| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
26 Sep 2003 02:00:53 PM |
| Object: |
Are Atheists Americans? |
Published Friday
November 2, 2001
Midlands Voices: Are atheists American?
BY THOMAS MARTIN
The writer is a professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska at
Kearney
Jeremy Patrick, in his article, "Patriotism can exist without bows to God"
(Oct. 16 More Commentary), notes, "The problem with the use of religious
terminology by the government is not that atheists are offended (though we
are) or that we feel excluded (though that certainly occurs, too) but that
we understand better than most the dangers that occur when the government
becomes enmeshed with religion."
The question Mr. Patrick ought to be asking is not whether the government
has a right to use religious terminology but whether a citizen who
professes to be an atheist is an American.
America is a nation that is founded upon a creed. That creed is set forth
with dogmatic and theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence,
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal;
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights;
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
The Declaration of Independence condemns atheism, as it names the Creator,
and not the government, as the ultimate authority from whom the citizens'
rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are derived.
In fact, Mr. Patrick will see as he reads the next line of the declaration
that the government of America was established to protect exactly these
rights bestowed upon man by his Creator.
Thus, if the government does not uphold our God-given rights as Americans,
it is our obligation to "alter or abolish" the government and institute one
that ensures our rights.
The necessity of forming ourselves under government and granting to our
governmental officials the power to enact laws for the public safety and to
enforce them with the proper penalties arises from each person being in a
fallen state. If we were in the perfect state, such as the Garden of Eden
before the fall, we would not need to form a government.
Given that God grants man his right to life, and the liberty to pursue
happiness, it is only by freely dedicating one's life to pursuing God's
will that man will ever attain the happiness for which he is meant. (Could
a Muslim, a Jew or a Christian fail to understand this?)
Man as his Creator's creature is not an animal. What distinguishes man from
the animals is that he is an individual with a soul, invested with moral
powers and faculties, by which he is able to discern the difference between
right and wrong, truth and falsehood, good and evil.
Conversely, an atheist holds man to be an animal and not a creature of God
- and therefore without a fixed nature and an immortal soul. When man is
believed to be an animal, his God-given ability to reason from and toward
the truth is reduced to only acting upon his appetites and rationalizing
his desires.
By rejecting the source of his unalienable rights, an atheist denies the
source of his rights as an American. In fact, an atheist does not recognize
individuals; instead, he will lump man in classes - for example,
proletariat and bourgeois.
Furthermore, as a materialist, he will not argue that a man is free to
claim responsibility for his actions. Man, like other animals, is the
product of his material conditions whose behaviors (reactions, not actions)
are caused by the chemical responses in the brain to some oppressive force
or stimulus of his environment.
Having denied the rights bestowed upon man by his Creator, and with them
his right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, Mr. Patrick
paradoxically thinks Americans ought to respect his lack of belief. He
wrote:
"I can respect, tolerate and even encourage private citizens to express
their religious beliefs, because I know that I have the exact same
opportunity to express my own (or lack thereof). But I cannot tolerate it
when some private citizens, even a majority of them, have hijacked the
government into endorsing their religious beliefs in a way that I can't
match."
By using the word "hijacked," doesn't Mr. Patrick, who professes tolerance,
really display his intolerance for Christianity? Did our Founding Fathers
hijack government? Or did not they, using Mr. Patrick's implied metaphor,
try to develop a plane in which people of diverse races and beliefs might
fly - with, of course, certain unalienable rights?
Mr. Patrick is right to argue that the Constitution does not allow the
majority to impose its religious beliefs on the minority. However, he is
wrong to think that, while the Bill of Rights allows freedom of religion
and freedom of speech, an American would ever respect his freedom from
religion any more than his freedom from speech. To deny the first reduces
us to animals. To deny the second reduces us to slaves.
And so it goes.
****************************************
Thomas Martin ("Are Atheists American?" November 2, 2001) detects "dogmatic
and theological lucidity" in the inclusion of the word "Creator" in the
second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, to the point that he
questions whether atheists are rightfully called Americans. The historical
record shows him to be completely mistaken.
The Declaration begins and says, in part, "When in the course of human
events it becomes necessary for one people … to assume among the powers of
the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of
nature's god entitle them…" This phrase is lacking entirely Martin's
dogmatic and theological lucidity, reflecting as it does the Deistic views
of Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the Declaration.
Jefferson's stand on the question of atheists' rightful place in civil
affairs is well known, perhaps stated most clearly in [begin underlining]
Notes on the State of Virginia [end underlining], written in 1781 and 1782.
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are
injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say
there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my
leg."
Jefferson was lamenting the fact that people could still be prosecuted for
heresy under the common law and suffer civil penalties, even though in
1776, the then-new government of Virginia had removed criminal provisions
proscribing religious opinions, consistent with the Virginia Declaration of
Rights of that same year. Virginia did later pass a religious freedom bill
in 1786, drafted by Jefferson seven years earlier, which declared that "all
men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions
in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish,
enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
Jefferson adopted the fundamental concepts of the Declaration's second
paragraph from the aforementioned Virginia Declaration of Rights, authored
by George Mason and published in Philadelphia in June 1776, just as
Jefferson began drafting the Declaration. Mason's draft stated that "all
men are born equally free and independent, and have certain inherent
natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest
their posterity, among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with
the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining
happiness and safety."
Jefferson's original draft had largely followed this form, substituting
"created" for "born" and otherwise improving the language. When it was
reported out of the Committee of Five, which included John Adams and
Benjamin Franklin, "Creator" had been added. The Second Continental
Congress heavily edited the text, however, among other things, inserting
two additional references to the divine in the last paragraph. Did this,
then, reflect the more general sense of the country acting through its
representatives, asserting Martin's dogma and theology?
Again, the historical record shows otherwise. "Not one revolutionary state
bill of rights used the words ‘all men are created equal,'" according to
Pauline Maier, author of [begin underlining]American Scripture: Making the
Declaration of Independence[end underlining]. Adopted mainly after July
1776, they all reverted back to variations of the Mason form and its
assertion of man's "inherent natural rights" with no reference to endowment
by the Creator.
Finally, the Constitutional Convention in 1787 produced a purely secular
document, stating unambiguously "no religious Test shall ever be required
as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
During the ratification debates, many expressed views similar to Martin's
and favored a religious test, but the sentiment that prevailed was
expressed well by James Iredell of North Carolina, who later served as a
Justice on the Supreme Court. "But it is objected that the people of
America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all,
and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it
possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of
religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for?"
Martin's attempt to so exclude atheists harkens back to an ancient concept
of the relation of religion and government that was firmly and
categorically rejected in the creation of the United States, among the most
uniquely American and revolutionary achievements of that era. No doubt
there were many then, as now, who would have had it otherwise. But it is
clear that while being an atheist is not central to being an American,
recognizing the right to be one is.
By Sanford M. Goodman
The writer, of Omaha, is an independent business consultant.
330 S. 93rd St. 68114-3946
397-9295
Sources:
Information as to the drafting of the Declaration, including the quotation
from the Virginia Declaration, was taken from American Scripture: Making
the Declaration of Independence, by Pauline Maier, Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, 1997
The no religious test clause is in Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution
of the United States.
The Iredell quote is from North Carolina State Constitutional Ratifying
Convention Debates--The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the
Adoption of the Federal Constitution as Recommended by the General
Convention at Philadelphia in 1787, Vol IV, by Jonathan Elliot. J. B.
Lippincott Company 1888. Pages 191-200. as cited at
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/testban6.htm
.
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists tolerant Americans? |
26 Sep 2003 06:23:00 PM |
|
|
expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h639nv4152rn7cpbovtp71hk1qdjnad6dq@4ax.com...
Published Friday
November 2, 2001
Midlands Voices: Are atheists American?
BY THOMAS MARTIN
The writer is a professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska at
Kearney
Jeremy Patrick, in his article, "Patriotism can exist without bows to God"
(Oct. 16 More Commentary), notes, "The problem with the use of religious
terminology by the government is not that atheists are offended (though we
are) or that we feel excluded (though that certainly occurs, too) but that
we understand better than most the dangers that occur when the government
becomes enmeshed with religion."
what a whiner. The only one who is offending the atheists like the writer
here, is other atheists. If atheists get offended or feel excluded by what
the government does and says, well hell join the club, look what these very
same atheists have done to religious of this country.
These people attack the religious, prevent them from using public
facilities, prohibit their free speech rights, and want to prohibit the
right of the religious to practice their faith.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists tolerant Americans? |
26 Sep 2003 07:06:02 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote in message
news:vn9i6d8d1k9a18@corp.supernews.com...
expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h639nv4152rn7cpbovtp71hk1qdjnad6dq@4ax.com...
Published Friday
November 2, 2001
Midlands Voices: Are atheists American?
BY THOMAS MARTIN
The writer is a professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska at
Kearney
Jeremy Patrick, in his article, "Patriotism can exist without bows to
God"
(Oct. 16 More Commentary), notes, "The problem with the use of religious
terminology by the government is not that atheists are offended (though
we
are) or that we feel excluded (though that certainly occurs, too) but
that
we understand better than most the dangers that occur when the
government
becomes enmeshed with religion."
what a whiner. The only one who is offending the atheists like the writer
here, is other atheists. If atheists get offended or feel excluded by what
the government does and says, well hell join the club, look what these
very
same atheists have done to religious of this country.
Oh, do tell...
