Is there a case for making Christianity illegal?

[dbohm]

Before the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, Christianity was in a precarious position. As it was not formally recognised as a religion, it was technically illegal to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Sometimes Christians were tolerated and left alone, sometimes used as scapegoats, and other times actively persecuted. Judaism had a bumpy history too, however since it was considered an ethnic religion it was given legal status from the beginning.

Besides rumours about child sacrifice and orgies, it's chief danger lay in the fact that it recognised a more powerful Lord than Caesar. Many Romans believed their obstinacy in this matter especially deserved punishment and could have proven troublesome to the greater peace of Rome. As Pliny wrote himself in his letter to the Emperor Trajan, "Neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque asset, quod faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexible obstinationem debere puniri." 'For I was in no doubt that regardless of what they believed their inflexible obstinacy and pigheadedness definitely should be punished'. If it wasn't for that he regarded it simply as a base and excessive superstition - 'superstitio prava immodica'.

Even today we see Christianity in conflict with secular governments. In China for instance one of the reasons that makes an underground church illegal is teaching the Second Coming as it implies an authority more powerful than the Chinese Government. In most countries in the West, churches are exempt from equal opportunity legislation and also cannot be forced to administer Gay marriages. Also and this has become a particular problem in cases of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, priests are not obliged by law to relate crimes told in Confessional. Some recent psychologists and atheists have also argued that the concept of Hell amounts to child abuse.

Should Christianity be illegal again? Or at any rate should the State be given the power to decide what legally can or cannot be practised or believed in orthodox Christianity?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 16 by JoeyKnothead]

Many governments have tried to ban Christianity, it does not work. In fact the governments who have tried are eradicated.

Not all of 'em.

I think a better way to put this is 'governments who have attempted to ban theism and the practice of religious beliefs tend to be really nasty in a whole bunch of ways, and have, so far, been destroyed or modified...but not before killing a bunch of people first."

It's not ALL about Christianity.

It's not even all about theism, either. Any gov't that has tried to ban certain forms of peaceful religious belief (or lack thereof) would qualify.

And throughout history there's been no shortage of victims of theistic religious intolerance.

tu quoque, Joey?

You are quite right. Throughout history there has been no shortage of victims of theistic intolerance. However, throughout history there have ALSO been religions and religious beliefs...as well as theistically inclined governments...which have been tolerant and accepting of different ideas.

There has never been a government that has attempted to legally eliminate religion that was NOT nasty. It seems to have a rather strong negative correlation, actually; the more religions outlawed, the nastier the government is in a whole lot of other ways, as well.

[squint]

Before the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, Christianity was in a precarious position. As it was not formally recognised as a religion, it was technically illegal to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Sometimes Christians were tolerated and left alone, sometimes used as scapegoats, and other times actively persecuted. Judaism had a bumpy history too, however since it was considered an ethnic religion it was given legal status from the beginning.

Besides rumours about child sacrifice and orgies, it's chief danger lay in the fact that it recognised a more powerful Lord than Caesar. Many Romans believed their obstinacy in this matter especially deserved punishment and could have proven troublesome to the greater peace of Rome. As Pliny wrote himself in his letter to the Emperor Trajan, "Neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque asset, quod faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexible obstinationem debere puniri." 'For I was in no doubt that regardless of what they believed their inflexible obstinacy and pigheadedness definitely should be punished'. If it wasn't for that he regarded it simply as a base and excessive superstition - 'superstitio prava immodica'.

Even today we see Christianity in conflict with secular governments. In China for instance one of the reasons that makes an underground church illegal is teaching the Second Coming as it implies an authority more powerful than the Chinese Government. In most countries in the West, churches are exempt from equal opportunity legislation and also cannot be forced to administer Gay marriages. Also and this has become a particular problem in cases of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, priests are not obliged by law to relate crimes told in Confessional. Some recent psychologists and atheists have also argued that the concept of Hell amounts to child abuse.

Should Christianity be illegal again? Or at any rate should the State be given the power to decide what legally can or cannot be practised or believed in orthodox Christianity?

The bulk of christianity is a promotion of various schemes of hate crimes of others for profit coupled with self justification by the sects. It's an infectious brew on these counts.

On the basis of following a higher authority and eliminating christianity, no dice. But on the basis of hate crime, perhaps.

