Cyprus-Forum.com

[Get Real!]

...prove how different are the functions of State and Religion.

For starters, religion welcomes new recruits with open arms but the state hates them!

Unless they are Russian Millionairs

That's right!

But anyway, how can we compare the functions of two institutions of which only one is compulsory?

[aikhme]

Religion and State do not fulfill the same function, and such an assertion is bereft of all logic.

State, at least as we have come to take for granted, is all encompassing. Religions are not all encompassing. Both have separate roles, one spiritual, and the other to provide the daily mechanisations for an entire nation of people. The State is expected to act with sovereign reverence for all people, while religion does not have sovereign authority over any person or citizen.

'Power to the people, all the people and especially the poor majority' ... was the guiding principle behind Athenian democracy. And what did Jesus preach? Something about the meek ...

This is more correct, even though it appears to be contradictory to your vacuous assertion.

Power to all the people, as can only be achieved in a democratic State. The State represents all the people, and legislates for all the people. Religions do not, unless in Iran or such like....

Welcome to the forum, aikhme, and it's good to see you entering in the spirit of debate.

If you think my statement was 'bereft of logic', then it remains with you to prove how different are the functions of State and Religion. Thus far, you have only demonstrated how similar their ideals happen to be. I disagree with you that Religion is not 'all encompassing' just because you assign it the sole function of 'spiritual'. There is nothing that the State can provide that cannot also be done according to doctrines. Perhaps you are not familiar with the teachings of Jesus to finish off the similarity I asserted, but he too was on the side of the 'poor majority' - not unlike the ideals of democracy. Besides, God gave power to the people to govern themselves; isn't this modus operandi central to democracies too?

Thank you for your warm welcome. It's good to see there are intelligent people with whom I can debate with.

Yes I do think your statement is bereft of logic, but I do not think that you are. Nevertheless, I believe it is you telling us how similar the functions of Religion and State are, and so it is only right that you prove your very argument. A difficult task I will admit and so I will not hold you to it because this debate is very subjective and we can go on all day without making any headway.

How can you argue that Religion is all encompassing? Can religion, a certain kind of religion, speak for other denominations? Can it speak for those that do not believe? Can religion provide a Bill of Rights for all citizens? Obviously it can't and so it does not speak for everyone or enforce any dogmas or doctrines on an entire nation. The State can and does when it legislates that you must pay your taxes, and abide by certain rules and laws. If you do not, then the legal apparatus of the State will eventually catch up with you. Religions can't do that, at least not in the EU or other Western Democracies.

I did not assign Religion with only one sole function. Spirituality is just one aspect of it. Providing a set of morals can be another aspect. But religions are not required as a moral compass today. We do not have religious feudalism anymore. The State however is NOT a doctrine or a dogma. It is a constitutional, legal and judicial apparatus among other things. You can choose to "not believe" in it if you wish, even disobey the apparatus by breaking some laws, but you will end up in some strife. Religions will only promise you eternal damnation.

Yes, I am familiar with the teachings of Jesus Christ. He was a great guy and his teachings are everything you may wish to portray, and much more. In his eyes, all man was equal. That includes both rich and poor. He was against injustice, and was the only true Communist as was Buddha. According to their teachings, we are all equal. And according to our Western Democracies, all man is supposed to be equal according to the legal and social apparatus of the State. According to religion, all man are supposed to be equal according to their tenets. Unfortunately for States and Religions, some men are more equal than others. Money is power, and power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. And the same can be said of any Democracy today, and even more so to the Athenian Democracy you mention. After all, all are equal but some are more equal than others, especially if you were a slave or servant. Now I wonder if Jesus looks upon the House of God and sees exactly what he had in mind. My guess is that he does not. Central to his teachings was that the spirit of God can be found within oneself, and so your home and your body can be His temple.

Crime and punishment, or sin and repentance - forgiveness or acquittal, damnation or indictment - state your preference, but they are not the same modus operandi.

Anyway, I have wasted enough time on this forum this afternoon. I may speak to you again, or I may not.

Have a lovely evening.

[Filitsa]

I cannot see how you can separate Church and State when they are basically the same body by different names. Both give us laws and determine how we live. If you are an atheist you naturally look more to the State. Unless, you are also an anarchist.

The problem is how much belief you place in either Religion or State. Outlawing either is admittance of a preference for the native, savage state of mind - or total free will. Can't decide which...

I don't see how the Church and the State are the same body. Don't we have democracy and not theocracy? In a democratic state as a citizen I have a say and I am entitled to certain freedoms. The Church is a foreign body to me. I don't have a say in what the Church is doing and I don't want the Church to have a say in anything affecting my life.

But I do not want to outlaw the Church. You are free to abide by the rules of the Church if you so wish.

Now you simply call your faith 'democracy'. What you say about the 'state' reflects your 'belief' in the 'state' - much like a religious believer could say about their faith in a god. In other words, you call yourself a 'citizen' [sic] instead of a 'believer'. You mention you have 'certain freedoms' as a 'citizen' - yet a believer is also told he has 'free will' :- these are similar concepts, the giving of some 'responsibility'.

As I said, 'religion' and the 'state' are the same things by different names. We are merely faithful followers of one or other (or both - or neither?).

So if I commit an infraction against the state, for example I get caught running a red light, does this mean I'm no longer a faithful follower, or must I commit a felony instead?

[GreekIslandGirl]

I cannot see how you can separate Church and State when they are basically the same body by different names. Both give us laws and determine how we live. If you are an atheist you naturally look more to the State. Unless, you are also an anarchist.