These people attack the religious, prevent them from using public
facilities,
To coin a phrase, baloney.
prohibit their free speech rights,
Like your "right" to knock on my door uninvited and try to shove your
superstitious nonsense down my throat? Your "right" to ignore *my* right to
not be bothered by Christians incessantly proselytizing their idiotic
religion? Poor baby. I don't go to your church and preach my beliefs. Don't
come to my house and preach yours.
and want to prohibit the
right of the religious to practice their faith.
*****. No one gives a rat's ***** what you believe or how you "practice
your faith." The only time you'll incur the wrath of most atheists is when
you try to force everyone else to live *their* lives in accordance with
*your* beliefs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr DuFunny" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists tolerant Americans? |
26 Sep 2003 07:54:17 PM |
|
|
"dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote in message
news:vn9i6d8d1k9a18@corp.supernews.com...
expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h639nv4152rn7cpbovtp71hk1qdjnad6dq@4ax.com...
Published Friday
November 2, 2001
Midlands Voices: Are atheists American?
BY THOMAS MARTIN
The writer is a professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska at
Kearney
Jeremy Patrick, in his article, "Patriotism can exist without bows to
God"
(Oct. 16 More Commentary), notes, "The problem with the use of religious
terminology by the government is not that atheists are offended (though
we
are) or that we feel excluded (though that certainly occurs, too) but
that
we understand better than most the dangers that occur when the
government
becomes enmeshed with religion."
what a whiner. The only one who is offending the atheists like the writer
here, is other atheists. If atheists get offended or feel excluded by what
the government does and says, well hell join the club, look what these
very
same atheists have done to religious of this country.
These people attack the religious, prevent them from using public
facilities, prohibit their free speech rights, and want to prohibit the
right of the religious to practice their faith.
How would you feel about an atheist who doesn't care whether kids pray in
school, who doesn't support public education, and who thinks religious
people should respect the right of someone else to criticize their religion,
and who would say that those who criticize Christianity are patriotic?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Dog" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists tolerant Americans? |
28 Sep 2003 03:06:49 AM |
|
|
"dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote in message news:<vn9i6d8d1k9a18@corp.supernews.com>...
expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h639nv4152rn7cpbovtp71hk1qdjnad6dq@4ax.com...
Published Friday
November 2, 2001
Midlands Voices: Are atheists American?
BY THOMAS MARTIN
The writer is a professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska at
Kearney
Jeremy Patrick, in his article, "Patriotism can exist without bows to God"
(Oct. 16 More Commentary), notes, "The problem with the use of religious
terminology by the government is not that atheists are offended (though we
are) or that we feel excluded (though that certainly occurs, too) but that
we understand better than most the dangers that occur when the government
becomes enmeshed with religion."
what a whiner.
What a liar/fascist/apologist/xian.
If you don't like his words, don't read them just as you
don't the bible. Or do you read him selectively to justify
your hate, just as you do the bible?
The only one who is offending the atheists like the writer
here, is other atheists. If atheists get offended or feel excluded by what
the government does and says, well hell join the club, look what these very
same atheists have done to religious of this country.
Yes, the atheists have prevented nazist xianity from
attacking and killing those who disagree with it. How
dare they!
These people attack the religious, prevent them from using public
facilities, prohibit their free speech rights, and want to prohibit the
right of the religious to practice their faith.
Offense is disliking people for doing something which
violates others' rights. Intolerance is disliking people
for exercising their rights. You are a liar; there are
no examples of what you claim.
Bob Dog
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists tolerant Americans? |
27 Sep 2003 03:15:32 AM |
|
|
In article <vn9i6d8d1k9a18@corp.supernews.com>,
"dpr" <%%%**&&@dems.com> wrote:
expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h639nv4152rn7cpbovtp71hk1qdjnad6dq@4ax.com...
Published Friday
November 2, 2001
Midlands Voices: Are atheists American?
BY THOMAS MARTIN
The writer is a professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska at
Kearney
Jeremy Patrick, in his article, "Patriotism can exist without bows to God"
(Oct. 16 More Commentary), notes, "The problem with the use of religious
terminology by the government is not that atheists are offended (though we
are) or that we feel excluded (though that certainly occurs, too) but that
we understand better than most the dangers that occur when the government
becomes enmeshed with religion."
what a whiner. The only one who is offending the atheists like the writer
here, is other atheists. If atheists get offended or feel excluded by what
the government does and says, well hell join the club, look what these very
same atheists have done to religious of this country.
These people attack the religious, prevent them from using public
facilities, prohibit their free speech rights, and want to prohibit the
right of the religious to practice their faith.
And what laws were passed to prevent you from praying or practicing
your faith in your churches, in your homes, or in private?
--
John Hachmann, aa #1782
Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon on why he made
no mention of a god in his book on astronomy: "Sire,
I have no need of that hypothesis."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Atheists tolerant Americans? |
26 Sep 2003 06:50:36 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 15:23:00 -0800, dpr wrote:
expense of the individual was murderously synergistic.
<buckeye-ELO@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:h639nv4152rn7cpbovtp71hk1qdjnad6dq@4ax.com...
Published Friday
November 2, 2001
Midlands Voices: Are atheists American?
BY THOMAS MARTIN
The writer is a professor of Philosophy at the University of Nebraska at
Kearney
Jeremy Patrick, in his article, "Patriotism can exist without bows to God"
(Oct. 16 More Commentary), notes, "The problem with the use of religious
terminology by the government is not that atheists are offended (though we
are) or that we feel excluded (though that certainly occurs, too) but that
we understand better than most the dangers that occur when the government
becomes enmeshed with religion."
what a whiner. The only one who is offending the atheists like the writer
here, is other atheists. If atheists get offended or feel excluded by what
the government does and says, well hell join the club, look what these very
same atheists have done to religious of this country.
These people attack the religious, prevent them from using public
facilities, prohibit their free speech rights, and want to prohibit the
right of the religious to practice their faith.
Liar.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thales" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Christians historically tolerant |
04 Oct 2003 08:08:08 PM |
|
|
CHRISTIANITY VS RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
THE HISTORY OF CHURCH STATE UNIONS AND RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
Article VI. Clause 3:
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of
the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but NO
RELIGIOUS TEST shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States."
Amendment I:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The above passages of the US Constitution add up to one thing: a
religion-neutral government. There are thousands of years of reasons
why governments should adopt a neutral position in regards to
religious ideology and cosmology.
Unlike the failed governments of the past, the US Constitution adopted
and mandated a religion neutral stance while protecting individual
religious liberty and freedom of conscience. Unlike the governments of
the past, that free conscience could be freely expressed in speech,
the press and petitions of assembly.
The founders of the US learned the lessons of European history and the
European Enlightenment and crafted a rights oriented, religion-neutral
foundation for government. Unknown to many, 11 of 13 states still had
religious tests for office and had established Protestantism as the
state religion before the Constitution was ratified. In many states,
as in England under the Puritans, Catholics could not hold office and
had fewer rights. All that ended with the Federal Constitution which
banned governmental establishment and promotion of religion. All that
ended with the Federal Constitution which banned religious tests
within oaths for office and public service. Although popular, "So help
me God" is unconstitutional and is not part of the oath of the
presidency that is laid out in the Constitution.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of
ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will
always avail themselves for their own purposes."
"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted
into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine
against the civil and religious rights of man."
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to
liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses
in return for protection to his own."
All throughout history, 'true believers' have modeled their
intolerance on the intolerance and cruelty modeled in scripture;
killing people for the wrong religious beliefs; imprisoning them;
burning them for the purpose of God's righteous judgment of torment.
A great many of these punishments are prescribed in the pages of the
Bible, of course.
Jude 1:7 – "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in
like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after
strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance
of eternal fire."
People took the draconian commands seriously; persecuting,
imprisoning, torturing, and executing those that "hath gone and served
other gods". The scripture called for death and Christians through the
centuries have insisted on killing people for worshipping other gods
and serving them. Scripture was justification; this is just as their
scriptures command as punishment for having gone and served other
gods, and worshipped them.
2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 – "In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence
of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;"
The justification for killing people by burning them to death for not
being Christian is found in the ultimate example of religious
intolerance: The Christian "Lake of Fire". Not for thinking or acting
in terms of malice, harm or deceit, but just for having the wrong
worldview and cosmological perspective. What we in a free society
consider one the essential requirements that define the ethic of
liberty, the Bible calls a "wicked thing' in Deuteronomy 17:3-7.
Matthew 25:46 – "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment:
but the righteous into life eternal."
Revelation 14:10 – "The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of
God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his
indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the
presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb."
Revelation 19:20 – "And the beast was taken, and with him the false
prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them
that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his
image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with
brimstone."
Revelation 20:10 – "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the
lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are,
and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
Revelation 20:15 – "And whosoever was not found written in the book of
life was cast into the lake of fire."
Revelation 21:8 – "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the
abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and
idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which
burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death."
THE DARK AGES BEGIN
The real trouble began when the Emperor Constantine legally favored
Christianity. In 316 he began his persecutions against religious
liberty and diversity by outlawing Donatism and banishing its
adherents. In 325, the Council of Nicaea condemned the teachings of
Arius. Constantine warned the Bishops of Arian Christianity that those
that refused to sign the settlement at the Council of Nicaea would be
exiled.
Other heretical Christian sects received a letter that informed them
that their meeting places of fellowship and worship were soon to be
confiscated. Constantine celebrated his conversion by executing 3000
Christians that didn't agree with his Trinitarian interpretation of
Christianity. That is more than all of the Christians killed by the
Romans in the 1st century, which is more myth than reality. With
Constantine's authority supporting them the Trinitarian bishops who
signed Nicaea made their religious authority the law of the empire.
