The tie that saved Rome. Do Western nations need a State Religion?

[owebo]

The tie that saved Rome. Do Western nations need a State Religion?

The Western nations of today, like Rome in the days of Constantine, are being fractured by the plethora of religious and racial factions the emigration is causing. The Western nations are again being inundated by various religious militias and no go zones set up by religious and racial factions.

All countries and large coalitions of countries need something to unite the populations and have it all move in the same direction when required. Religion is a good tool for uniting a country.

Constantine was looking for stability and peace for Rome and decided that a State Religion was the way to unify Rome and its allies. He chose the least barbaric and belligerent religion in his day, Christianity, to be the tie that would bind the empire and other countries together.

I see the Western religious forces of today doing the same as in Constantine’s day, fracturing the country and being an enemy to unity and peace.

A house divided cannot stand, --- and history is repeating itself.

To insure the survival of the Western ideology, in these times of religious strife and division, should the present Western political powers follow Constantine’s example and choose a State Religion?

I am not suggesting that we send out this new religion to convert by the sword the way Christianity did. I think that we are intelligent enough today to debate the morality of the various religions to determine which is the most moral and the best for nations and the individuals within them.

Constantine chose strength by numbers and not by ideology and I think we are mature enough today to choose by worthy morality and ideology.

Is creating a State Religion the way to peace?

Regards
DL

The reasons Rome fell were plural and varied, but sum up to the fact that all things eventually end. Religion was a peripheral factor at best.

You know, I always wonder what the reason is for the romanticizing ( ) of Rome. Just plain silliness.

Mainly it is because Rome was the basis of western civilization. Their influence is so ubiquitous even in our modern world that you cannot turn around without bumping into their legacy.

I agree.....soon we will add Roman liberal failure to the book of western civilization.....

 

[GreatestIam]

White people need a state. A few. Europe and the U.S. should do.

No healthy society operates well, particularly in the face of destruction, without belief in God. Jews learned this -- it's the lesson of the Bible.

I disagree. If Jews though as you say, they would not have it in their oral tradition that a Rabbi can overrule God himself.

They have judged God and found him lacking.



Regards
DL

 

[SwimExpert]

Mainly it is because Rome was the basis of western civilization. Their influence is so ubiquitous even in our modern world that you cannot turn around without bumping into their legacy.

Unfortunately, no, that answer does not satisfy. Because that notion is itself an example of the romanticizing of Rome. Let's look at one of the most obvious examples of what you're saying. Let's take the Latin alphabet. The Latin alphabet was derived from the Phoenician alphabet, which was itself an evolution of the Greek alphabet. The modern alphabets of the world are not the actual Latin alphabet, but are themselves derivatives. Attributing the usage of these alphabets to Rome is arbitrary, and no more valid than to attribute them to Phoenician or Greek influence, or others.

 

[GreatestIam]

The tie that saved Rome. Do Western nations need a State Religion?

The Western nations of today, like Rome in the days of Constantine, are being fractured by the plethora of religious and racial factions the emigration is causing. The Western nations are again being inundated by various religious militias and no go zones set up by religious and racial factions.

All countries and large coalitions of countries need something to unite the populations and have it all move in the same direction when required. Religion is a good tool for uniting a country.

Constantine was looking for stability and peace for Rome and decided that a State Religion was the way to unify Rome and its allies. He chose the least barbaric and belligerent religion in his day, Christianity, to be the tie that would bind the empire and other countries together.

I see the Western religious forces of today doing the same as in Constantine’s day, fracturing the country and being an enemy to unity and peace.

A house divided cannot stand, --- and history is repeating itself.

To insure the survival of the Western ideology, in these times of religious strife and division, should the present Western political powers follow Constantine’s example and choose a State Religion?

I am not suggesting that we send out this new religion to convert by the sword the way Christianity did. I think that we are intelligent enough today to debate the morality of the various religions to determine which is the most moral and the best for nations and the individuals within them.

Constantine chose strength by numbers and not by ideology and I think we are mature enough today to choose by worthy morality and ideology.

Is creating a State Religion the way to peace?

