(March 13, 2019 at 1:45 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:Quote:Um no, it was more to the point that the Pope was the top dog over the kings. It was not a real separation of Church and state. The kings under the Church always had to be anointed by the Church. It was still a form of theocracy.
You need to read up on this a bit more.
Quote:Real secular separation didn't take hold until the age enlightenment. Even after that, even after the founders, there have been constant attempts to interject religion into common law. The Church did not come up with the concept of common law.
This has nothing to do with the topic.
Quote:"Secular" to the theist back then meant, merely means anyone who does not ascribe to their specific sect. "Secular" in the modern world means neutral, neither for or against.
Both of these definitions of secular are wrong.
Quote:Even with England, the only reason the Queen cant become a dictator is because long ago the parliament beheaded a king.
This has nothing to do with the topic.
Quote:But it still remains in antiquity the real power was religion. Royalty back then, saw itself as under the favor of divine power.
But we aren't talking about antiquity. What is wrong with you?
Quote:The queen today has to ask permission to enter one of the chambers. I forgot which one.
Commons. But that has nothing to do with the topic.
Quote:Certainly you can find individual rulers whom persecuted religious dissent, but ultimately long term, royal families in antiquity saw their powers as being divinely anointed.
Why antiquity again?
Quote:It still has no reflection on modern western pluralism.
What does this have to do with the election of Popes?
Boru
"Secular" as defined by the religious, you''d be right.
"Secular" in the objective root you'd be wrong.
"Sect" literally is the same prefix as "section". Just like a pie graph, has different sized sections.
The kingships of antiquity were not "secular" but "sectarian". It is why even today, there is an uneasy truce between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. despite a more secular England today. Even Europe in the middle ages was full of different kingships whom ascribed to different sects of Christianity, not just Italy under the Vatican. In the middle ages, the different sects of Christianity fought each other in much the same way today we still see Sunnis and Shiites fight in the middle east. One can only argue certain ruling families were less violent than others. But all of them regardless based their success on God guiding them.
"Secular" today, does not mean anti religion, but pro neutrality, pro equality, pro common law. At the same time unfortunately "secular" still means godless to the fundamentalists right wing.
It is the same misunderstanding of modern Cuba or even North Korea. Cuba is not a godless society, it is a majority Catholic. And even North Korea is sectarian. It has it's own worship of party and ancestors and is hardly neutral in politics.
"Sectarian" means a section of a population. "Secular" means neutral. The founders envisioned a secular nation, not a nation that favored one religion over another.