From that point on, the ruling bishops decided who was to become
bishop and what the common folk could believe. Constantine intimidated
and oppressed the Pagans, continuing a strategy of confiscating the
great wealth that they had accumulated. He then proceeded to give this
wealth he stole, much of it precious metals and rare gems, to his
Bishops.
Constantine kept slavery alive and well in the Empire. In the
tradition of the Bible's laws, slaves were to obey their masters
without question. And to top it off, Constantine passed a law in which
a master may beat his slaves to death. Constantine seemed to promote
families of slaves staying together but unlike Diocletian before him,
he allowed the newborn infants of slaves to be sold. Slaves that were
caught escaping to seek refuge with Pagans had a foot amputated.
Slaves of public service that were caught leaving town were beaten.
Slaves who sought refuge in churches were returned to their owners by
the bishops. Under Constantine, politics got dirtier, religious
intolerance expanded and Diocletian's spies were
replaced by a corrupt and fanatical secret police
During this period it became popular to co-opt pagan holidays,
replacing the pagan holiday with Christian names in order to convert
pagans without taking their feasts and holidays away. The birthday
celebration of the son of God, Mithras, and feasts of the winter
solstice became Christmas. It is Mithraism, which began over 600 years
before the Jesus story was written, that may be at the heart of the
Jesus story.
Ancient Mithraic Shrine inscription: "….eat of my flesh and drink of
my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same
shall not know salvation"
John 6:54… "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal
life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
Prayer to Mithras: "Spirit of Spirit, if it be your will, give me over
to immortal birth so that I may be born again - and the sacred spirit
may breathe in me."
John 3:8: "You must be born again"
Mithras was born of a virgin, in front of shepherds, said 'I am the
way' and no one experiences salvation without 'drinking my blood and
eating my flesh', was killed and rose after 3 days, and interceded for
the righteous in the underworld. Changing the names of gods and feasts
may be at the heart of the rise of Christianity. Vernal equinox
celebrations of fertility and renewal became Christian. We still see
the remnants of the Goddess Eoster with her bunnies and her eggs.
Christianity adopted pagan practices in order to make their religion
easier to convert to. Devotion to relics, kissing holy objects,
genuflection, holy water, collecting bones of saints, ritual burning
of candles and incense were all pagan rituals adopted as ways to
convert. Prayers to a female goddess were changed to prayers to Mary.
Prayers to deities for rain were changed to prayers to Christian
saints.
What we witness here in this new Christian world is the antithesis of
religious liberty. This also means the antithesis of free speech and
writing. Other religions were not respected or tolerated and when the
deceptive tactics of co-opting pagan ritual didn't work, violence and
destruction replaced trickery. Pagan beliefs were finally outlawed and
their temples destroyed. Church father Eusebius helped this by
proclaiming that paganism was actually atheism. Eusebius, regarding
Constantine's government, wrote that nations "found rest and respite
from their ancient miseries, a system and method of government for all
states." He also attacked equality of status and democracy as "anarchy
and dissension rather than a form of government."
Christianity and government begin to merge into one force.
Constantine's Laws Favoring Christianity:
Codex Theodosianus 16.2.1 & 16.2.2
313, 319CE immunity from burdens of municipal administration and
municipal levies
Codex Theodosianus 16,8.1 315CE
Jews who punish apostates; converts to Christianity; should be burned
alive; converts to Judaism should be burned alive
Codex Theodosianus (?). 318, 321CE bishops receive same judicial
powers as magistrates
Codex Theodosianus (?) 320CE
removal of Augustus' restrictions on male and female celibates
Codex Theodosianus 16.2.2..321CE
legalization of bequests to churches, churches become residuary
legatee of those who die without heir
Codex Theodosianus 16.2.7..330CE..Imperial funds support the
construction of churches
Constitutiones Sirmondianae 1 ..333CE
confirmation of judical validity of Episcopal courts
In his own words:
Codex Theodosianus. 16.5.1:
"It is necessary that the privileges which are bestowed for the
cultivation of religion should be given only to followers of the
Catholic faith. We desire that heretics and schismatics be not only
kept from these privileges, but be subjected to various fines."
Codex Theodosianus 16.8.1:
"We wish to make it known to the Jews and their elders and their
patriarchs that if, after the enactment of this law, any one of them
dares to attack with stones or some other manifestation of anger
another who has fled their dangerous sect and attached himself to the
worship of God, he must speedily be given to the flames and burn~
together with all his accomplices."
Codex Theodosianus. 16.10.4:
"It is decreed that in all places and all cities the temples should be
closed at once, and after a general warning, the opportunity of
sinning be taken from the wicked. We decree also that we shall cease
from making sacrifices. And if anyone has committed such a crime, let
him be stricken with the avenging sword. And we decree that the
property of the one executed shall be claimed by the city, and that
rulers of the provinces be punished in the same way, if they neglect
to punish such crimes." ..."Moreover, if any one of the population
should join their abominable sect and attend their meetings, he will
bear with them the deserved penalties."
CONSTANTINE'S ANTI-SEMITISM
While the 306CE Church Synod of Elvira banned all intimate, social and
community relationships between Christians and Jews, including
intermarriage things would get much worse with Constantine's state
support of Christianity. Constantine showed vehement anti-Semitism in
his letter regarding his decree legalizing the keeping of Easter. This
can be read at:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/const1-easter.html
Excerpts from this letter to those "that missed the council":
"....the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of
crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom, we
may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating
Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Savior's Passion
to the present day[according to the day of the week]. We ought not,
therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews..."
"...we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the
detestable company of the Jews..."
"How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded
by error? For to celebrate the Passover twice in one year is totally
inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your
duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked
people."
"You should consider not only that the number of churches in these
provinces makes a majority, but also that it is right to demand what
our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with
the Jews."
Codex Theodosianus…… In 324CE, Constantine had also reenacted laws
forbidding Jews to live in Jerusalem and to engage in any
proselytizing activity
In 325, Constantine's Council of Nicaea, in addressing Easter,
Passover and the Jews declared: "For it is unbecoming beyond measure
that on this holiest of festivals we should follow the customs of the
Jews. Henceforth let us have nothing in common with this odious
people..."
CONSTANTIUS
Exodus 22: 20 "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD
only, he shall be utterly destroyed"
When Constantine died, his three sons took over the empire, each
acquiring a particular region. Fighting over power ensued and when all
was finished, only Constantius stood. Constantius, unlike his father
and brothers, was an Arian Christian. Thinking that he was promoting
the cause of Christianity he exiled Trinitarian Bishops. Constantius
also banned pagan ritual sacrifice of animals and made participation
in them a capital offense. Following the examples set down by
Constantius, mobs of Christians attacked Pagan temples and destroyed
their shrines and altars.
Codex Theodosianus. 16.10.2; 341CE:
"Sacrifice Prohibited.": "Let superstition cease and the folly of
sacrifices be abolished. Whoever has dared in the face of the law of
the divine prince, our father [Constantine] ... to make sacrifices,
shall have appropriate penalty, and immediate sentence dealt to him."
Codex Theodosianus. 16.10.4; 346CE:
"All Temples Closed and Sacrifices Forbidden." "but if any one commit
any offense of this sort, let him fall by the avenging sword," and his
property forfeited; judges neglecting to "mete out penalties for these
offenses, they shall be similarly punished."
Codex Theodosianus 16.10.6; 356CE:
"Sacrificing and Idolatry Punishable by Death." "We order that all
found guilty of attending sacrifices or of worshipping idols shall
suffer capital punishment."
Constantius banned the intermarriage between Jewish men and Christian
women. Jewish husbands were to be put to death for seducing Christian
women to embrace Judaism. This action criminalized proselytizing under
penalty of death. Although slavery was extremely common, Constantius
took away the Jews' right to own slaves, especially Christian slaves,
in a time when economic prosperity depended on the slave trade. This
put Jews at a financial disadvantage gave Christians special rights,
which was probably the intent. One has to wonder how many people
converted to receive these special rights. And to top it off, if a
Jewish slave-owner had his slave circumcised he would be fined and
face the possibility of being executed.
In 339CE Constantius issued these decrees regarding Jews
Codex Theodosianus, 16.8.6:
"This pertains to women, who live in our weaving factories and whom
Jews, in their foulness, take in marriage. It is decreed that these
women are to be restored to the weaving factories. [Marriages between
Jews and Christian women of the imperial weaving factory are to be
dissolved.]"
"This prohibition [of intermarriage] is to be preserved for the future
lest the Jews induce Christian women to share their shameful lives. If
they do this they will subject themselves to a sentence of death."
Codex Theodosianus 16.9.2:
"if any one among the Jews has purchased a slave of another sect or
nation, that slave shall at once be appropriated for the imperial
treasury."
"If, indeed, he shall have circumcised the slave whom he has
purchased, he will not only be fined for the damage done to that slave
but he will also receive capital punishment."
"If, indeed, a Jew does not hesitate to purchase slaves-those who are
members of the faith that is worthy of respect [Christianity] then all
these slaves who are found in his possession shall at once be removed.
No delay shall be occasioned, but he is to be deprived of the
possession of those men who are Christians."
By 388 Intermarriage between Jews and Christians was declared illegal
in the Codex Theodosianus………….
