutherans? It's just that I've attended masses in High Anglican (Anglo-Catholic) and Roman Catholic churches and they really are very similar. The Lutheran cathedral I visited in Germany was q similar sort of thing as well.
Fredrik,
Quote:
Speaking of which, here are my ideas for the ideal church:
- No ordained, wordly priesthood
- Separation of church and state, no royal summus episcopus
- Monasticism as an established institution. Possibly monks (and nuns) as clergy, as in Catholic and Orthodox Christianity.
- A very liberal celebration of the Eucharist, both in the church and at home
- Veneration of the Virgin Mary and other saints
- Lots of holy shrines and joyfull pilgrimages in every region.
- A broad church with a strong Grundtvigian emphasis
(And if the Catholics want to join in:
- No Papal infallibility, only symbolic preeminence for him and other patriarchs)
Hmmm... I can think of a lot of churches which fit all but on or two of those!
By the way, if anyone is genuinely interested in the differences between Methodists and Baptists, I can give a summary.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
. All the more so as I'm sure you're not the only one to feel that way in the US.