Technically, on an internally, biblically defined basis what christianity practices has no justifications in the text. Christians are to love their neighbors as themselves. This question then turns to "how did they arrive at a position in extreme contrariness to the scriptures?" And what the scriptures define is that mankind is inherently bound internally by evil and that there is no "escape" from this situation in this present life.

External legislation is not capable of writing and enforcing laws that eradicate internal thoughts, as much as the monstrosities of humanity at the tops of all these social piles would prefer to do if they could figure out a way to do it. Such approaches only translate to "kill everyone who disagrees with whoever writes and enforces the laws." And of course some countries wicked leaders go this route, making their leaders godlike and snuffing out all adversity. Some countries do it more covertly. But all countries practice this one way or another by their own hierarchical corruption, whether it be church or state. The end result is always the same because it's an internal human problem that can not be swayed.

There is a case that can be made from the scriptures that the end game solutions to these issues resides in the opposite direction. That christians should look to the inflammation of the dark side of humanity until it is so obvious that the entire earth wails. Till all are enslaved and enclosed by their own darkness. This is the typology of Gods previous engagements with various resistance movements i.e. the darkness that enveloped Egypt. Where the oppression from Pharaoh was so overwhelming that the captive Israelites were expunged from Egypt.

Paul isolates the intentions of God here, in Romans:

Romans 3:19
Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

I would only speculate that it would have to be God to bring that about. Law only serves to exacerbate social issues. Make a law, it gets violated. Make more laws, get more violations, make supreme laws and you get supreme evil lawlessness at the top. These are principle of the scriptures and it's a principle of reality as well.

To most christians this is already heavily obvious, that all mankind are essentially internally lawless. We just tend to excuse ourselves and justify ourselves out of this fact.

When (or IF) you ever see "churches" move in the other direction, that may be a sign. When Jesus addressed the 7 churches of Revelation the will, works and ways of Satan was addressed to all of them. We just tend not to listen to well to those sides of the equation by the dominion of our own internal evil nature and internal control system.

We really don't care to look at ourselves in that direction.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 16 by JoeyKnothead]

Many governments have tried to ban Christianity, it does not work. In fact the governments who have tried are eradicated.

Not all of 'em.

I think a better way to put this is 'governments who have attempted to ban theism and the practice of religious beliefs tend to be really nasty in a whole bunch of ways, and have, so far, been destroyed or modified...but not before killing a bunch of people first."

It's not ALL about Christianity.

It's not even all about theism, either. Any gov't that has tried to ban certain forms of peaceful religious belief (or lack thereof) would qualify.

And throughout history there's been no shortage of victims of theistic religious intolerance.

tu quoque, Joey?

I ain't Joey.

You are quite right. Throughout history there has been no shortage of victims of theistic intolerance. However, throughout history there have ALSO been religions and religious beliefs...as well as theistically inclined governments...which have been tolerant and accepting of different ideas.

There has never been a government that has attempted to legally eliminate religion that was NOT nasty. It seems to have a rather strong negative correlation, actually; the more religions outlawed, the nastier the government is in a whole lot of other ways, as well.

This is like comparing apples and machine guns.

How about we compare the "religiously inclined" gov'ts with "athiestically inclined" gov'ts, rather than comparing "religiously inclined" gov'ts with gov'ts "that have attempted to legally eliminate religion"?

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 16 by JoeyKnothead]

Many governments have tried to ban Christianity, it does not work. In fact the governments who have tried are eradicated.

Not all of 'em.

I think a better way to put this is 'governments who have attempted to ban theism and the practice of religious beliefs tend to be really nasty in a whole bunch of ways, and have, so far, been destroyed or modified...but not before killing a bunch of people first."

It's not ALL about Christianity.

It's not even all about theism, either. Any gov't that has tried to ban certain forms of peaceful religious belief (or lack thereof) would qualify.

And throughout history there's been no shortage of victims of theistic religious intolerance.

tu quoque, Joey?

I ain't Joey.

Oops.

You are quite right. Throughout history there has been no shortage of victims of theistic intolerance. However, throughout history there have ALSO been religions and religious beliefs...as well as theistically inclined governments...which have been tolerant and accepting of different ideas.

There has never been a government that has attempted to legally eliminate religion that was NOT nasty. It seems to have a rather strong negative correlation, actually; the more religions outlawed, the nastier the government is in a whole lot of other ways, as well.

This is like comparing apples and machine guns.

How about we compare the "religiously inclined" gov'ts with "athiestically inclined" gov'ts, rather than comparing "religiously inclined" gov'ts with gov'ts "that have attempted to legally eliminate religion"?