VALENTINIAN I
Valentinian was often praised for being more religion-neutral than
many of his predecessors but nonetheless with Codex Theodosianus
16.3.3 in 372 he bent to pressure and banned Manicheans from meeting
in Rome. The punishments could include death, exile and the
confiscation of property. In the next year he officially condemned
Donatist Bishops with
Codex Theodosianus 16.6.1
Although Valentinian tried to stay out of the Nicene-Arianism
controversy, he did, in 370, uphold a law of Constantius II that gave
special privileges and exemptions to Nicene Christians (Codex
Theodosianus 16.2.18). Then in 371 he expanded those ecclesiastical
exemptions and privileges for Nicene Christians (Codex Theodosianus
16.2.21).
GRATIAN
The young emperor Gratian resented Paganism and its popularity with
its 400 temples in Rome alone. Gratian helped move Rome from state
supported Paganism to state supported Christianity. In the Senate
there was a Pagan altar, the Statue of Victory, on which Senators had
sworn to serve and obey the emperor and the laws of the empire.
Gratian, with much persuasion from Bishop Ambrose, sought to remove
the statue from the senate Symmachus, a pagan senator pleaded for
tolerance from the Christians. Symmachus argued for the right of
pagans to pass on Rome's great traditions to their children.
Tradition, he pleaded. Ambrose would have none of this talk of
tolerance and urged Gratian to carry out his plan. The Statue of
Victory was taken down. In 384 and 391, Pagans sought to restore the
statue but Bishop Ambrose prevailed again. Like so many 'true
believers' of Christian history, Ambrose believed in the forced
domination of Christianity over society 'for its own good'. Ambrose's
intolerance went so far as to speak out against any Christian marrying
a Pagan.
Deuteronomy 6:8&9:' If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son,
or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as
thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve
other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; But thou
shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him
to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.'
Gratian also got involved in this controversy and issued a decree that
confiscated Priscillianist churches and exiled Priscillian and his
followers. After the synod at Saragossa in 380 that excommunicated
Priscillianists, its enforcement fell into the hands of an impulsive
and violent man, Ithacius. The Priscillianists sought an audience with
the Pope in Rome but were denied access. They achieved no more when
trying to obtain an audience with Ambrose in Milan. Before they could
get an audience with Gratian, the Emperor was murdered in Paris.
THEODOSIUS THE GREAT
"We give orders that all these are to adopt the name 'Catholic
Christians'
A century after Constantine's Council of Nicaea, the east's Emperor
Theodosius banned all pagan worship, destroyed their temples and with
Gratian made Christianity the only acceptable religion of the empire.
By formally banning any religion other than Christianity, Europe
embarked on a long journey of religious intolerance that wouldn't be
overcome until the European Enlightenment and the American experiment.
In February of 380 Theodosius and Gratian issued their decree which
wiped out religious diversity and any religious liberty that remained:
Codex Theodosianus 16.1.2:
"It is our desire that all the various nation which are subject to our
clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that
religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle
Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now
professed by the Pontiff Damascus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria,
a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and
the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the
father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity.
We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic
Christians; but as for the others, since in out judgment they are
foolish madmen, we decree that they shall be branded with the
ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their
conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place
the chastisement of divine condemnation and the second the punishment
of our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide
to inflict."
Deuteronomy 17:3-7
And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the
sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not
commanded; And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and
enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain,
that such abomination is wrought in Israel: Then shalt thou bring
forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing,
unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with
stones, till they die.
CODEX THEODOSIANUS
Then in 381CE Theodosius made sure that if any Christian became a
Pagan he lost his rights to make a
will.
Codex Theodosianus 16.7.1: "Wills of Apostate Christians to be Set
Aside:
"The right of making a will shall be taken from Christians who become
pagans; and if such persons make wills, they shall be set aside
without regard to circumstances."
Arianism was again thriving in Constantinople. Theodosius took the
Constantine's Council of Nicaea seriously and not only banned Pagan
worship but persecuted Christians that followed the non-Trinitarian
teachings of Arius. Theodosius issued a decree in November of 380 and
all Arian churches and properties were confiscated and their meetings
were banned. Gregory of Naziaznus, a leader of the Catholic Nicene
community was given all of the churches stolen by Theodosius. The
decree stated that the Christian Doctrine of the Trinity would be the
State Religion and all of his subjects must adhere to it.
As was done to Pagan writings, the writings of Arius were hunted down
and destroyed. According to Theodosius' announcement, heretics were
demented and insane. All across the empire, the church hierarchy
thought all this intolerance was a great idea. Manicheans, who lost
their civil rights and faced death in an edict of 382, disagreed. In
this edict Theodosius also ordered the death penalty for the the
Encratites, who were considered Manicheans in disguise. Showing a
blatant disregard for any idea of equality and any fair rule of law,
Theodosius then gave the Christian clergy immunity from trial. He also
outlawed all Sunday activities of a non-religious nature. It is during
Theodosius' reign that Christmas and Easter become legal holidays.
Theodosius contrived to destroy the lives of those that found
Christianity wanting. He instituted Codex Theodosianus 16.7.2; 383CE:
"The Right to Bequeath or Inherit Property Denied Apostates": "We deny
to Christians and the faithful who have adopted pagan rites and
religion all power of making a will in favor of any person whatsoever,
in order that they may be without the Roman law; ... even of enjoying
a will with the power of acquiring an inheritance."
CODEX THEODOSIANUS 16.7.3. 383CE continued: "The Right of Making a
Will Denied Christians who enters Temples."
Edward Gibbon writes:
"A special commission was granted to Cygenius, the Praetorian prefect
of the East, and afterwards to the counts Jovius and Gaudentius, two
officers of distinguished rank in the West, by which they were
directed
to shut the temples, to seize or destroy the instruments of idolatry,
to abolish the privileges of the priests, and to confiscate the
consecrated property for the benefit of the emperor, of the church, or
of the army."
In 384CE, Cygenius, Praetorian Prefect of the east had used soldiers
and mobs of wild zealots for the destruction of Pagan temples. Richard
Fletcher notes in "The Barbarian Conversion":
"Miracles, wonders, exorcisms, temple torching and shrine smashing
were in themselves acts of evangelization.' Archeological evidence
support all this: "At the temple of Mercury of Avalon in Burgundy,
pagan statues were smashed and piled up in a heap of rubble: the coin
series at the site ends in the reign of Valentinian (364-375)"
Try, try, and try again. In the February 391, the emperor Theodosius
renewed the ban of any sacrifice, public or private and outlawed the
traditional ceremonies of State still in use in Rome. Theodosius made
an important move to eliminate all religious liberty and diversity by
prohibiting access and shutting down temples and sanctuaries:
"Nobody can approach the sacrificial altars, can walk inside the
temples or can worship images forged by human hands." A part of this
decree dealt with backsliders, who, if they became apostate, lost all
their inheritance and testamentary rights. This made it impossible for
them to pass their estate on to their relatives. After Theodosius'
decree, the state confiscated their properties and possessions.
CODEX THEODOSIANUS 16.7.4: Testamentary Disqualification for Christian
Apostates:
391CE: "Those who betray the sacred faith and profane holy baptism
are shut off from association of all and from giving testimony. ...
They may not exercise the right of making a will, nor enter upon any
inheritance; they may not be made anyone's heir."
In 391, Theodosius joined with Valentinian and issued two decrees that
outlawed rituals and worship and legitimized the closing and
destruction of Pagan Temples and shrines.
CODEX THEODOSIANUS 16.10.10: "Sacrificing and Visiting Shrines
Prohibited."
CODEX THEODOSIANUS 16.10.11: "Sacrifices Forbidden and Temples
Closed."
Evangelism already included the criminal destruction of Pagan temples
but now it was legal. Not that it had stopped zealous monks claiming a
higher law in support of their arson and destruction. Ambrose was
certainly pleased with Theodosius' legalization of the destruction of
pagan buildings and the outlawing of their beliefs. Alexandria's
bishop Teophilus began a systematic campaign of destruction of the
pagan temples.
Christians loved Theodosius' acts of intolerance and the establishment
of a state religion. Zealous mobs of 'true believers' were incited by
this and joined in to rob and destroy temples and their libraries.
Many beautiful buildings of Grecian architecture were lost along with
writings and of course, liberty.
In Alexandria Teophilis wanted to set an example. With the Prefect
Evagrius and soldiers from the garrison Teophilis started to demolish
the Temple of Serapis. Mobs of zealous Christians joined in the
destruction. Temples were soon destroyed in Petra, Areopolis, Canopus,
Heliopolis, Gaza and many other cities.
In Gaul, one of the most fanatical and most aggressive was Martin,
Bishop of Tours. Martin was confrontational and violent, disrupting
Pagan religious ceremonies and destroying their temples, shrines and
altars. Some believe that Martin, like Bishop Teophilis in Alexandria,
used the local garrisons of soldiers to do his dirty work. And after
destroying a temple, Martin would keep the land and build a church on
the pagan ruins.
In November of 392 Theodosius issued CODEX THEODOSIANUS 16.10.12 which
criminalized Paganism. This decree instituted the death penalty for
carrying out pagan practices and rituals and demanded the confiscation
of the property used in such practices. In "Theodosius: Empire at
Bay", historians Williams and Freil write:
"The decree was characterized by an absolute intransigence towards
local traditions that can be compared to the one of a dictatorial
atheistic regime which criminalized Easter eggs, the Palm, Christmas
Cards, Halloween pumpkins and even some universal habits, as a toast".
