Separation of Church and State

[dorispulaski]

Religion gives rise to wars even when there is no state religion. But when there is a state religion, it can even more easily lead to genocide.

The later anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther had a role in the Holocaust. Nazis used these 500 year old writings to justify their genocide against the Jews.

The Reformation at 500: Grappling with Martin Luther's anti-Semitic legacy - Macleans.ca

Opinion: On the Reformation's 500th anniversary, what lessons have been learned from the virulent but influential hatred of a foundational church figure?

www.macleans.ca

Here's what Luther wrote:

In 1543, he published “The Jews and Their Lies,” which today is shocking in its venom, and even for its time stood out as particularly cruel and intolerant. In the 65,000-word treatise, he calls for a litany of horrors, including the destruction of synagogues, Jewish schools and homes; for rabbis to be forbidden to preach; for the stripping of legal protection of Jews on highways; for the confiscation of their money. The Jews are, wrote Luther, a “base, whoring people, that is, no people of God, and their boast of lineage, circumcision, and law must be accounted as filth.”

German Protestant churches are grappling with this fact to this day

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0040573617721913

This topic is pertinent now, because of the 'Russian World" myth embedded in Russian Orthodox theology is being referenced by Putin to justify wars

Patriarch Kirill, the "Russian World" Myth, and Genocide

by Jaroslav Skira | ελληνικά | Română | Русский | Српски Also available in Ukrainian (pdf) Suggestively linking a Russian Orthodox primate, an ideology, and genocide may seem provocative or sensationalist. For me, given the current unjustified Russian war on Ukraine, the connections between them...

publicorthodoxy.org

In the Russian/Ukraine War thread, a number of very thoughtful posts were made about religion.

Those posts have been moved here, and a general discussion of whether church and state should be separate, and also whether the state should discourage religion, as was done in the old USSR.

Is religion useful or harmful in modern life?

 

[dorispulaski]

Even discounting the opinion of the author of this op-ed, Patriarch Kirill seems to be calling for a Holy War against Europe, and anywhere else that ever had a Gay Pride parade?

That would include nations on Russia's borders now, including non NATO countries Finland and Sweden, and NATO countries Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Roumania, and Poland. And that's just the ones I googled.

The Church and the «diabolical force». How Patriarch Kirill forgot about the Gospel and became a preacher of fratricide

The official Church could not find the strength not only to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but also to call things by their proper names: to call war war, and aggression, aggression. Patriarch Kirill sent a clear message: he is with Putin, not with the congregation, which has not received...

theins.ru

And as this essay reminds us, marginalization of minorities is an old weapon to gin up enthusiasm for large wars.

https://eurasianet.org/perspectives-the-weaponization-of-homophobia-in-kyrgyzstan-and-belarus

It was not only Hitler who has used this tool.

At least one priest who opposed the war has been fined under the recent law.

I wonder how this looks inside Russia?

The US founders were well aware of the havoc religion when coupled with war or insurrections, had caused in the world, and so the US Constitution has an amendment forbidding the establishment of a state religion, and a long history of attempting, not always successfully, to keep church and state separate. (Now in the US this is a bigger issue than it has been for a long time.)

Consequently, as an American, I view this with great alarm.

 

[anonymoose_au]

Even discounting the opinion of the author of this op-ed, Patriarch Kirill seems to be calling for a Holy War against Europe, and anywhere else that ever had a Gay Pride parade?

What the Hell, this is disgusting and shameful. I'm not sure if this is worse than Putin...I guess not, but the idea a religious person would call for mass death... Isn't the war on Ukraine enough for him?

I looked up this guy... And he sounds exactly the biggest hypocrite in the world. Like some of the old Pope's in the 1500s or something.

 

[samkrut@mail.ru]

Sorry, I can't help with this one. I am not religious and I am very sceptical about any religion now that we are going into digital world and "metaverse"

 

[lariko]

In Quebec, there is a strong will to keep church and state far apart from one another... Catholic church pretty much ruled the province until the 1950-60s. Not anymore.