Would you care to tell me how a government can seek to legally eliminate religion (unless it is 'every OTHER religion...and that is called a 'theocracy') and is NOT atheist? As in "a" (without) "theist"(well, er, 'theist.' or rather, 'theism')

I'd love to see how you pull that one off.

It is possible to be an atheistic government and still tolerate religions...perhaps by penalizing them or something, while still allowing them. However, it is not possible to legally bar religions/theism and not be atheist.

I am NOT talking about secular governments that simply stay out of religion and that keep religion out of the government. I'm talking about what the OP is referring to: making religion illegal. Getting rid of it.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 16 by JoeyKnothead]

Many governments have tried to ban Christianity, it does not work. In fact the governments who have tried are eradicated.

Not all of 'em.

I think a better way to put this is 'governments who have attempted to ban theism and the practice of religious beliefs tend to be really nasty in a whole bunch of ways, and have, so far, been destroyed or modified...but not before killing a bunch of people first."

It's not ALL about Christianity.

It's not even all about theism, either. Any gov't that has tried to ban certain forms of peaceful religious belief (or lack thereof) would qualify.

And throughout history there's been no shortage of victims of theistic religious intolerance.

tu quoque, Joey?

You are quite right. Throughout history there has been no shortage of victims of theistic intolerance. However, throughout history there have ALSO been religions and religious beliefs...as well as theistically inclined governments...which have been tolerant and accepting of different ideas.

There has never been a government that has attempted to legally eliminate religion that was NOT nasty. It seems to have a rather strong negative correlation, actually; the more religions outlawed, the nastier the government is in a whole lot of other ways, as well.

Which governments are you thinking about when you say this?

It has a 'ring of truth' to it, but then again it strikes me as biased, so somewhere in there . . .

You could take it step deeper (I guess) and say that if it weren't for HUMAN BEINGS, period, intolerance wouldn't happen which I'm guessing is as unbiased as one can get.

What is it that human beings take on for ourselves (ideology wise) that makes our tendency to intolerance WORSE, not better? Religion is a classic example, historically. So are non-religious ideologies corrupted by that certain human-beingness we are just beginning to work our way out of, and into a global society.

Religion and non-religious ideologies are harnessed in service to our natural fear of 'the other', and it's gone back as far as something can go. While rooting around in the desert, seeing a strange tribe coming over the dune wasn't exactly a moment to celebrate. The most genetically vigilant peoples were the best preserved and survived to pass it along. Besides that, we humans were prey animals looong before we conquered our fellow earthly denizens.

Getting back to the OP, outlawing religion is a ridiculous, barbaric thing to even consider, and we have history to shore that one up, too. What we need is to keep religion and corrupted ideologies out of the 'law' to begin with.

[Elijah John]

Before the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, Christianity was in a precarious position. As it was not formally recognised as a religion, it was technically illegal to be a Christian in the Roman Empire. Sometimes Christians were tolerated and left alone, sometimes used as scapegoats, and other times actively persecuted. Judaism had a bumpy history too, however since it was considered an ethnic religion it was given legal status from the beginning.

Besides rumours about child sacrifice and orgies, it's chief danger lay in the fact that it recognised a more powerful Lord than Caesar. Many Romans believed their obstinacy in this matter especially deserved punishment and could have proven troublesome to the greater peace of Rome. As Pliny wrote himself in his letter to the Emperor Trajan, "Neque enim dubitabam, qualecumque asset, quod faterentur, pertinaciam certe et inflexible obstinationem debere puniri." 'For I was in no doubt that regardless of what they believed their inflexible obstinacy and pigheadedness definitely should be punished'. If it wasn't for that he regarded it simply as a base and excessive superstition - 'superstitio prava immodica'.

Even today we see Christianity in conflict with secular governments. In China for instance one of the reasons that makes an underground church illegal is teaching the Second Coming as it implies an authority more powerful than the Chinese Government. In most countries in the West, churches are exempt from equal opportunity legislation and also cannot be forced to administer Gay marriages. Also and this has become a particular problem in cases of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church, priests are not obliged by law to relate crimes told in Confessional. Some recent psychologists and atheists have also argued that the concept of Hell amounts to child abuse.

Should Christianity be illegal again? Or at any rate should the State be given the power to decide what legally can or cannot be practised or believed in orthodox Christianity?