Judaism also had drawn the attention of Christian leaders, zealous
monks, and of course, "true believers". Theodosius had declared,
"Heretics were demented and insane". Paganism was punishable by death
but and now Judaism was seen as the work of the Devil. But pagans
hadn't rejected and killed Christ. Jews were increasing seen as
carnal, lustful Christ killers who didn't equate sexuality with filth.
By the end of the 4th century, torchlight meetings were full of
slogans and propaganda regarding Jews and "Jew lovers". Anti-Semitism
became a Christian duty for "true believers". Not only would pagan
temples burn; so would Jewish synagogues.
But there was a problem and it was the Roman rule of law. Under Roman
law any Jew that was a citizen was protected. Therefore it was
unlawful to burn down a Jewish Synagogue so after a certain synagogue
was burned, Theodosius required the church to pay for and rebuild that
synagogue. Bishop Ambrose would have none of this. Ambrose chastised
Theodosius and made it clear that he was threatening the church's
prestige by protecting synagogues and convinced Theodosius to let the
destruction of the synagogue stand. This led to more and more
synagogue burning across the empire. Jews in Judea saw their villages
set ablaze by "true believers". All across the empire they lost the
basic rights of their citizenship taken away. They were forbidden to
hold public office or positions of military leadership. They were not
to proselytize Christian or marry them.
Theodosius acted on many of Ambrose's views and even had the Olympic
games banned because, afterall, they were pagan. Pagans tried to
defend their rights, but Theodosius would have none of it and became
even more dangerous.
To a point, pagans had a friend in the nominally Christian Eugenius of
the western part of the empire. Talk of restoring the Statue of
Victory in the Roman senate arose again (384 & 391) and with support
from Eugenius. But again, Ambrose and Theodosius would have none of
this pagan tradition and moved against them. After showing Eugenius'
representatives with gifts and telling them his position in Rome was
secure, Theodosius made war plans. Theodosius struck Rome, killed
Eugenius and wiped out all of the remnants of religious diversity and
liberty he could find in the west.
JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
Temple and synagogue burning continued under Theodosius as Bishops and
monks incited mobs of angry mobs to attack Jews and pagans. After
Theodosius died, his sons Honorius and Arcadius divided the empire. In
the East, Arcadius became emperor as a new player came on to the
scene. John Chrysostom was vehemently anti-Semitic, lectured crowds of
Christians, incited hatred and violence, saying where Jews gathered,
"there the cross was ridiculed" and "the grace of spirit rejected"
In Antioch, Chrysostom delivered his homilies against the Jews. These
can be read at: http://www.forham.edu/halsall/source/chrystostom-jews6.html
In describing the Jews and especially the religion of Judaism,
Chrysostom used loaded terms such as ignoramuses, impious, wretches,
dogs, Jewish wolves, bull-headed, brutes, and wild beasts. They have
driven Christ away. Their synagogues are dens of brigands, the abode
of Satan. They have crucified Christ and their souls are the abode of
the devil. The "Jewish disease" must be guarded against. Jews are
thieves, impure, debauchers, rapacious, misers, crafty, oppressors of
the poor. ‘Israel is dispersed because they murdered Christ'. Jews
call the cross an abomination and their religion is null and useless
to those who know the true faith.
These are harbingers of things to come for one of Hitler's influences
was Martin Luther's "The Jews and their Lies". Luther also published
an 'Epitome' and used the same kind of language about the Curia of the
Roman Church "the Synagogue of Satan". The Pope was "the Devil
Incarnate".
393…Pythian Games, Aktia Games and the Olympic games banned as part of
the Christian attack on Hellenic pagan idolatry. Christians then
sacked the Temples of Olympia..
ARCADIUS – (Ruled 395-408)
395-399
…Continued the anti-pagan religious intolerance of his father,
Theodosius I
…Closed Pagan Temples in Gaza
…Enacted comprehensive laws against heretics and pagans
395: Edicts of 22-July and 7-August: More laws legalizing persecutions
against pagans are issued. Arcadius' Prime Minister, Rufinus, directs
hordes of Baptized Goths under the direction of Christian monks to set
fire to cities with pagan worship at the center of their religious
life. Dion, Delphi, Megara, Corinth, Argos, Nemea, Lycosoura, Sparta,
Messene, Phigaleia, Olympia and others. Thousands of Hellenes were
murdered or made slaves. The Temples were burned down, as was the
Eleusinian Sanctuary. Its Hierophant of Mithras, Hilarius, and the
priests were burned alive.
396: Edict of 7-December: Arcadius orders that paganism be treated as
high treason. The remaining Hierophants and priests that he could
round up were imprisoned.
397: Arcadius orders all pagan temples still standing to be demolished
398: 4th Council of Carthage bans everyone, including Christian
Bishops, from reading pagan books. Porphyrius, Bishop of Gaza, under
the orders of Arcadius then orders all but 9 pagan temples destroyed.
..
399: Edict of 13-July: Arcadius orders pagan temples still standing,
to be demolished immediately. Bishop Nicetas then proceeds in 400 to
destroy the Oracle of Dionysus in Vesai and forcibly baptizes all the
non-Christians in the area. Acting under the same edict, Pophyrius
had the last nine pagan temples destroyed in Gaza. In Carthage, by
401, Christian mobs had gone about lynching non-Christians and
destroying their pagan temples and idols.
401: The 15th Council of Chalcedon orders excommunication far all
those Christians that keep good relations with their non-Christian
relatives EVEN AFTER THEIR DEATH~!
404-408
Laws against Judaism, Heresy and Pagans.
407: Edict outlaws all non-Christian acts of worship.
408: Arcadius and his brother in the western Empire order all
sculptures in pagan temples be confiscated. Private ownership of
pagan sculpture is also outlawed. Local Bishops step up their
persecutions of pagans and organize mass book burnings.
AUGUSTINE AND HONORIUS (395-423)
The Church historian FW Farrar was correct when he wrote:
"Augustine must bear the fatal charge of being the first as well as
one of the ablest defenders of the frightful cause of persecution and
intolerance. He was the first to misuse the words Compel Them To Come
In - a fragmentary phrase wholly unsuited to bear the weight of horror
for which it was made responsible. He was the first and ablest
asserter of the principle that led to the Albigensian crusades,
Spanish armadas, Netherlands' butcheries, St Bartholomew massacres,
the accursed infamies of the Inquisition, the vile espionage, the
hideous balefires of Seville and Smithfield, the racks, the gibbets,
the thumbscrews, the subterranean torture-chambers used by churchly
torturers who assumed 'the garb and language of priests with the trade
and temper of executioners,' to sicken, crush and horrify the Revolted
Conscience Of Mankind .... It is mainly because of his later
intolerance that the influence of Augustine falls like a dark shadow
across the centuries. It is thus that an Arnold of Citeaux, a
Torquemada, a Sprenger, an Alva, a Philip The Second, a Mary Tudor, a
Charles IX and a Louis XIV can look up to him as an authorizer of
their enormities, and quote his sentences to defend some of the vilest
crimes which ever caused men to look with horror on the religion of
Christ and the Church of God."
Others like historians Verduin and Pearse believed that much of the
Reformation's intolerance and persecution were based not only in the
religious intolerance of scriptures, but in Augustine's ruthless
approach to heresy and nonconformity. Augustine believed in total
uniformity of opinion and fought all religious diversity as heresy.
With that belief accompanied the conviction that persecution was a
duty of ‘true believers'. By using force, religious diversity was
eliminated in the name of the truth. Augustine considered any ideas
that differed from the fundamentals of Christianity he outlined as
dangerous to society and the road to hell. In the early years as
Bishop of Hippo, he first combated Pantheism which held that God was
everywhere and in everything; that God was Nature and Nature was God.
A thousand years later, Bruno the astronomer would be put to the stake
for that same kind of dissenting belief. After that Augustine fought
and promoted the persecution of Donatists, Manicheans and Arians.
The Donatists were a Christian sect with very strict standards for
church membership. In many places in North Africa, Donatists
outnumbered Nicene and Arian Christians. They had their own
congregations, societies and church hierarchy. Augustine and the
Donatists conflicted over how sacraments were to be administered and
they differed on how those that renounced Christianity during
persecutions could re-enter a church. The Donatists refuse to allow
anyone who committed what they considered a mortal sin any readmission
to the church either. Regardless of this sect's genuine religious
fervor, it was heresy to Augustine and heresy had to be stamped out by
whatever means necessary. Since most religious and secular leaders of
the times believed people were unable to govern themselves or open
their eyes to the truth, Augustine led the way to instituting a
persecution against the Donatists. With the state joining in, we once
again see the tyranny and religious intolerance of church and state
unions.
In 405, with Augustine leading the drive to destroy Donatism, Honorius
reinstated the older laws put in place by the Pagan Emperors Decius
and Diocletian in 303. Diocletian ordered their churches to be
destroyed, their books burned, and their religion outlawed. The next
year, in his fourth edict, Diocletian ordered all to offer incense to
idols under penalty of capital punishment. The persecution is said to
have been horrible. With Honorius' edict, they could not meet for any
worship or religious fellowship as it was declared a capital offense.
Donatists lost the right to hold public office nor own private
property nor pass it on to their children or spouses. Like so many
‘undesirables' since Constantine's support of Nicene Christianity,
Donatists lost their testamentary rights.
Honorius wasn't just concerned with the Donatist heresy and acted
against Montanists in 404 with a decree that was so harsh it forced
Montanists to convert to Catholicism out of fear. Then in 407 he
persecuted Manicheans, Montanists and Priscillianists with the
draconian Codex Theodosianus 16:5, 40 in 407. At the same time Pope
Innocent I confiscated many churches of Novatians in Rome as would
Cyril in Alexandria.
