For those who wish to study the history of Church-State Relations, one source of scholarly endeavor can be found at Baylor University:http://www.baylor.edu/church_state/index.php?id=36168#twentiethFor those of us who question what should be done with Christians, I ask you to consider the dilemma of Pliny the Younger back in 111 CE when he asked for guidance about what to do with Christians:
“Accordingly, I judged it all the more necessary to find out what the truth was by torturing two female slaves who were called deaconesses. But I discovered nothing else but depraved, excessive superstition.”
Sound familiar? Unfortunately, in the next paragraph, Pliny gets a little too optimistic:
“I therefore postponed the investigation and hastened to consult you. For the matter seemed to me to warrant consulting you, especially because of the number involved. For many persons of every age, every rank, and also of both sexes are and will be endangered. For the contagion of this superstition has spread not only to the cities but also to the villages and farms. But it seems possible to check and cure it.”
Guess he failed, huh?Read the whole entry above in the link to the title of this posting.
[Please be aware that I neither condone, nor support the torture of deaconesses or the usage of slavery for anybody, including Christians.]
Peter Nuhn
Well, Peter, I’ll try to squeeze in some time to check some of this material you have linked, but at any rate I’ll bookmark it for future reference. Thanks for the source.
As to what to do with Christians, we already know the answer. We respond vociferously with cold logic to their more egregious claims, we continue to nudge the moderate believers into renouncing their tacit support of extremist Christian doctrine(s), we educate the youth of the world into critical thinking skills through unflagging support of public education in the sciences, and we hold on to the belief that Christianity and monotheism in general will some day go the way of it’s polytheistic supertitious ancestors: death by natural causes.
I long for the good old days of the Roman Empire when they knew how to deal with xians…feed them to the lions! (that’s a joke)
Cambridge University wimps out on free speech.
Now Cambridge students are not supposed to offend superstitious morons. I wonder what sort of pressure the University put on the student to force him to recant.
?Part of the student?s apology read: ?I understand that this edition has caused deep offence and hurt to very many people, both inside and outside Clare, through its derogatory references to individuals and also to various groups, including women, Jews, Christians and Muslims.?
A Clare College spokesman said:
?Because of the gravity of the situation and the diversity of views expressed about the best way of handling it, the Dean of Students set in train procedures for convening the Court of Discipline.
?As events unfolded, however, a collective decision was taken to pursue instead a course of restorative justice and reconciliation.?
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2007/04/16/a2294291-a391-423c-9483-716255f1410e.lpf
Well, screw you Cambridge University.
Bernarda,
That’s nothing compared to the entire EU caving into political correctness in criminalising holocaust denial or trivilisation. Sure it might be insensitive or ignorant to downplay or deny the jewish holocaust but it should not be illeagle.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/122134be-ed14-11db-9520-000b5df10621.html
alex,
I think that ruling was probably in response to this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=445979&in_page_id=1770
it will be an uphill struggle as long as the media keeps feeding christians that atheists hate them,that atheists are angry and arrogant.i am not hopeless but i do shake my head at times over the way support of separation of gov’t/religion is presented as an attempt to deprive others the right to practice religion.
alexatheist, I know this is going to be a big problem. The EU thinks,
“They will also have to criminalise ?publicly condoning, denying or grossly trivialising crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes? when such statements incite hatred or violence against minorities.
Diplomats stressed the provision had been carefully worded to include only denial of the Holocaust ? the Nazi mass murder of Jews during the second world war ? and the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. “
First, at least half of the people killed during the holocaust were not jews. So if it applies to only one group, the law itself is racist.
Second, it will remain to be seen if someone can bring a case against those who deny Israeli crimes against humanity in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon, or if against those who deny the Nakba.
If such complaints are rejected, it could be seen as bias will only promote “hatred” against the group it is designed to “protect”.
I have been criticized, and even calle a “denier”, by bloggers when I have said that The Holocaust is not more important than other “holocausts”, such as in the Congo Free State or the extermination of Indians in the Americas.
Will the law see that as “trivalizing”? If so, the law is clearly racist and counter-productive.
onegoodmove posted this lecture on the subject by Christopher Hitchens.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/03/free_speech_6.html#comments