Regards
DL

The reasons Rome fell were plural and varied, but sum up to the fact that all things eventually end. Religion was a peripheral factor at best.

You know, I always wonder what the reason is for the romanticizing ( ) of Rome. Just plain silliness.

Rome never fell. It evolved to what we might call the Western alliance.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

No....we need to end it....it's called liberalism....

I doubt we can end religions but do think it our duty to help them evolve to a better and more moral form.

Regards
DL

 

[occupied]

Nothing about the conversion to Christianity turned out well for Rome or the rest of western culture. Almost the entirety of Greco-Roman learning was suppressed and forgotten for a thousand years as western Europe endured the dark ages under the anti-science catholic church. Progress was rejected for a millennium of holy wars, inquisitions, superstition and stagnation.

It did all of that, no argument, but it also led to the Western ideology that we now embrace as the best that we have created to date.

If Islam were to take over, learning will again be suppressed and forgotten and their own Inquisitions and Jihads will be the order of that horrible day.

Regards
DL

Our western ideology is based in Rome but the best of it was the result of the reformation and the renaissance. That is where ideals of freedom of thought, humanitarianism, science and rationality became the cornerstone of our civilization.

I do not fear Islam taking over, it may take another hundred years but it will be rendered toothless or be destroyed like everything else that has challenged western civilization.

 

[owebo]

No....we need to end it....it's called liberalism....

I doubt we can end religions but do think it our duty to help them evolve to a better and more moral form.

Regards
DL

Then the next question becomes, can we survive the state religion of liberalism as it devolves.....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"To insure the survival of the Western ideology, in these times of religious strife and division, should the present Western political powers follow Constantine’s example and choose a State Religion?"

In the United States this would be un-Constitutional, and appropriately so.

Indeed, freedom from state-compelled religious observance is a fundamental tenet of Western liberal democracies.

 

[GreatestIam]

who said "impose" ? Does England IMPOSE Anglicanism?

They did when they were stupid. A reason many fled to the great United States, where there wasn't and will never be an endorsed religion. Listen I'm not saying religion is bad, and nothing wrong with government officials praising religion or talking about it either. However there should never be laws made or endorsement of a certain religion. The founding fathers were very clear on this. The constitution is very clear on this.

BTW---I never endorsed the idea of a "religion for the USA"----- I did for FRANCE. France is in real danger of being
overcome by ISLAM-----too many people there eager for a
MUSLIM FRANCE. You may not know-----lots of muslims do
---with great confidence ----PREDICT A MUSLIM FRANCE.
Consider Lebanon------Lebanon used to be -----sorta --almost--
a Christian country. France has a history of being a NOMINALLY catholic country-------it also has a history-----
which muslims take VERY SERIOUSLY of almost being a
MUSLIM COUNTRY (the southern part of france was virtually
conquered for quite awhile) History of "being muslim" may
mean nothing to you-----but it means LOTS to something like
1/4 of the world's population

I'm pretty sure France isn't going to endorse a state religion anytime soon, and that you are a bit overly hyperbolic about Muslims taking over. I do understand that there has been a big influx of "refugees", that some aren't really refugees but opportunists, and that a limit has to be enforced as France or Europe for that matter can only accept so many.

I am not being hyperbolic------and YOU are trivializing.
I have a sense that you really know nothing about islam --
and its history and its "NOW" as an ideology. I would not
ascribe "CONSPIRACY" to the overwhelming majority of
muslim refugees in France or anywhere else in the world-----
Most people in the world are LOOKING FOR THE BEST DEAL life has to offer--------HOWEVER----muslims do have a RELIGION----that is very specific regarding that which is
RIGHT and that which is WRONG. What is RIGHT for
muslims is establishment of ISLAM AS THE RIGHT RELIGION FOR ALL OF THE WORLD and establishment of that "RIGHT" a prime directive---------it is hard for you to accept that idea. You are probably American born. You just do
not know

I have a work friend who is a Muslim, came from war torn Bosnia. I have had conversations with him about religion and politics. He respects me, I respect him. I've been to his house, met his wife, kids. They aren't trying for a Muslim takeover lol, trust me. I think YOU do not know a Muslim and are full of fear because of the extremist Muslims you see on tv and think they are all like that. My friend hates them too. Did it ever occur to you he wanted no part of the extremists, and that most Muslims aren't extremists?

