There has been a lot of talk about the usefulness of a religious fabric for the stability of states and nations. However, since the renaissance in Europe most modern states/nations have been developing constitutional governments that tend to marginalise the roles of the clerics and ecclesiastical authorities. Happily, gone are the days when the Vatican held overwhelming sway over civil life in most of the world. Also gone are the following;

The Inquisition
Burning of witches
Summary executions for blasphemy
Burning of books
Slavery
Censorship of thought and science

These clerical acts essentially usher in the Dark Ages in Europe. Today we are all free from these crimes, in large part thanks to the Enlightenment philosophers (Diderot, David Hume, Voltaire, Paine, Spinoza, etc).

For most of the past 2000 years, the majority of the world populations stagnated in poverty, diseases, illiteracy, subjugation, fiefdom, slavery - all in plain sight the clerical authorities.

The past 200 years have seen tremendous leaps in science and technologies, philosophies and a better understanding of the human conditions. The causes of diseases are better understood now thanks to the development of the germ theory of disease; it is no longer believed that natural disasters were caused by the wraths of god on his sinful children; the origin of diversity of life is better understand; the majesty of the cosmos is better appreciated; human longevity has almost doubled.

So in the light of these advances, who would want a backward march back into the days of clerical hegemony? Apparently there are voices around calling for just this. My questions to them are these;

1. If you were involved in founding a state/nation from scratch, which of the clerical traditions (christian, i-slam, hindu, animist etc) would you adopt and why?

2. Would any of the tenets of these traditions be enshrined into the constitution?

3. Can anyone name a golden age of any of the religious traditions - a period that enjoyed the kinds of freedoms, liberties and advances of the modern world?


4. Can anyone name something for which science provided a good explanation, but that scientific explanation has now become untenable and has been replace by a clerical explanation?

5. As a corollary to 4, can anyone name something for which the good explanation was once religious, but that has now been superseded by a better scientific explanation?


In some religious quarters today, we are hearing calls for a return to the dark old days of yore. For instance, the Vatican is advocating the banning of the use of condoms (even in marriages) as a means of contraception and disease control. Apparently, the devastating consequences of AIDS has not registered in the Vatican yet. Some other religious bodies are also calling for a stop to stem-cell research and many other important bio-genetic researches. So are we yet again on the verge of a relapse into the Dark Ages if these religious voices become loud enough?


PS.

It is usually claimed by the uninformed that the USA was founded on Christian principles. Nothing could be further from the truth. The TREATY OF TRIPOLI clearly states that the USA was NOT founded on Christian principles;

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Source: http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

=====================================================================================================

Some of my other threads


The Dangers Of Religious Fundamentalism To Intellectualism
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=110955.msg1929006#msg1929006

Only For Those Who Know Their Bibles And Some History: Who Was Jesus?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112697.msg1954632#msg1954632

Only For Those Who Know Their Bibles: Old Testament Stories
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112679.msg1954426#msg1954426

Human Sacrifice In The Bible: Lev 27: 29 & Judges 11
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112584.msg1953340#msg1953340

Please, Please, Please: Christians - Read Read Read Your Bibles
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112578.msg1953311#msg1953311

When Was Jesus Crucified?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112557.msg1952665#msg1952665

On Conversion To A Religion (christianity Or I-slam)
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112547.msg1952353#msg1952353

Faith-healers And Tele-evangelists
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112398.msg1950528#msg1950528

Where Did Sin Originate?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112377.msg1950291#msg1950291

For The Non-beleivers Only, 1
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112262.msg1948957#msg1948957

Would Christains Be Criminals And Offenders If They Were Not Christians?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112259.msg1948919#msg1948919

On The Authenticity Of The New Testament, Part 1
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112240.msg1948631#msg1948631

Has Atheism Got Principle? No
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112216.msg1948180#msg1948180

It Is Biblical To Have Sex (and Lots Of It) Before Marriage
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112139.msg1946940#msg1946940

Should The Old Testament Laws Be Observed In The Modern Era?
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112114.msg1946682#msg1946682

Founding A State or Nation On Religious Principles
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=112086.msg1946268#msg1946268

Great Books About Non-belief
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111928.msg1943935#msg1943935

Who Are The Self-declared Non-believer? Resources For You
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111806.msg1942137#msg1942137

Beware of a Simplistic Interpretation of Jesus's 2nd Coming Passages
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111677.msg1939992#msg1939992

