The Wars Of Religion & The Rise Of The State

[Froufrou]

"In September of 1993, the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago issued a declaration called "Towards a Global Ethic" meant to locate ethical values common to the world's religions. One of the most emphatic parts of the statement is that condemning wars waged in the name of religion. "Time and again we see leaders and members of religions incite aggression, fanaticism, hate and xenophobia even inspire and legitimize violent and bloody conflicts. Religion often is misused for purely power‑politica l goals, including war. We are filled with disgust."1 Is the Parliament of the World's Religions taking a pacifist stand? Well, no. While violence in general is condemned, the document stops well short of calling religious people out of the armies of the world. Only killing in the name of religion is damned; bloodshed on behalf of the State is subject to no such scorn.2 What is wrong, then, with killing in the name of religion? The answer can be derived from the definition of "religion" implicit in the declaration. Religion is assumed to be a matter pertinent to the private sphere of values. The individual's public and lethal loyalty belongs to the State.

My purpose in this essay will be to focus on the way revulsion to killing in the name of religion is used to legitimize the transfer of ultimate loyalty to the modern State. Specifically I will examine how the so‑called "Wars of Religion" of sixteenth‑ and seventeenth‑ce ntury Europe are evoked as the founding moment of modern liberalism by theorists such as John Rawls, Judith Shklar, and Jeffrey Stout.3 I will let Shklar tell the familiar tale:"

Source (http://www.jesusradicals.co m/library/cavanaugh/Wars_of_Religion.htm l)

I WISH TO EMPHASIZE THAT THIS IS NOT MY WRITING. I WANT TO SEE IF YOU FIND THE SAME FLAWS THAT I DID.

[sherman]

I just re-read through most of this article. I find it rather interesting that so many people are willing to seek out those that see Christianity as a religion rather than for what it actually is. A way of life.
The term (name) "Christian" was given to those who followed the Lord Jesus Christ. Hince the term "CHRISTian". (See Acts 11:26)
Those that professed to being followers of Christ were in danger of loosing everything. Including their lives.
Christians were persecuted, not only by the Roman authority (government), but by those who claimed to be the only ones that knew how to interpret the Old Testament scriptures as well.
Unfortunately, this can still be seen within the "church" today.
I found myself comparing the liberals with what some of these people said, and found little, (if any), difference.
(Cults are in a different catagory altogether.)

Here's something one may want to consider...
Why do so many people believe that, since they were born in the United States of America, they are automaticlly a christian?
I wonder how many would make that claim if they were to realize what being a christian actually meant?

Sorry kids. Just because one is born in the U.S., doesn't make one a christian, anymore than standing in the kitchen makes one a chef.
It's amazing how many politicians suddenly find themselves attending a church service during election time and/or claim to be "christian", when they really have no idea of what that actually means.
Does anyone else see this happening?

IMHO, some of the problems we have today, are due to the *mis-interpretation of what the original scriptures said and how the liberals would like to mis-construe it's meaning. Here is an example taken from the sight this thread is linked to:

[Archbishop Oscar Romero, "The Church: Defender of Human Dignity" in A Martyr's Message of Hope (Kansas City: Celebration Books, 1981), p. 161. The relevant part of his sermon on March 23, 1980 reads as follows: "I would like to issue a special entreaty to the members of the army, and specifically to the ranks of the National Guard, the police and the military. Brothers and sisters, you are our own people; you kill your own fellow peasants. Someone's order to kill should not prevail; rather, what ought to prevail is the law of God that says, 'Do not kill.' No soldier is obliged to obey an order against the law of God; no one has to fulfill an immoral law ... Why, in the name of God, and in the name of this suffering people whose cries rise up to the heavens every day in greater tumult, I implore them, I beg them, I order them, in the name of God: Cease the repression!"]

The 7th Commandment is what he is refering to.
The problem is that the original meaning of the word used for kill actually meant to murder, or commit murder. To suggest otherwise would place God in contradiction to some of His own orders.
I'm not saying that if one believes the same way as the Archbishop Romero they are liberal, but rather that they are free to believe what they choose to believe.
Even though I do not agree with how this person believes, neither one should have to feel persecuted for not agreeing with the other.
I mentioned this, because I can see this as one of the reasons why liberals want to have [total] control over ones life. So they can dictate what people should and should not believe( just like the scribes and pharisees did), and dictate as to who should be the final authority in all things. Even when it comes to ones own beliefs.
If history does indeed repeat itself, then....

This is just my http://www.gopusa.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/twocents.gif worth.
(I apologize for the lengethy post.)

[horse2name]

Frou,
This topic is only in vogue when white Anglos of Europe or North America are involved in the war.

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr class="standard"><td>Quote </td></tr><tr class="standard"><td class="QUOTE">One of the most emphatic parts of the statement is that condemning wars waged in the name of religion. [/QUOTE]

Nobody calls for an end to wars of religion as long as black africans are fighting and killing each other (Rwanda, Uganda, etc.) or when black muslims are killing black Christians in the Philipines or other parts of Indonesia.

Nobody gets cranky about Arabs killing other Arabs or Israelis in the mideast? But add British or American troops to the mix and suddenly it becomes an issue. Or if White Europeans start killing each other (Serbians, Croatians, etc.) then the United nations has to get involved.

the real truth is this: Wars will always be. Wars will continue to increase in frequency. Religion will always be named as the culprit. Even if religion was not the reason for the war, war will continue.

By proclaiming that all religous wars cease, will not keep war from happening. But it will make the free exercise of religion more difficult.