The problem is how much belief you place in either Religion or State. Outlawing either is admittance of a preference for the native, savage state of mind - or total free will. Can't decide which...

I don't see how the Church and the State are the same body. Don't we have democracy and not theocracy? In a democratic state as a citizen I have a say and I am entitled to certain freedoms. The Church is a foreign body to me. I don't have a say in what the Church is doing and I don't want the Church to have a say in anything affecting my life.

But I do not want to outlaw the Church. You are free to abide by the rules of the Church if you so wish.

Now you simply call your faith 'democracy'. What you say about the 'state' reflects your 'belief' in the 'state' - much like a religious believer could say about their faith in a god. In other words, you call yourself a 'citizen' [sic] instead of a 'believer'. You mention you have 'certain freedoms' as a 'citizen' - yet a believer is also told he has 'free will' :- these are similar concepts, the giving of some 'responsibility'.

As I said, 'religion' and the 'state' are the same things by different names. We are merely faithful followers of one or other (or both - or neither?).

So if I commit an infraction against the state, for example I get caught running a red light, does this mean I'm no longer a faithful follower, or must I commit a felony instead?

I see every tomdickharry is pitching a shot with offerings, unable to entertain broader concepts. Let's just say, would you give up all your trust in the State just because you have to pay a penalty? Similarly, would you give up on all your faith if asked to pray for forgiveness for a sin?

[GreekIslandGirl]

Anyway, I have wasted enough time on this forum this afternoon. I may speak to you again, or I may not.

Have a lovely evening.

Yes, me too with the time-wasting. I just fired a shot with a random thought to see how far it stood true and I was suprised at the extent of the similarities between the scope of a State and that of religion. Mostly, how both manage to absolve us of some personal choice and weaken our free will - despite selling this to us as a given. Regardless, democracy has only been in practice for some several decades whereas religion ruled for thousands of years - so there's a lot of tweaking to be done.

Have a lovely evening yourself .... and this forum is the death of ambition. I'm sure you'll be back.

[Filitsa]

I cannot see how you can separate Church and State when they are basically the same body by different names. Both give us laws and determine how we live. If you are an atheist you naturally look more to the State. Unless, you are also an anarchist.

The problem is how much belief you place in either Religion or State. Outlawing either is admittance of a preference for the native, savage state of mind - or total free will. Can't decide which...

I don't see how the Church and the State are the same body. Don't we have democracy and not theocracy? In a democratic state as a citizen I have a say and I am entitled to certain freedoms. The Church is a foreign body to me. I don't have a say in what the Church is doing and I don't want the Church to have a say in anything affecting my life.

But I do not want to outlaw the Church. You are free to abide by the rules of the Church if you so wish.

Now you simply call your faith 'democracy'. What you say about the 'state' reflects your 'belief' in the 'state' - much like a religious believer could say about their faith in a god. In other words, you call yourself a 'citizen' [sic] instead of a 'believer'. You mention you have 'certain freedoms' as a 'citizen' - yet a believer is also told he has 'free will' :- these are similar concepts, the giving of some 'responsibility'.

As I said, 'religion' and the 'state' are the same things by different names. We are merely faithful followers of one or other (or both - or neither?).

So if I commit an infraction against the state, for example I get caught running a red light, does this mean I'm no longer a faithful follower, or must I commit a felony instead?

I see every tomdickharry is pitching a shot with offerings, unable to entertain broader concepts. Let's just say, would you give up all your trust in the State just because you have to pay a penalty? Similarly, would you give up on all your faith if asked to pray for forgiveness for a sin?

Geez, is this the reception one gets for entertaining your broader concepts? I'm thinking you want us to be faithful followers of you too.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Now you simply call your faith 'democracy'. What you say about the 'state' reflects your 'belief' in the 'state' - much like a religious believer could say about their faith in a god. In other words, you call yourself a 'citizen' [sic] instead of a 'believer'. You mention you have 'certain freedoms' as a 'citizen' - yet a believer is also told he has 'free will' :- these are similar concepts, the giving of some 'responsibility'.

As I said, 'religion' and the 'state' are the same things by different names. We are merely faithful followers of one or other (or both - or neither?).

So if I commit an infraction against the state, for example I get caught running a red light, does this mean I'm no longer a faithful follower, or must I commit a felony instead?

I see every tomdickharry is pitching a shot with offerings, unable to entertain broader concepts. Let's just say, would you give up all your trust in the State just because you have to pay a penalty? Similarly, would you give up on all your faith if asked to pray for forgiveness for a sin?

Geez, is this the reception one gets for entertaining your broader concepts? I'm thinking you want us to be faithful followers of you too.

Fiddlesticks, Filitsa, your flattery is face-saving flanneling.

[supporttheunderdog]

...prove how different are the functions of State and Religion.

For starters, religion welcomes new recruits with open arms but the state hates them!

Unless they are Russian Millionairs

That's right!

But anyway, how can we compare the functions of two institutions of which only one is compulsory?

I wholeheartedly agree with you: there is no comparison.

[GreekIslandGirl]

...prove how different are the functions of State and Religion.

For starters, religion welcomes new recruits with open arms but the state hates them!

Unless they are Russian Millionairs

That's right!

But anyway, how can we compare the functions of two institutions of which only one is compulsory?

I wholeheartedly agree with you: there is no comparison.

Neither is compulsory.

[Get Real!]

Neither is compulsory.

You’re obliged to live by the state Oracle and any practicing anarchists get incarcerated and live by the state by force!