Archbishop Cause Furore Over Sharia Law In The Uk
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111645.msg1939155#msg1939155

Eminent Christian Scientist (francis Collins) Explains The Evolution Of Humans
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111482.msg1936158#msg1936158

Please, Help Me Out With Your Knowledge Of The Bible
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111474.msg1936099#msg1936099

Why Biology Is So Important To Our Modern World
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111466.msg1935975#msg1935975

Genesis Vs Genetics
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111227.msg1932655#msg1932655

Jesus Genealogy
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111222.msg1932616#msg1932616

£300 (three - Hundred Pound Sterling) Essay Competition
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=111143.msg1931508#msg1931508

Beware Of Religious Fundamentalism In Your University Campuses
https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=110965.msg1929160#msg1929160

====================================================================================================

as u can see, no replies.

Eclair,

I wonder why? BTW, what did you just do?

Any comments on this?

this is a duplication of an existing thread.

4HIM,

Does the other thread have my beautifully-crafted essay, and my five incisive questions ?

therationa:

4HIM,

Does the other thread have my beautifully-crafted essay, and my five incisive questions ?

I only see the same nebulous writings devoid of logic, merely rephrased to look like its different.

Let us now list some of the achievements of secularism:

1) The communist regime in Russia, that killed over 20 million of its citizens, was a secular state.
2) Nazi Germany was a secular state that killed over 5 million jews.
3) Neo-colonial exploitation of sub-saharan Africa.
4) The legalization of abortion (ie legalizing the murder of unborn, innocent babies).
5) The rise in homosexuality (pls note that insects and animals do not make this mistake).
6) The rise in the number of perverted criminals (serial killers, rapists, etc) without moral compunction.
7) The rise in the number of satanic cults. These cults doubt the existence of God but seek the face of satan.
The stock piling of nuclear weapons that can wipe out millions for no reasonable cause.

etc etc

My answers;
1)I will adopt none of them.
2)The positive ones.The ones that seek to propel freethinking and progressive thoughts of the mind.
3)No,i can't.
4)That human beings were never as smart and developed in the remote ancient times as today.This is false thinking from the scientific establishment.
5)Yes,that the earth was the centre of the universe.That has been scientifically proven to be sheer bullocks.

therationa:

My questions to them are these;

1. If you were involved in founding a state/nation from scratch, which of the clerical traditions (christian, i-slam, hindu, animist etc) would you adopt and why?

2. Would any of the tenets of these traditions be enshrined into the constitution?

3. Can anyone name a golden age of any of the religious traditions - a period that enjoyed the kinds of freedoms, liberties and advances of the modern world?


4. Can anyone name something for which science provided a good explanation, but that scientific explanation has now become untenable and has been replace by a clerical explanation?

5. As a corollary to 4, can anyone name something for which the good explanation was once religious, but that has now been superseded by a better scientific explanation?


In some religious quarters today, we are hearing calls for a return to the dark old days of yore. For instance, the Vatican is advocating the banning of the use of condoms (even in marriages) as a means of contraception and disease control. Apparently, the devastating consequences of AIDS has not registered in the Vatican yet. Some other religious bodies are also calling for a stop to stem-cell research and many other important bio-genetic researches. So are we yet again on the verge of a relapse into the Dark Ages if these religious voices become loud enough?

May i add categorically that building a modern nation on the fabrics of religion is making a recipe for disaster.It will never work.Ask the europeans and they will tell you about the "dark ages",the ages when christianity was in power.

Thankx jagunlabi for your responses.

I don't agree with your premise on question 4. Think of the time when we only had stone. Human intelligence is improving all the time, although the metric for intelligence remain a very problematic imprecise one. If we only measure this as a functions of the technologies we have developed, then humans over the last ~10000 years have clear achieved more that earlier humans.

Mate,archaeological findings have proven without a doubt that humans with intelligence that far exceeds that of modern man existed in the remote past.
The scientific establishment have tried their utmost best to keep these findings from the public so as not to upset the preferred version from whence you quote.
Believe me,tons and tons of evidence are being uncovered daily that humans have always being intellingent.
There is a book(can't remember the name of the author) that chornicles about 64(!) things that the ancient man could do that the modern man with all our modern technology couldn't!
Now,how about that?I will try and locate the author of that book.
The findings in the book are based on archaeological findings that cannot be refuted.

therationa:

Thankx jagunlabi for your responses.