The bulk of christianity is a promotion of various schemes of hate crimes of others for profit coupled with self justification by the sects. It's an infectious brew on these counts..

Moderator Comment

Although you present a reasoned attempt to support the assertion,, nonetheless this statement about the "bulk of Christianity" is a blanket generalization, and is generally unfair..and inflammatory to boot. Please refrain

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 16 by JoeyKnothead]

Many governments have tried to ban Christianity, it does not work. In fact the governments who have tried are eradicated.

Not all of 'em.

I think a better way to put this is 'governments who have attempted to ban theism and the practice of religious beliefs tend to be really nasty in a whole bunch of ways, and have, so far, been destroyed or modified...but not before killing a bunch of people first."

It's not ALL about Christianity.

It's not even all about theism, either. Any gov't that has tried to ban certain forms of peaceful religious belief (or lack thereof) would qualify.

And throughout history there's been no shortage of victims of theistic religious intolerance.

tu quoque, Joey?

I ain't Joey.

Oops.

You are quite right. Throughout history there has been no shortage of victims of theistic intolerance. However, throughout history there have ALSO been religions and religious beliefs...as well as theistically inclined governments...which have been tolerant and accepting of different ideas.

There has never been a government that has attempted to legally eliminate religion that was NOT nasty. It seems to have a rather strong negative correlation, actually; the more religions outlawed, the nastier the government is in a whole lot of other ways, as well.

This is like comparing apples and machine guns.

How about we compare the "religiously inclined" gov'ts with "athiestically inclined" gov'ts, rather than comparing "religiously inclined" gov'ts with gov'ts "that have attempted to legally eliminate religion"?

Would you care to tell me how a government can seek to legally eliminate religion (unless it is 'every OTHER religion...and that is called a 'theocracy') and is NOT atheist? As in "a" (without) "theist"(well, er, 'theist.' or rather, 'theism')

I'd love to see how you pull that one off.

It is possible to be an atheistic government and still tolerate religions...perhaps by penalizing them or something, while still allowing them. However, it is not possible to legally bar religions/theism and not be atheist.

I don't understand why the bar for a gov't to be considered "athiest" has to be that it attempts to ban or punish religion, while the bar for a gov't to be considered "theist" allows for it being quote: "tolerant and accepting of different ideas".

It seems like you are just arbitrarily molding the definitions specifically to suit your own bias that theism is morally superior to atheism.

I am NOT talking about secular governments that simply stay out of religion and that keep religion out of the government. I'm talking about what the OP is referring to: making religion illegal. Getting rid of it.

Yes, I know. Gov'ts that ban religion are evil and foul, I agree. So are gov'ts that ban atheism.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 16 by JoeyKnothead]

Many governments have tried to ban Christianity, it does not work. In fact the governments who have tried are eradicated.

They tend to fail when they do this overtly. People don't like being told what they should or shouldn't believe.

Successful governments manipulate people's beliefs slowly over a period of time and they do it in a way that makes it not seem so bad or so sudden.

Smoking is a classic example. In my country every few years another law comes out that restricts smoking. And the prices keep going up. I believe that soon it will become illegal. It's just happening in very small steps.

If Christianity is to be outlawed it has to happen in the same way. And yes, I will compare it to smoking as I see it as a harmful addiction that needs to be broken and we need to do our best to stop people from becoming addicted. But we have to do it in a way that is not sudden.

That's why the whole number of the beast thing stuff just won't work. To suddenly turn around and say all those who don't take the mark shall be killed just wouldn't work in modern society.

[dianaiad]

[Replying to post 16 by JoeyKnothead]

Many governments have tried to ban Christianity, it does not work. In fact the governments who have tried are eradicated.

They tend to fail when they do this overtly. People don't like being told what they should or shouldn't believe.

This is true. It is also true that governments try to manipulate these things anyway, and it's true that some people actually approve of it, when the belief the government is after is one with which they disagree.

As you did in this post.


Isn't it a good thing, then, that the USA has a constitution that forbids this sort of thing?

I mean, consider this: the government isn't some alien computer thing completely apart from the people within it. It's people; people with power.

What happens when these people with power decide that it's YOUR ox they want to gore?

[OnceConvinced]

Isn't it a good thing, then, that the USA has a constitution that forbids this sort of thing?

I mean, consider this: the government isn't some alien computer thing completely apart from the people within it. It's people; people with power.

What happens when these people with power decide that it's YOUR ox they want to gore?

Perhaps the government does those things anyway without us really realizing it?