With the Visigoths threatening Italy, the persecution of Donatists
subsided for a while but not for long. In 412 Honorius issued more
laws against Donatists. This edict went beyond condemning the belief
system by adding laws meting out harsh fines for the Donatist clergy,
laity and wives. These fines were to be paid in varying amounts of
Gold or Silver and depended on the station of that person within the
Donatist community.
In 414, the Emperors of both the eat and the west declared in Codex
Theodosianus 16:5,54 to Julianus, Proconsul of Africa:
"We decree that the Donatists and the heretics, who until now have
been spared by the patience of Our Clemency, shall be severely
punished by legal authority, so that by this Our manifest order, they
shall recognize that they are intestable and have no power of entering
into contracts of any kind, but they shall be branded with perpetual
infamy and separated from honorable gatherings and from public
assemblies. Those places in which the dire superstition has been
preserved until now shall surely be joined to the venerable Catholic
Church, and thus their bishops and priests, that is, all their
prelates and ministers shall likewise be despoiled of all their
property and shall be sent into exile to separate islands and
provinces...."
Over the years, because Donatists were extremely puritanical and
zealous, many committed suicide rather than give up and convert. In
these times's Augustine, Cyril and Ambrose had done their best to
forcibly wipe out heresies and paganism. Augustine and Cyril joined
Christian Emperors in advocating pain and persecution against any
dissension in the Empire. Simultaneously, throughout Britain and
Gaul, Martin of Tours was following suit by destroying the temples,
shrines and libraries of pagans, stealing the property, and rebuilding
churches on their ruins.
In 416 a synod in Carthage met to deal with the heresy of Pelagianism
and condemned it. Pelagians were heretical Christians that denied the
doctrines of original sin and ‘Christian grace" A synod of Numidian
bishops met in Mileve and also rejected it. Both synods reported
their findings to the Pope and asked for confirmation.
In the Pelagian controversy, Augustine was also involved. Augustine
had written major works on these two doctrines and intended to make
sure that any opposition was crushed. Immediately after the synods,
Augustine and our other African Bishops sent a letter urging the Pope
to condemn Pelagitis and his teachings. Innocent died before the
letter arrived. The next Pope, Zosimus hesitated to affirm the
condemnation and several letters were exchanged. The May 418 letter
from the African bishops combined with the steps Honorius took against
the Pelagians, Zosimus was won over and issued his condemnation in his
‘Tractoria' which defended the dogma and truth of the Nicene Creed and
Holy Catholic Zosimus also became involved with the controversy
surrounding the heresy of Priscillianism. In 380 a synod at
Saragossa, bishops had passed the sentence of excommunication against
four Priscillianist bishops, one of which was Priscillian
THEODOSIUS II (408-451)
409: Edict orders all methods of divination including Astrology a
capital offense.
423: Theodosius II Edict declares that paganism is demon worship and
orders all who continue to practice pagan rituals and worship face
imprisonment and torture.
429: Temple of Goddess of Athena is sacked.
431: Council of Ephesus condemns Nestorianism and………………
435: 14th-November Edict orders death penalty for all heretics and
pagans of the Empire.
438: 31-January, Edict Incriminates pagans as the reason for a recent
plague.
440: Christians begin 10 year rampage of demolishing monuments, altars
and temples of Athens, Olympia and other Greek cities
448: Orders all non-Christian books to be burned.
450: All the Temples of Aphrodisias and all its libraries are burned
down.
451: Council of Chalcedon condemns the Monophysite heresy which was in
disagreement with the Christology of the Nicene Creed.
451: Edict: 4-November, emphasizes that idolatry is punishable by
death.
When his father Arcadius died; Theodosius II became the emperor of the
east. But only in name. Theodosius was an adolescent under the control
of his older sister, Pulcheria. Since both of their parents were dead,
the responsibility for everything from education to choosing his
marriage partner fell on the shoulders of the oldest sibling.
Pulcheria was a unique young woman who easily sought and obtained
power. In 414, at the age of 17 she had herself named Augusta.
Edward Gibbon writes: "she alone, among all the descendants of the
great Theodosius (I), appears to have inherited any share of his manly
spirit and abilities." In Theodosius' name she passed laws that
persecuted heretics, Jews and pagans. Pulcheria was orthodox Christian
to the extreme and her government reflected this extremism. Pledging
perpetual virginity, she kept her vow even after marrying Marcius, the
next emperor of the east.
In 415, Codex Theodosianus 16:8:22 was issued in Theodosius' authority
which banned the building of new synagogues and ordered the
destruction of existing ones in areas with weak defenses. That same
year, Codex Theodosianus 16:10:21 which made pagans unable to
participate and serve in government or the military. Bu 416, all
non-Christian army officers, public employees and members of the
judiciary were dismissed. These laws would have a ruthless effect on
the direction of the next century and the condition of the empire's
'undesirables'; Jews, pagans and heretics.
Under Theodosius II, or should I say Pulcheria's regency, Cyril became
Bishop of Alexandria in 412, but nor before his supporters and the
supporters of his rival Timotheus rioted and fought in the streets.
Cyril was to continue the barbaric persecutions of the past against
Jews, heretics and pagans. The same kind of persecution that
Christians experienced under Decius and Diocletian. Again, we see the
persecuted become the persecutors, the lesson of history gone
unlearned by all.
Cyril was a passionate, impulsive and intolerant man. A man of
ruthlessness and violence in his quest to destroy any opposition to
Christianity. In the words of Schaff's History of the Christian
Church, "Cyril of Alexandria makes an extremely unpleasant
impression."
In order to force Christianity upon the world all opposition would
have to be crushed and silenced. In Alexandria, Cyril received
permission from Pulcheria and Theodosius to destroy all the pagan
temples. Cyril even went even as far as destroying the monasteries of
those monks that disagreed with him.
He had hardly taken office when he took aim at the heretical Novatian
Christians, plundering and confiscating their churches. Novatians had
also been persecuted by the ruthless Decius; the deeply religious,
traditionalist pagan emperor Diocletian, and then the Arian Christian,
Flavius Valens. Valens had also persecuted other Christians from
about 369 until the end of his reign at his death in 378. In an
example of the persecuted becoming the persecutors, which appears to
be a Biblically founded prime directive in Christian history, Valens
had persecuted Trinitarian, Nicene Christians (eastern Catholics)
just as they had persecuted Arians. In 370 a group of Catholic leaders
and their attendants came to plead to Valens for religious freedom.
The emperor put them on a ship sailing to the coast of Bithynia
(modern-day NW Turkey) and when the ship approached the coast, the
crew, acting on Valens' orders, set the ship ablaze which claimed the
80 lives on board. And in the manner of almost all the Christian
Emperors, Valens persecuted the pagans. Throughout all this, one must
wonder why the persecuted become the persecutors in so many instances
in history after seeing the historical record. History teaches, people
ignore; time and time again. Zealotry wins; tolerance and reason lose
century after century. What Cyril was doing to the Novatian
Christians and their churches wasn't new. Actions against Novatians
had 160 years of persecutions behind them, going back to Decius' edict
in 250 and Diocletian's persecutions. Persecution of Novatians wasn't
limited to Roman Emperors. Cornelius, who became Pope in 251 had
written to Fabius of Antioch and claimed that Novatia was possessed by
Satan.
IN 415 Cyril took aim at the Synagogues with armed mobs. Many Jews
were murdered, most were driven from the city and their properties
were left for confiscation by the Church or destruction by the mobs.
All this had Pulcheria's stamp of approval on it. Cyril's mobs of
hermits, monks and "true believers" plundered synagogues burned down
libraries and massacred the Jews and pagans they met on the way. All
this angered the Prefect Orestes who considered Cyril as usurping his
secular authority.. Mob violence and riots seemed to be a way of life
in Alexandria's religious communities at this time. In one riot
organized by Cyril to address Oestes, 500 zealous monks descended upon
the city to aid Cyril. In an ironic example of the atmosphere of the
times, a monk named Ammonius hit Prefect Orestes on the head with a
rock. The prefect executed the monk while Cyril celebrated his
martyrdom.
In a stunning example of this madness, Cyril's mob of fanatics
attacked the celebrated woman, Hypatia. Hypatia was a Neo-Platonist, a
teacher of philosophy and a mathematician. To Cyril, Hypatia was a
pagan and was under the influence of the Devil. Her rare
accomplishments for the times and her prestige made her a perfect
target for Cyril's hatred. And being a brilliant woman with leadership
skills only made it worse because this woman certainly didn't know her
place in a Christian world. In 415, one of Cyril's wild mobs, under
the leadership of Peter, the reader of his Church, murdered Hypatia.
They dragged her from her chariot, stripped her flesh from her bones
with sharpened Abalone shells while she was alive, carried around
pieces of her body through the streets and then threw her body into a
fire. No one was punished for her murder. In that same year
Theodosius II supported Cyril by ordering the expulsion of any
remaining Jews from Alexandria. That's same year new persecutions
started again against pagan priests in Augustine's territory of North
Africa.
Is it any wonder that historian W. Franz Walch writes of Cyril on page
932 of his exhaustive Ketzerhistorie, "Can a man read such a character
without a shudder? And yet nothing is fabricated here, nothing
overdrawn, nothing is done but to collect what is scattered in
history. And what is worst: I find nothing at all that can be said in
his praise".