I don't agree with your premise on question 4. Think of the time when we only had stone. Human intelligence is improving all the time, although the metric for intelligence remain a very problematic imprecise one. If we only measure this as a functions of the technologies we have developed, then humans over the last ~10000 years have clear achieved more that earlier humans.

Men built the great pyramids . . . till tomorrow our scientists are still baffled as to how they were able to do so without present technology.

4HIM,

They used the science and technologies of the day, as simple as that. Did they do it using theistic engineering?

therationa:

4HIM,

They used the science and technologies of the day, as simple as that. Did they do it using theistic engineering?

this is not an argument for or against theistic engineering but rather that man has always been intelligent!
Where they or where they not intelligent enough to use their technology to build the pyramids?

therationa:

4HIM,

They used the science and technologies of the day, as simple as that. Did they do it using theistic engineering?

The Nazis murdered millions of people using 'the science and technologies of the day'. They also ignored Theistic admonitions to love their neighbor.

jagunlabi,

You have to understand that science is a very conservative enterprise. Present-day scientific paradigm are moved only slowly, and rightly so. When all the evidence comes in, to the extend where the current situation is no longer tenable, I guarantee you that this will become ordinary scientific fact.

BTW, I do not think that that has now been replaced by a better theistic explanation.

These questions remain unanswered. Any takers today, pls?

therationa:

These questions remain unanswered. Any takers today, please?

your question is best directed to m'uslims, while there are NO christian theocratic states we have countless islamic republics.
You cowards shld direct ur questions to the right quarters.

4Him:

Men built the great pyramids . . . till tomorrow our scientists are still baffled as to how they were able to do so without present technology.

Hogwash. Scientists aren't baffled as to how the pyramids were built. they do, however, marvel at the dedication and time it must have taken to build them without modern technology. There's a difference.

imhotep:

The Nazis murdered millions of people using 'the science and technologies of the day'. They also ignored Theistic admonitions to love their neighbor.

Yes to the first; no to the latter. Most actually were theists, and several were convinced that they were loving their neighbour by committing those attrocities. Herein lies the danger of ambiguous religious edicts. Many were convinced that the Jews, Gypsies, etc weren't their neighbours. A thinking that probably went along th lines of "since we aren't to be equally yoked with the darkness especially personified by the demonic Jews, then they surely aren't our neighbours." It wouldn't have necessarily been as elaborate as that, as the simple belief that the "Jews are devils" or "satan's children" would have sufficed. There might also have been an idea that at least killing the infants and young ones was a mercy in its own right, as it saved them from the devilry of their forebears.

To buttress the point, it is almost impossible to overlook Martin Luther's influence on Nazi antisemitism, typified by this quote:

"[The Jews are a] base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth."[1] They are full of the "devil's feces , which they wallow in like swine,"[2] and the synagogue is an "incorrigible LovePeddler and an evil slut , "[3]"

Further:

"He argues that their synagogues and schools should be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness,[4] afforded no legal protection,[5] and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time.[6] He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them."[7]"

WIKI

KAG:
Most actually were theists, and several were convinced that they were loving their neighbour by committing those attrocities. Herein lies the danger of ambiguous religious edicts. Many were convinced that the Jews, Gypsies, etc weren't their neighbours. A thinking that probably went along th lines of "since we aren't to be equally yoked with the darkness especially personified by the demonic Jews, then they surely aren't our neighbours.

Let me post the Parable of the Good Samaritan ->

Gospel of Luke, chapter 10 verses 25-37.

" On one occasion an expert in the law stood up to test Jesus. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit eternal life?" "What is written in the Law?" he replied. "How do you read it?" He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" "You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do this and you will live." But he wanted to justify himself, so he asked Jesus, "And who is my neighbor?"

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn in Jericho and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. 'Look after him,' he said, 'and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.'

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise."


---------------

It is important to note that Samaritans were despised by the story's target audience, the Jews. The Samaritans were also largely taught by their interpretation of history to hate Jews. Thus the parable, as told originally, had a significant theme of non-discrimination and interracial harmony.

--------------
On the scale of authority, Martin Luther is infinitesimally low when compared with Jesus. A German invented the printing press. Many bibles were printed in Germany. The Nazis had copies of the bible in their own language.