Even my education, religion was taught in school... now it's different.

There is a bill that forbids any religious reference (clothing, crosses, scarf) for workers representing the state, in position of authority, teachers etc...
However, this bill is probably against the charter of rights and liberties... HUGE debate here... in the recent federal election, some accused Quebec's government of being discriminatory with such laws, a bill that was voted in unanimously from the Quebec parliament.

Very huge debate. Nobody is prevented to worship and organized religion is fine. But that should remain private, not public.

It's divisive because it's perceived as easy for Christians and hard for other religions as Christians can comply to that law without much problems, while others can't as their religious symbiology is far more identifiable.

Personally, I would never consider organized religion as something good, no matter how well its controlling agenda is curbed for the time being. It should be a personal matter and approaching people and preaching to them or inducing kids from birth to worship a God should not be allowed. It's immoral. This is not a choice to be made for someone by their parent. Organized religions are invasive. Organized religions clearly identify 'others' as wrong people. They are also parochial.

 

[4everchan]

It's divisive because it's perceived as easy for Christians and hard for other religions as Christians can comply to that law without much problems, while others can't as their religious symbiology is far more identifiable.

Personally, I would never consider organized religion as something good, no matter how well its controlling agenda is curbed for the time being. It should be a personal matter and approaching people and preaching to them or inducing kids from birth to worship a God should not be allowed. It's immoral. This is not a choice to be made for someone by their parent. Organized religions are invasive. Organized religions clearly identify 'others' as wrong people. They are also parochial.

Perhaps it is seen as easy if one considers not wearing a cross compared to not wearing a scarf... though it isn't the main purpose of the law. it was a huge endeavour to remove religion from the school boards, from the town halls, (prayer before town hall meetings, crucifixes on the walls), etc.... It's not just about clothing. Quebecois kicked out religion from public services and schools, with great effort, and they want it to remain like that. Considering the history of the colonies, it's huge. Quebec was built by the Church. Nuns founded the hospitals, the schools. I even had nuns as teachers and I am not "that old" So, it can look as discriminatory when it seems to target other religious groups but it's not the case. The main people targeted were French speaking Quebecois associated with the Catholic church. Is it harder to hide a cross or a scarf? Was it hard to rebuild the entire school system to remove religious associations? I cannot agree that it targets non-Christians as actually, the biggest impact was aimed at the Catholic Church. And that's why the bill has so much support : you cannot ask Quebecois to remove their religious associations from the public services and education system, and yet, allow for other religious groups to be represented strongly in these same areas. I am writing this in haste, hopefully it makes sense.

 

[lariko]

Perhaps it is seen as easy if one considers not wearing a cross compared to not wearing a scarf... though it isn't the main purpose of the law. it was a huge endeavour to remove religion from the school boards, from the town halls, (prayer before town hall meetings, crucifixes on the walls), etc.... It's not just about clothing. Quebecois kicked out religion from public services and schools, with great effort, and they want it to remain like that. Considering the history of the colonies, it's huge. Quebec was built by the Church. Nuns founded the hospitals, the churches. I even had nuns as teachers and I am not "that old" So, it can look as discriminatory when it seems to target other religious groups but it's not the case. The main people targeted were French speaking Quebecois associated with the Catholic church. Is it harder to hide a cross or a scarf? Was it hard to rebuild the entire school system to remove religious associations? I cannot agree that it targets non-Christians as actually, the biggest impact was aimed at the Catholic Church. And that's why the bill has so much support : you cannot ask Quebecois to remove their religious associations from the public services and education system, and yet, allow for other religious groups to be represented strongly in these same areas. I am writing this in haste, hopefully it makes sense.

No, it makes sense, but not being from Quebec, that how it reads. The cross beneath the clothes is invisible. A head-dress is visible. The conclusion, even if it's the wrong one, is obvious--> it is a pro-Cristian law.

