Re: Is religion antithetical to democracy [formerly: Are Islam and Democracy Incompatible?]

AE <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> chris alden wrote:
> > AE wrote:
> >>Christianity was never and will never be an individualistic religion:
> >>
> >>While surely everybody has to decide for himself/herself whether or not 
> >>to be Christian, the base of Christianity is the parish.
> > 
> > No, the base of Christianity is the idea of a PERSONAL deity. 
> > Although corporate recognition is necessary, the relationship will
> > always remain a personal one.
> 
> Yes - the deity is an individuum, but the religion is not based on 
> individualism but on a strong community.
What is the ultimate point of the religion, though?  Is it salvation
as a community or as an individual?  Is it based on the actions of a
community or of an individual.  I'm thinking the term "individual" is
getting a little too relative here.  Perhaps you could outline what
you believe to be the characteristics an "individualistic" religion
would have to entail.

> >>It was from the very beginning a strategy of Christians to exclude 
> >>people from community.
> > 
> > Are those Christian principles?  If so, what source are you
> > referencing?
> 
> 1 Corinthians 5
This is an instruction to avoid Christians who claim the faith and
live in sin simultaneously without repentance. This is not an
imperative to expel or to disassociate with sinners.  Jesus
specifically went to what society called the worst of the worst:
prostitutes, drunkards, gamblers -- because he knew they were the ones
who needed the gospel the most.  The imperative here to expel those
Christians who are living in sin without repentance... is an
imperative to expel them from the church body.  Non-Christians who are
living in sin are individuals that Christians should be (and are
instructed to) pursuing and associating with.  If a non-Christian
engaged in immoral activities doesn't accept the faith -- and that
would have to be a personal choice of his -- that doesn't mean that he
is to be shunned by other Christians.
> 
> >>The more parish meant as well borough or something similar the worse 
> >>were the effects of such an exclusion - IMHO this sounds like forced 
> >>moral imperatives.
> > 
> > Morality (apart from the infringment of one will on another [natural
> > rights infringement] ) means nothing without God, from a Christian
> > perspective.  Any attempt to regulate the morality of non-Christians
> > is unnecessary from a Christian perspective, as Christians are saved
> > by grace and not by law.  This is a concept lost on many modern
> > Christians, but it's true nonetheless.
> 
> As soon as purely Christian boroughs started to exist the word "put away 
> from among yourselves that wicked person" meant to outlaw people to 
> enforce moral imperatives.
Again, you're refuting an ideology for the way society has mishandled
and misinterpreted it.  Are you referring to non-Christians who were
doing things the Christians perceived or are you referring to
Christians who were expelled from the church body, and therefore
shunned in the community?  Please note that Christianity doesn't teach
that the government should be used as a tool of coercion for
establishing a moral paradigm for the general public -- A brief look
at history will reveal the failures of that notion, and much of what I
think you're referring to came as a result of the government using the
church to justify its own ends.