(no subject)
So, religious rule. It's an interesting concept, and something we've been kind of going over in my history class. Obviously, you can't study the history of humans without encountering religion. When you look back through time, and you see civilizations that were based on a theocracy, what you see is not what you'd expect. Anyone who knows anything about the crusades knows that it was one of the bloodiest times in human history, and that person also knows it was over religious control. The same happened in alot of other places and times throughout history, most of them less acknowledged and/or known about. But it happened, alot. Even when there was a civilization based on a theocratic government and there wasn't killing, it still wasn't the most stable or happy of places. The reason that America exists, as we all know, is because the pilgrims came here for religious freedom.
Something kind of clicked today when we were talking about the evolution of Catholicism and Charlemagne in Medieval France today. I'd never really fully understood some people's problems with the current administration in America. I'd always just really thought that Christian ideals were the best kind of ideals for America, and considering our forefathers established those ideals into our political structure, that's the way to go. And for the most part I still think it is. What is that just started scaring me as of about an hour ago, is that there seems to be a confusion developing over the difference between religious ideals, and religious rules. The point I made in the part was that America is not, and was not supposed to be a theocracy. The meaning I put to that is that rules and decisions for government, and people, are not supposed to be made under religious laws. It seems that in the time that i've actually paid attention to politics (the last 6 years specifically), decisions have been made more and more with an influence by the decision maker's religous influences. Being a christian myself, it doesn't seem like a bad thing at first. Of course you want people leading you to have the same beleifs as you. But the problem comes in where the line is drawn. How much religious influence can you have before you're a theocracy? How much religious influence in your countries laws can you have before other religions are exploited upon and receive, as some would say "the short end of the stick". How much religious influence can you have before other belief systems are completely outlawed. Things might not seem that bad now, when in 50 years in the future the current system has evolved into the further makings of theocratic rule.
I guess you can kind of focus on one issue that kind of confuses me. Homo-sexual marriage. Obviously, as a christian, I am supposed to be against it. But after that is where it gets really really muddy. Is it a religious issue, or is it a government issue? If it is a religious issue, with the separation of church and state--what right does the government have in banning it. If it is a government issue, where does the government get it's idea of the concept being a bad thing. Banning it also further establishes shades of a theocratic government. By not allowing a gay person to get married, you are forcing him to follow laws that are derived straight from religious sources. Even if that person is not a part of that particular belief system, he or she is made to follow those rules, thus exploiting and giving that person that hypothetical "short end of the stick". So as a Christian, am I supposed to be against gay marriage, AND against the banning simultaneously? Obviously some would say that that doesn't make much sense. In some ways it doesn't.
I'm probably not covering any new ground here. I just needed to write it down for my own sake. Want to discuss? Eh, go ahead. I need more insight I guess.
In other news. I love her more and more everyday. Everyday the phrase "I love you" means more, and makes me feel happier. The thought of spending the rest of my life with her seems completely suiting. The way things should be.
Oh, in even OTHER news, RAAAAAWWWRRR!!!!
Something kind of clicked today when we were talking about the evolution of Catholicism and Charlemagne in Medieval France today. I'd never really fully understood some people's problems with the current administration in America. I'd always just really thought that Christian ideals were the best kind of ideals for America, and considering our forefathers established those ideals into our political structure, that's the way to go. And for the most part I still think it is. What is that just started scaring me as of about an hour ago, is that there seems to be a confusion developing over the difference between religious ideals, and religious rules. The point I made in the part was that America is not, and was not supposed to be a theocracy. The meaning I put to that is that rules and decisions for government, and people, are not supposed to be made under religious laws. It seems that in the time that i've actually paid attention to politics (the last 6 years specifically), decisions have been made more and more with an influence by the decision maker's religous influences. Being a christian myself, it doesn't seem like a bad thing at first. Of course you want people leading you to have the same beleifs as you. But the problem comes in where the line is drawn. How much religious influence can you have before you're a theocracy? How much religious influence in your countries laws can you have before other religions are exploited upon and receive, as some would say "the short end of the stick". How much religious influence can you have before other belief systems are completely outlawed. Things might not seem that bad now, when in 50 years in the future the current system has evolved into the further makings of theocratic rule.
I guess you can kind of focus on one issue that kind of confuses me. Homo-sexual marriage. Obviously, as a christian, I am supposed to be against it. But after that is where it gets really really muddy. Is it a religious issue, or is it a government issue? If it is a religious issue, with the separation of church and state--what right does the government have in banning it. If it is a government issue, where does the government get it's idea of the concept being a bad thing. Banning it also further establishes shades of a theocratic government. By not allowing a gay person to get married, you are forcing him to follow laws that are derived straight from religious sources. Even if that person is not a part of that particular belief system, he or she is made to follow those rules, thus exploiting and giving that person that hypothetical "short end of the stick". So as a Christian, am I supposed to be against gay marriage, AND against the banning simultaneously? Obviously some would say that that doesn't make much sense. In some ways it doesn't.
I'm probably not covering any new ground here. I just needed to write it down for my own sake. Want to discuss? Eh, go ahead. I need more insight I guess.
In other news. I love her more and more everyday. Everyday the phrase "I love you" means more, and makes me feel happier. The thought of spending the rest of my life with her seems completely suiting. The way things should be.
Oh, in even OTHER news, RAAAAAWWWRRR!!!!