 

[4everchan]

No, it makes sense, but not being from Quebec, that how it reads. The cross beneath the clothes is invisible. A head-dress is visible. The conclusion, even if it's the wrong one, is obvious--> it is a pro-Cristian law.

I disagree. Because this movement started exactly as a getting the Catholic church out of school, hospitals, government.

 

[lariko]

I disagree. Because this movement started exactly as a getting the Catholic church out of school, hospitals, government.

Right, after you have explained it, it's obvious. But that's how misunderstandings are created.

 

[Erin9]

I think it could be argued that the Soviet system was treated as a type of religion. That everyone had to adhere to. It’s not like anyone had other options.

IMO- they crushed everything and anything that could dilute their hold on power.

 

[4everchan]

Right, after you have explained it, it's obvious. But that's how misunderstandings are created.

the issue here, is that it's been explained long and large yet some politicians are irresponsible about it and making a fuss when they know very well they are wrong... just to bring attention. Many people coming from various religious traditions even agree with the law... some are happy that religious beliefs can remain a choice (in private life) and not associated with "society" (not all obviously)... but then, some people from the rest of the country are calling Quebecois "racist" because of such laws... I would like them to speak with the French (from France) and try to call them racists as their separation of state and church is even stronger.

 

[lariko]

I think it could be argued that the Soviet system was treated as a type of religion. That everyone had to adhere to. It’s not like anyone had other options.

IMO- they crushed everything and anything that could dilute their hold on power.

That's what you think. Personal spirituality wasn't persecuted. Soviet ideas didn't mask as being ordained by Higher Power or promised salvation after death. It was a philosophy and it wasn't decorated by fairy tales. It was rational and above all it emphasized that ALL people are equal, which no religion does.

 

[Erin9]

That's what you think. Personal spirituality wasn't persecuted. Soviet ideas didn't mask as being ordained by Higher Power or promised salvation after death. It was a philosophy and it wasn't decorated by fairy tales. It was rational and above all it emphasized that ALL people are equal, which no religion does.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on religion. I get you’re not religious, and I respect that, but must “fairy tales” be used?

In some respects I didn’t think Soviets understood human nature at all.

I also think Soviet ideology produced enormous suffering and misery in the name of their goals.

I don’t think think their ideals were realistic or rational. But I’m in the middle of reading a book about Eastern Europe in the 1940s- 50s. The word brutal comes to mind.

 

[lariko]

but must “fairy tales” be used?

Will the speculative spiritual theories be better?

 

[Erin9]

Will the speculative spiritual theories be better?

That’ll work. It’s better than fairy tales. That sounds a bit condescending (I’m not saying you intended it that way.) to my ears. For all religions.

 

[dorispulaski]

To be fair to religions, they also handle important initiatives for society.

Doctors Without Borders, a non religious NGO, which is currently providing medical care in Ukraine and other war torn areas, is affiliated with Samaritan's Purse, which is affiliated with Franklin Graham's religious group which does disaster relief.

Their activity in Ukraine, among other things, handling logistics for the field hospitals:

Ukraine Response

Join Samaritan's Purse as we care for those affected by the crisis in Ukraine with an Emergency Field Hospital and food distributions.

www.samaritanspurse.org

Many churches, including Catholic, United Church of Christ, and Presbyterian, work in concert with refugee and immigrant services in the US. If the churches weren't involved here, people would not get the support they need for at least two years to make a new start in the US.

Catholic charities:

Refugee Services – ICNA Relief USA

icnarelief.org

In my county, Start Fresh is non sectarian, but the volunteers are drawn from appeals to local churches:

Start Fresh | New London CT | Refugee Resettlement

Start Fresh is a refugee resettlement non-profit organization in New London, Connecticut.

www.startfreshct.org

Many churches run food pantries and soup kitchens.

The Salvation Army is, in fact, a religion.

 

[4everchan]

Of course. Many religious communities contribute immensely to society. The line not to cross is when they control society.