There is nothing ambiguous about 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself'. The Nazis chose to ignore this and murder millions of people . Hiding behind any misguided reformer or philosopher can never exculpate them.

imhotep:

Let me post the Parable of the Good Samaritan ->

Gospel of Luke, chapter 10 verses 25-37.

"Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

The expert in the law replied, "The one who had mercy on him." Jesus told him, "Go and do likewise." [/b]

No, I understand that, but you missed my point, I think: the conception would have been that Jews weren't humans like the Germanic people were. To give you an idea of the thought, a polemic would involve likening the Jew to a rabid, diseased dog, followed by the question, "would you allow an animal or thing that can infect and kill you and your neighbour to live amongst you?

Notice that several would have been able to circumvent the verse by pointing out the Jew could not be considered a neighbour due to several stereotypical characteristics.

---------------

It is important to note that Samaritans were despised by the story's target audience, the Jews. The Samaritans were also largely taught by their interpretation of history to hate Jews. Thus the parable, as told originally, had a significant theme of non-discrimination and interracial harmony.

I get that.

--------------
On the scale of authority, Martin Luther is infinitesimally low when compared with Jesus. A German invented the printing press.

Not to many German Protestants he wasn't.

Many bibles were printed in Germany. The Nazis had copies of the bible in their own language.

Many didn't.

There is nothing ambiguous about 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself'. The Nazis chose to ignore this and murder millions of people . Hiding behind any misguided reformer or philosopher can never exculpate them.

I'm not trying to excuse their behaviour, just merely pointing out how the edict could have been [mis]applied. The thinking was probably similar - for many antiSemitic Germans - to that of the White supremacists: whereby the other group, usually Black, aren't human.

KAG:
Not to many German Protestants he (Jesus) wasn't (greater in authority that Martin Luther).

You can see the error here!.

KAG:
I'm not trying to excuse their behaviour, just merely pointing out how the edict could have been [mis]applied. The thinking was probably similar - for many antiSemitic Germans - to that of the White supremacists: whereby the other group, usually Black, aren't human.

I agree. Humans being what we are!!!

imhotep:

You can see the error here!.

No, I meant to many German Protestants he wasn't infinitesimally lower in comparism to Jesus. Either way, though, you're right. The thinking would have been erronous either way.

Having amending the main post to add some stuff about the Treaty of Tripoli, which state that the US was NOT founded on Christian principles.

A good time to look at this one again given the central position religion appears to be taking in the run-up to the US elections.!

@huxley,

huxley:

A good time to look at this one again

Maybe so. Perhaps we might start within the corridors of academia in the US and see who it is that are actually censoring "thought".


I think there's some substance in this out-of-hand line from Jagunlabi (even though I've not always agreed with him in the past ):

jagunlabi:

The scientific establishment have tried their utmost best to keep these findings from the public so as not to upset the preferred version from whence you quote.

syrup:

@huxley,

The scientific establishment have tried their utmost best to keep these findings from the public so as not to upset the preferred version from whence you quote.

When I saw this comment, I let it go unchallenged because it was tangential to the theme of the thread. At the very least, I would have expected some examples of the scientific establishment preventing such finds reaching the public.

The scientific landscape is a free-for-all, as far as I know. If you think you have a valid scientific idea, you have to systematically convince the scientific community that your idea is valid. To quote kenneth Miller, "See you at the cell biology conferences, see you at the cosmology conferences, see you at the metabolism conferences"

Failing that, nothing stops you from publishing a book about your idea. There are many of such pseudo-scientific theories out there (Case in point - Darwin's Blackbox by Michael Behe). Has he published in any of the scientific reviewed journals? NO. Yet, he was able to publish his crackpot idea in a popular book.

Admittedly, there are renegades in science, just like in every field. But these tend to be found out and weeded out.

Who can answer my questions five?

therationa:

Having amending the main post to add some stuff about the Treaty of Tripoli, which state that the US was NOT founded on Christian principles.

this is dubious for the following reasons:
1. isnt it odd that the ONLY claim that the US was not founded on christian principles come from a document that is NOT valid WITHIN the borders of the US?
2. Isnt it more than obvious that this "document" was a "treaty of convenience" between a nation seeking political gain from another clearly muslim, anti-christian nation?

I can only hope that blind hypocrites like you read not only the ENTIRE treaty but make sure you understand the REASON behind the signing of that treaty. It was signed by the US to protect its naval interests from attack by the 4 barbary powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) who had declared war on christian nations of Europe and the US.