CYRIL AND THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS
From around 428 until his death in 444, Cyril's life was zealously
involved in Christological debates, that is, the differing views as to
the nature of Christ. Was he man; was he divine; was he both, did he
have a soul? Cyril's main target was the Nestorians. Nestorius was a
disciple of the school at Antioch. His Christology stood in
opposition to that of the Arians, another condemned Christological
heresy..
Because of the Christological disputes, that is, diputes over the
nature of Christ, many types of Council were convened over the early
centuries. Constantine's Council of Nicea was convened in order to
mainly address Arian Christianity. In 431, The Council of Ephesus was
organized in order to deal with the Nestorian controversy, which
posited that Christ was composed of two natures; one divine and one
human. Nestorius not only rejected the Trinitarian Nicene Creed, he
rejected the growing Mother of God movement. It also addressed the
remants of Pelagianism which was still a problem in Britain and Gaul.
It was no longer a problem in the Eastern Church. Pelagianism posited
that even if Adam hadn't sinned, he would have still died; that Adam's
sin had no consequence for humanity, just himself; that children are
born in the same state as Adam was in before his fall; that humanity
neither dies by the first Adam or is resurrected in the Christ; that
the Mosaic Law was just as good a path to heaven as the Gospels.
Pulcheria was a devout Nicene Christian but it wasn't Nestorius'
anti-Nicene doctrines of Antiochian Incarnation that troubled her the
most. It was his opposition to the increasing importance in the
church of the Mother of God movement, which he preached eloquently
against. In 428 Theodosius had consecrated Nestorius as the Bishop of
Constantinople. In quick order, Nestorius presented his zeal against
heretics. Within a week of his consecration, Nestorius had an Arian
church destroyed. And within a month, he persuaded Theodosius (II) to
issue a harsh edict addressing heretics. Codex Theodosianus …. He had
the churches of the Macedonians in the Hellespont seized and he took
action against the Qrartodecimans. Like Cyril, Nestorius also
attacked the Novatians. Unfamiliar with the disposition of the
persecution of Pelagians in the west, Nestorius overlooked the
Pelagian refugees that had moved into the east. He inquired regarding
the Pelagians in a letter to Pope Celestine but was afforded no reply.
Lucky for them.
By early 429, Nestorius began his attacks on the Mother of God
movement. Cyril was mad about Mary so one can imagine how he took
this development. In one of Pulcheria took notice and then took
action with the help of the ruthless Cyril. Pulcheria organized the
opposition within Constantinople's clergy, who was not warm towards
the stranger from. Nestorius wanted a council assembled to hear him
out. Pope Celestine condemned the doctrines, delivering the sentence
through Cyril of Alexandria. At the Council, Cyril bordered on
idolatry when he eulogized Mary: "Blessed be thou, O Mother of God!
Thou rich treasure of the world, inextinguishable lamp, crown of
virginity, scepter of true doctrine, imperishable temple, habitation
of him whom no space can contain, mother and virgin through whom He
is, who comes in the name of the Lord. Blessed be thou, O Mary, who
didst hold in thy womb the infinite one, thou through whom the blessed
Trinity is glorified and worshipped, through whom the precious cross
is adored throughout the world, through whom heaven rejoices and
angels and archangels are glad, through whom the devil is disarmed and
banished, through whom the fallen creature is restored to heaven,
through whom every believing soul is saved".
Nestorius didn't stand a chance. The council condemned Nestorianism.
The emperor took quite a while to act but finally ratified the
decision, followed a confirmation from Pope Sixtus III, Celestine's
successor. The Nicene Creed was upheld, Cyril's Christology was
victorious, Nestorianism was declared a heresy and Nestorius was
deposed then exiled.
THE CODEX
Under Theodosius II, the first great organized body of laws was
published. This is when the Codex Theodosianus was organized from
laws and Imperial Decrees since Constantine. In 429, Theodosius set up
a commission to look all the laws, edicts and constitutions from the
late third century onward and organized them into a consistent and
cohesive system. Both the eastern and western empires had published a
large number of laws and he sought to organize them, eliminating both
the contradictory and unworkable ones outright. In this way the
ancient Roman Rule of law was organized into a consistent whole that
would work for both the east and the west, while instituting the
repressive and intolerant Christian laws passed by the Emperors. In
435, it was completed but not yet to be published. Then a new
commission was appointed, headed up by the lawyer Antiochus Chuzon,
which would refine the language and create articles which would enable
its future expansion. In 438, the Codex Theodosianus with all of its
religious intolerance, totalitarianism and attacks on human rights,
was published and presented to the Senates of Rome and Constantinople
where it was received enthusiastically. Immediately afterward, to
make sure that the Codex was expandable, Theodosius issued several
supplementary laws called 'Novellas', such as Novella 5:2:1 in 439 and
Novella 17:2:3 in 444.
VALENTINIAN III
After Honorius died, Valentinian III ruled the west from 425 to 455
while Theodosius II ruled the east from 408 to 450. After John the
usurper was deposed by a military force sent by Theodosius in 425,
after 2 years of rule, Theodosius placed his cousin Valentinian on the
throne. Like Theodosius, while he was in his youth there was a regent
who actually ruled. In this case it was his mother until around 433
when Valentinian's General, Aetius, held most of the power. How he
obtained this power is interesting and gives us an example of the
intrigue of those days. Aetius was one of John's generals. After
John was deposed and executed, Aetius arrived with an army of Huns.
Rather than fight, Valentinian, or should I say his mother, bought the
Huns off and Aetius became Valentinian's chief general (In 454,
Valentinian finally had him assassinated.)
Valentinian was a weak ruler but strongly supported the Papacy and his
edicts reflected this. In the reign of Pope Sixtus III, Valentinian
presented the Pope with gifts of 2000 pounds of silver for building a
tabernacle at the Lateran Basilica and a Gold ornament representing
Christ and his Apostles for the Confessio of Saint Peter. Like most of
the Christian Emperors, Valentinian was no stranger to initiating
religious persecutions. In 426 he issued an edict that Jews were
forbidden to disinherit their children who became Christians.
Valentinian was also ruthless towards the Manicheans. In 445 he
declared them guilty of sacrilege, prohibited them from living in the
cities and banned them from civil service. After consulting with
Leo in 450, it was Valentinian that called for and initiated the
process to bring about the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON
This council was organized to combat the Monophysite heresy of
Eutyches, and Dioscurus, the Patriarch of Alexandria.
LATER, IN BRITAIN & GAUL
After the conversion of Edwin of Northumbra (584-633) by Paulinus, the
8th century scholar Alcuin, wrote of Edwin in his poem, that "by gifts
and threats he incited men to cherish the faith". Edwin accompanied
Paulinus in his preaching and his success may be due to Edwin's
issuing of laws, as did Ethelbert and Clovis, requiring peasants to
convert to Christianity. The English historian Bede tells us that
Royal authority helped to diffuse Christianity in King Ethelbert's 7th
centurty kingdom of Trent and the surrounding areas. Here we see
church and state operating as a team to convert the people and
discourage, even persecute other religious beliefs.
Some say Ethelbert wasn't forceful but intentionally showed greater
favor to converts of Christianity. But Bede claims that many of
Ethelbert's subjects converted due to fear or the need of the king's
favors. Ethelbert made laws, as did so many of Christian history's
religious dictators that "persuaded" his subjects to convert to
Christianity.
z
Two centuries after the death of Saint Martin, the cult of Martin was
still alive and well, seeking to destroy temples and persecute other
religions. Martin had considered it his evangelical duty to destroy
Pagan temples, altars, shrines and writings, and then to erect
churches on the ruins of the stolen property. At this point, two
centuries later, Gregory of Tours (539-594) fanned the fires of the
Cult of St Martin's zealotry and religious intolerance. Gregory
inspired Amandus of Tours (7thC) to devote his life to forcing
Christianity upon the farmers of the region. Amandus formed an
association with Dagobert and religious intolerance joined hands with
secular imperialism, something that would last until the European
Enlightenment. Again we see church-state unions to insinuate
Christianity upon the peasants and farmers.
Baudemundus notes that "Amandus went to Acharius, then the Bishop of
Noyon, and humbly asked him to go as soon as possible to King Dagobert
and obtain letters from him stating that if anyone did not freely
choose to be reborn by the waters of baptism, he should be forced by
the King to receive this sacrament." Amandus' was ready to forced
conversions and Dagobert provided the forces required to make that
coercion successful.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, at the age of 70, Amandus went
to the Basque region, where he was previously less than entirely
successful and was finally able to entirely banish Paganism from the
region. Knowing that Amandus was a zealot of the Cult of St Martin, we
can fairly guess that this so-called banishment was actually
temple-burning, shrine destruction and religious persecution.
Pope Gregory the Great (540-604) is well known for his attempts to
Christianize England. He used the landed and told them to build
churches and to stamp out other religious beliefs other than
Christianity. Fitting to the pattern of subversive and coercive
evangelical strategy of Constantine and Theodosius, Gregory told the
landed to raise the peasantry's rent if necessary to persuade peasants
to convert.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: Are Christians historically tolerant |
04 Oct 2003 11:36:12 PM |
|
|
"Thales" <Thales_Anaximander@msn.com> wrote in message
news:528e05a5.0310041708.48e910bd@posting.google.com...
More so than the atheists and secular humanists.
http://www.biblicaltheism.com/secularface.htm
THE SECULAR FACE OF HUMANISM
Robert L. Waggoner[1]
The word humanism is often preceded by the term secular. In order to
understand secular humanism, the word "secular" needs to be understood. The
word comes from the Latin saeculum which means time, or age. Secular is that
which pertains to this world, temporal, related to, or connected with
worldly things.
