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

chris alden wrote:
> AE wrote:
> > 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.

Buddhism is an individualistic religion: Buddha never encouraged to live 
in groups while Jesus did.

> > > > 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.
> ...

I'm refuting an ideology for it's effects on society - following the 
word of Bible: "By their fruit you will recognize them."

Surely in theory Christianity sounds good and surely it was obvious to 
protect the group against individuals that didn't follow the moral 
imperatives set by that religion.

But this doesn't change the fact that right these rules set by the 
founders of the religion were the base for forced moral imperatives.

If there were few Christian groups where this happened one could say the 
system is just not perfect, but it's the usual way a Christian community 
goes.