A bit more about Religion and Quebec.

Not too long ago... : my grandmother. Every year, she would get a visit from the priest asking when the next baby was due. In Quebec, the priest was more important than the mayor or the doctor of the town. The Church ruled Healthcare and Education. (Most hospitals and schools were founded by the nuns) When a woman got married, she would become Madame Insert first name and Surname of her husband. This was until very recently... my own mom had to get her name officially changed to retrieve her birth name. Now that law is clear : a woman keeps her own birth name even after marriage : if she wants to make the change, she can do it, but it's not automatic. This contributed grossly to the removal of First Nations women's identity. There are rumours that one of my own ancestors comes from a First Nations tribe up north... which was very common as Europeans settlers, hunters and traders would take native women for brides, who then would be stripped by the Church (through marriage) of their identity. It's very hard to prove as there are absolutely no records of that. Pretty much, through marriage, a woman (no matter if she were of European or First Nations origin) would lose her identity. She would also become a child bearing factory. Families with 12-14 children (not all babies would survive the first couple years back then) were common. Birth control was forbidden. When the life of a woman in labour was in danger, the "orders" from the priest was to save the baby, not the mother... the Doctor had to oblige. So many young families grew up without their mother. All of this was a political way to populate Quebec with "good" French speaking Catholic people to outnumber the English colons. It was also a way to counteract discrimination which was still extremely present in the province. An anglophone would have better job conditions or access to better positions than the French speaking Catholic. My own father didn't get a promotion because he didn't speak English though he was by far, the best candidate for the job.

So, when people judge Quebecois and do not understand why there is a need for separation of state and church, they should get informed before making statements. After the French "baby boom", in the 1960s came a desire to remove that same Roman Catholic Church from State which is refered to as the "quiet revolution". Briefly, what was done was to create Education and Health ministers. The State, then, ruled over these very important parts of society, removing the religious groups from power. So nowadays, as immigration is common and encouraged, the Quebec society is mostly in agreement that since there was a huge movement towards separation of Church and State, the society should not go back to the promotion of Church in public sectors. This is why, religious signs, including the cross, are forbidden in public services. It is not a movement against immigrants, it is a preservation of the secularization of society achieved over many generations. Also, if there are some people upset with this, let's not forget that many immigrants come to Quebec because they know that if they can live their religion privately, it will not be dictated by the State, and thus, they can raise their families in peace according to their own beliefs. So many immigrants agree with the recent debates as they fled societies led by extremist religious governments.

You can read all about this here La revanche des berceaux (revenge of the cradles) ... the article in English is very simple. If you want more details, you can check the French Wiki entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Revanche_des_berceaux

More about the Quiet revolution that followed in the 1960s

Quiet Revolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[dorispulaski]

Thank you for that info.

 

[4everchan]

Thank you for that info.

you are welcome.
it is a hot topic here...people need to understand the context and the meaning of it in Quebec as it is very different from what is seen sometimes in other parts of the world. The separation of Church and state is something that was made over many generations and is now protected by the majority of people. In other words, it is Roman Catholic French speaking citizens who have worked to secularize the province, removing their "own" Church from power. It is not a way to discriminate or target specific minority groups like some people sometimes think it is.

 

[elbkup]

This is so interesting on so many levels..
Here in the US the generations of female and race identity lost thru marriage speaks volumes having nothing to do with the church and more to do with slavery in the South and immigration from eastern Slavic countries.. I know, for example, I have 1 percent African American ancestry traceable back to Southern Bantu people - that is equivalent to a 4th-5th great grandparent of full Black origin - but it is difficult to trace an exact ancestor though I am trying, due to names erased, lost to history; the same is true with the 1percent Jewish ancestry traceable back to Galicia but again loss of names is key though the Church was also likely a definite issue too..
Sorry for going OT but 4everchan’s post resonated. I am slowly filling in women’s ancestral names in my family tree and it is eye opening.