To designate an individual as a secularist means that "he is completely
time-bound, totally a child of his age, a creature of history with no vision
of eternity. Unable to see anything in the perspective of eternity, he
cannot believe God exists or acts in human affairs. Moral standards, for
example, tend to be merely those commonly accepted by the society in which
he lives, and he believes that everything changes, so that there are no
enduring or permanent values."[2]
The basis of secularism is the autonomy (that is, the self-rule) of the
individual. "Autonomy asserts the essential non-religiousness of all
structures of life. The age of the world is to be understood completely on
its own basis. Nothing unconditional is encountered through culture or
through human reason. If religion emerges, it is only the glorification of
one of the facets of life - of reason, of the vitalities, of aesthetics, or
of the state. Thus secularism centers on the world and seeks to make life
meaningful completely apart from God, from the source of life, or from
anything unconditional."[3]
In secularism, a person's reasoning becomes the supreme standard by which
that person is guided. Having faith in one's own reason, one believes in one
's inevitable progress. An individual thinks science sufficient to guide him
or her toward all truth. Human beings also think themselves self-sufficient,
independent, and at the center of all things because they are the final
species in the evolutionary process.[4]
The Alliance Of Secularism To Humanism
Philosophically, secularism has much in common with humanism. Both reject
the existence, relevancy and sovereignty of God. Both reject all concepts
regarding the existence of other world-beings such as demons or angels
because these creatures are not of this world and their existence cannot be
scientifically verified. Both secularism and humanism reject the notion that
human beings have souls or spirits, that they must some day give an account
of their earthly conduct to a supernatural being, and that after this life
is over, all people will spend eternity in either heaven or hell.
Moreover, since both secularists and humanists deny the reality of human
life beyond this present earthly existence, then both must also reject the
validity of divine revelation and divine moral codes for human conduct.
Secularists and humanists think that people are deluded who believe in the
existence of God and the divine inspiration of the Bible. They think such
beliefs are harmful because such beliefs give rise to false hopes and hinder
realistic coping with typical circumstances of life.
Since secularists and humanists believe that people and their circumstances
are in no way related to a Supreme Being, then reason is, for secularists
and humanists, all that is available for people to use in finding solutions
to human problems. The use of divine revelation to find answers to life's
problems is considered foolish by secularists and humanists.
The Christian, on the other hand, believes that it is the secularists and
humanists who are being foolish. To the Corinthians, the Apostle Paul wrote
"let no one deceive you. If anyone among you seems to be wise in this age,
let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world
is foolishness with God" (1 Corinthians 3:18-19). Paul had previously asked,
"Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of
this world?" (1 Corinthians 1:20).
The Nature Of A Secular Society
Since secularists know nothing of the majesty and transcendence of a
sovereign God who rules over the universe, then, for them, a society which
becomes secular, for all practical purposes, attaches little, if any,
importance to religion. Through reason and proper techniques, the human mind
is considered capable of understanding and controlling all it encounters.
When problems arise, they are then considered solvable without appeal to
religious ideals or values. Moreover, in a secular society, the religious
consciousness of individuals is greatly diminished. The sense of a
Transcendent Being is lacking. Religion then becomes extremely limited to a
very narrow sphere of life.
It is now common practice to use the word secular to designate things
considered not spiritual or sacred, things considered not devoted to sacred
or religious use, or things considered dissociated from religious teachings
or principles. However, this practice of distinguishing between what is
considered to be secular from what is considered to be sacred is a
comparatively modern social phenomenon, unknown in ancient human history.
The practice originated with the advance of industrialization and modern
technology and was aided considerably by influences from the Enlightenment.
The term secularization originally designated the removal of land from
ecclesiastical control in sixteenth-century Germany.[5] In time, the term
secular came to be applied to other things also separated from religion. In
our culture, nearly all things may now be distinguished by categorizing them
incorrectly as either religious or secular.
The modern concept of the secular implies that there are some areas of human
life and activity that may legitimately be separated from religion. These
areas are now generally presumed to include civil governments, politics,
education, industry, science, medicine, journalism, business,
transportation, commerce, entertainment, law, economics, ethics, foreign
affairs, environmental issues, etc. As the process of secularization
continues more and more areas of life will come to be considered secular
while the realm of the religious or sacred will become much more restricted.
The idea of the secular, as contrasted to things sacred or holy, however, is
NOT a biblical concept. The practice of contrasting secular things to holy
things NEVER appears in the Bible. It is true that in scripture things
temporal are contrasted to eternal things (Mark 10:30; 2 Corinthians 4:18),
things fleshly are contrasted to spiritual things (Romans 8:1-9; Galatians
3:3; 4:29; 5:16-26), and things evil are contrasted to good things (John
5:29; Romans 7:19-21; 13:3-4; 16:19; I Corinthians 15:33; I Peter 3:11).
However, in scripture, things which are contrasted to holy things are said
to be profane, not secular (Leviticus 21:6; 22:2, 32; Malachi 2:11).
Secularists often argue that religious people should confine their religion
to matters of worship and attending to the spiritual needs of individuals in
their private lives. Since they think religion is a private matter, they
contend that religion should have nothing to do with public life. Hence,
preachers and other religious leaders are not generally welcomed in those
areas of life most people now consider secular. The Bible, however, knows no
area of life that should be separated from religious principles. The Bible
declares, "Whatever you do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord
Jesus..." (Colossians 3:17).
The Secularization Of America
Secularization of the entire culture in the United States has not yet been
fully accomplished, but the process is well underway, and accelerating
rapidly. "Superficially . . . the United States manifest a high degree of
religious activity. And yet, on this evidence, no one is prepared to suggest
that America is other than a secularized country. By all sorts of other
indicators it may be argued that the United States is a country in which
instrumental values, rational procedures and technical methods have gone
furthest, and the country in which the sense of the sacred, the sense of the
sanctity of life, and deep religiosity are most conspicuously absent. The
travelers of the past who commented on the apparent extensiveness of Church
membership, rarely omitted to say that they found religion in America to be
very superficial. Sociologists generally hold that the dominant values of
American society are not religious."[6]
Although we Americans generally claim to be a very religious people, our
practices do not seem to be consistent with our claims. When people were
asked, shortly after World War II, "would you say your religious beliefs
have any effect on your ideas of politics and business?, a majority of the
same Americans who had testified that they regarded religion as something
very important answered that their religious beliefs had no real effect on
their ideas or conduct in these decisive areas of everyday life;
specifically, 54 percent said no, 39 percent said yes, and 7 percent refused
to reply or didn't know. This disconcerting confession of the irrelevance of
religion to business and politics was attributed by those who appraised the
results of the survey as pointing to a calamitous divorce between the
private and public realms in the religious thinking of Americans."[7] Since
that finding, the secularization process has greatly accelerated. The last
forty years have been a time of unprecedented growth in the secularization
of America.
Factors Producing Secularization In America
In the last two hundred years, many factors have contributed to the
secularization of this nation. The rapid advance of scientific technology
along with the industrial revolution has produced a strong this-worldly
outlook.[8] Population mobility, created by World Wars, especially World War
II, has hastened the secularization process.[9] Prosperity after World War
II has made most Americans think of themselves as independent from and
without need for God.[10] While these and other forces have contributed to
the secularization process, three things especially have contributed to its
acceleration within the last forty years - mass media, public education and
judicial activism.
Mass Media
Of these three, mass media may well have been the most significant. Rock
music, especially under the influence of Elvis Presley, was the catalyst
that heralded the immoral revolution in American values. If rock-n-roll
music was the catalyst, then television was the chief disseminator of
secular ideals. The influence of television in secularizing America would
probably be almost impossible to over estimate. "When providing viewers with
fictional images of what life is like, television rarely adverts to the fact
that, for a great majority of Americans, religious belief is an integral
part of their lives. Religiously motivated characters [on TV] are likely to
be neurotics for whom religion is a form of sickness. Rarely are sympathetic
characters presented whose lives are strengthened by prayer . . . "[11]
The bias of television producers against the Christian religion is not just
simply to avoid a proper portrayal of Christianity. Rather, "the censorship
against Christians by network television is so complete that not one
continuing series set in a modern-day setting has a single person who is
identified as a Christian! In fact, when Christians are depicted in programs
with modern-day settings, they nearly always are stereotyped as being
hypocrites, liars, cheats, frauds, unfaithful in their marriage vows, etc."
[12]
Newspapers also now distort reality. They tend to give headlines and opening
paragraphs of news articles to secularize while they relegate religious
viewpoints in minimal space towards the end of articles. In general, mass
media tends to focus on religion primarily when it generates controversy and
can be understood in secular terms.
Public Education
Less noticeable than mass media to the general public, but still extremely
significant, has been a public education system that, since World War II,
has been effectively divorced from religion. "From age five to age eighteen
American children spend a majority of their waking hours, nine months of the
year, in classrooms. Many then choose to continue their education into
college and graduate school. To a considerable extent the entire function of
education has been taken from the family and given to the schools. If,
during that considerable time, children and young people hear no mention of
God, no suggestion that religion may have something important to say about
the state of the universe, if they sense that teachers go to elaborate
lengths to avoid religious subjects in the classroom, they inevitably draw
certain conclusions - that religion is not true or relevant, possibly that
it is something not altogether wholesome."[13] "The public schools have been
a major force in the creation of a secularized society, because they have
instilled in generations of students the impression that religion is a
purely private matter which has no place in public life."[14]
Educational lead | | | | |