The majority empower the minority as their ideology is what the Jihadists hide behind and find justification in.



Regards
DL

 

[SwimExpert]

Rome never fell. It evolved to what we might call the Western alliance.

Regards
DL

Well that's just a load of horseshit.

 

[occupied]

Mainly it is because Rome was the basis of western civilization. Their influence is so ubiquitous even in our modern world that you cannot turn around without bumping into their legacy.

Unfortunately, no, that answer does not satisfy. Because that notion is itself an example of the romanticizing of Rome. Let's look at one of the most obvious examples of what you're saying. Let's take the Latin alphabet. The Latin alphabet was derived from the Phoenician alphabet, which was itself an evolution of the Greek alphabet. The modern alphabets of the world are not the actual Latin alphabet, but are themselves derivatives. Attributing the usage of these alphabets to Rome is arbitrary, and no more valid than to attribute them to Phoenician or Greek influence, or others.

For nearly a thousand years in Europe Latin was the only widely distributed written language. They did so many awesome things and had technology that was lost in the dark ages that it was inevitable that they would be seen in a glorified way.

 

[GreatestIam]

They did when they were stupid. A reason many fled to the great United States, where there wasn't and will never be an endorsed religion. Listen I'm not saying religion is bad, and nothing wrong with government officials praising religion or talking about it either. However there should never be laws made or endorsement of a certain religion. The founding fathers were very clear on this. The constitution is very clear on this.

BTW---I never endorsed the idea of a "religion for the USA"----- I did for FRANCE. France is in real danger of being
overcome by ISLAM-----too many people there eager for a
MUSLIM FRANCE. You may not know-----lots of muslims do
---with great confidence ----PREDICT A MUSLIM FRANCE.
Consider Lebanon------Lebanon used to be -----sorta --almost--
a Christian country. France has a history of being a NOMINALLY catholic country-------it also has a history-----
which muslims take VERY SERIOUSLY of almost being a
MUSLIM COUNTRY (the southern part of france was virtually
conquered for quite awhile) History of "being muslim" may
mean nothing to you-----but it means LOTS to something like
1/4 of the world's population

I'm pretty sure France isn't going to endorse a state religion anytime soon, and that you are a bit overly hyperbolic about Muslims taking over. I do understand that there has been a big influx of "refugees", that some aren't really refugees but opportunists, and that a limit has to be enforced as France or Europe for that matter can only accept so many.

I am not being hyperbolic------and YOU are trivializing.
I have a sense that you really know nothing about islam --
and its history and its "NOW" as an ideology. I would not
ascribe "CONSPIRACY" to the overwhelming majority of
muslim refugees in France or anywhere else in the world-----
Most people in the world are LOOKING FOR THE BEST DEAL life has to offer--------HOWEVER----muslims do have a RELIGION----that is very specific regarding that which is
RIGHT and that which is WRONG. What is RIGHT for
muslims is establishment of ISLAM AS THE RIGHT RELIGION FOR ALL OF THE WORLD and establishment of that "RIGHT" a prime directive---------it is hard for you to accept that idea. You are probably American born. You just do
not know

I have a work friend who is a Muslim, came from war torn Bosnia. I have had conversations with him about religion and politics. He respects me, I respect him. I've been to his house, met his wife, kids. They aren't trying for a Muslim takeover lol, trust me. I think YOU do not know a Muslim and are full of fear because of the extremist Muslims you see on tv and think they are all like that. My friend hates them too. Did it ever occur to you he wanted no part of the extremists, and that most Muslims aren't extremists?

what makes you think that I do not know muslims? I know lots of muslims and have been to lots of muslim homes-----I read the koran LONG ago----probably before you were born..
What are you calling an "EXTREMIST" muslim? You assume
LOTS. Do you know anything about BOSNIAN MUSLIMS?
Have you ever met a NON-MUSLIM from Bosnia? You know muslims IN THE PARLOR------so do I. ----I also know muslims
NOT IN THE PARLOR.

The numbers tell it all.



Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

The survival of Western civilization is not in danger.

Our European allies and U.N. members would disagree.



Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

...Is creating a State Religion the way to peace?...

No.

However, I see no harm in crafting legislation recognizing a Western Nation to be a Secularized Christian Nation.

Meaning; a nation with its culture and beliefs strongly rooted in Christianity, but committed to a Separation of Church and State, in practical public life.

Take that Christian out of your words above and I am all in.

Why would you want to insert Christian when Christianity is demonstrably an immoral creed?

Not only does Christianity produce homophobes and misogynous people, they also base their ideology on a barbaric human sacrifice and a imaginary supernatural God.

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'



Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

...Is creating a State Religion the way to peace?...

No.

However, I see no harm in crafting legislation recognizing a Western Nation to be a Secularized Christian Nation.

Meaning; a nation with its culture and beliefs strongly rooted in Christianity, but committed to a Separation of Church and State, in practical public life.

Unconstitutional.

Not with an amendment.

Regards
DL

 

[occupied]

Rome never fell. It evolved to what we might call the Western alliance.

Regards
DL

Well that's just a load of horseshit.

He is correct, the empire fell but Rome itself simply morphed into something else. The deep bureaucracy of the catholic church can trace it's lineage in an unbroken line all the way back to the bureaucracy of imperial Rome

 

[Seawytch]

We should just ban all religions with a Constitutional Amendment...since we are playing silly hypotheticals.

 

[GreatestIam]

The tie that saved Rome. Do Western nations need a State Religion?

The Western nations of today, like Rome in the days of Constantine, are being fractured by the plethora of religious and racial factions the emigration is causing. The Western nations are again being inundated by various religious militias and no go zones set up by religious and racial factions.

All countries and large coalitions of countries need something to unite the populations and have it all move in the same direction when required. Religion is a good tool for uniting a country.

Constantine was looking for stability and peace for Rome and decided that a State Religion was the way to unify Rome and its allies. He chose the least barbaric and belligerent religion in his day, Christianity, to be the tie that would bind the empire and other countries together.

I see the Western religious forces of today doing the same as in Constantine’s day, fracturing the country and being an enemy to unity and peace.

A house divided cannot stand, --- and history is repeating itself.

To insure the survival of the Western ideology, in these times of religious strife and division, should the present Western political powers follow Constantine’s example and choose a State Religion?

I am not suggesting that we send out this new religion to convert by the sword the way Christianity did. I think that we are intelligent enough today to debate the morality of the various religions to determine which is the most moral and the best for nations and the individuals within them.

Constantine chose strength by numbers and not by ideology and I think we are mature enough today to choose by worthy morality and ideology.

Is creating a State Religion the way to peace?

Regards
DL

Plenty of western nations have a state church.

And the nations that do are more atheistic than any... did you honestly think a government program would solve anything? You don't solve problems by forcing people to do shit... at best temporarily...

... And so, Rome fell.

I think that common sense and good moral debates will negate the use of force.

Only those who think their fellow citizens to be stupid and not able to understand good moral tenets will think they have to force those down their throats.

If you were to check the stats, you would see that the nations with state religions are more atheistic for sure, and compared to the U.S. that calls itself a Christian nation, ---- their crime and abortions stats makes the U.S. look quite sick.

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

State religion.

Another way for the state to indoctrinate, conform, and condition the masses.

Indeed.

But if done today, it would produce a moral religion as compared to the homophobic and misogynous garbage ones we now let indoctrinate, conform, and condition the masses.

Do you see the mainstream religions as moral?

Regards
DL

 

[GreatestIam]

Rome never fell. It evolved to what we might call the Western alliance.

Regards
DL

Well that's just a load of horseshit.

He is correct, the empire fell but Rome itself simply morphed into something else. The deep bureaucracy of the catholic church can trace it's lineage in an unbroken line all the way back to the bureaucracy of imperial Rome

Indeed.

Rome was ruled by a hierarchy of nobles and it was natural for them to want their religion ruled the same hierarchical way as long as the state kept the army and control of the cash that the churches collected. Constantine also controlled the ideology of the church as can be seen by his forcing it to adopt that stupid Trinity concept.

Regards
DL