Would you want to live in a country which conformed all of its laws to your particular religion? In the example, there are people in the country who are NOT of your religion, but obviously would be subject to whatever laws are in place.
=RKO;10126532]Would you want to live in a country which conformed all of its laws to your particular religion? In the example, there are people in the country who are NOT of your religion, but obviously would be subject to whatever laws are in place.
Only if the goal was to save more souls; which sems very possible were this to happen:)
hmmm stores closed on Sundays. Community helping each other out. No abortion, but adoptions, and parenting celebrated! Sounds pretty good. If people didn’t like it I suppose they wouldn’t move there.
Law should reflect the truth. What one holds as truth must be reflected not only outwardly, but also inwardly. If the law of the land reflected the catechism, it would be a wonderful external reminder of an internal faith. It would no longer be corrupt man’s law, but that of God.
A law is not a law if it isn’t in conformity with Divine Law.
Sort of violates one’s free will, in terms of one’s religious liberties. :shrug:
Of course, I want everyone to come home to the Faith, but it can’t be coerced or forced. Also, I detest the thought of living in an Islamic state, so why would I want to make someone else feel the same way? They need to convert on their own. And I honestly feel that it would somehow make even Catholicism seem less important. We have to fight for our Faith as generations upon generations before us have had to do. It strengthens our faith and makes us more fervent. I would never want it to seem mundane to anyone!
That would just be too odd : )
The law doesn’t do anything if the morality of the people isn’t at par. Divorce is still illegal in the Phlippines, but couples split anyway and they shack up with someone else. Sometimes they live for the rest of their lives with their second partner faithfully even without the benefit of marriage, Sacramental or otherwise. But the laws won’t really change society is society doesn’t want to adhere to the law. That is what Jesus is talking about in Scripture. What is the law if people don’t obey them anyway. And what is adherance to the law if people don’t understand why the law is there in the first place?
For example, I like Canada. Abortion and divorce is legal here, but people for the most part, at least those I meet, are conservative. And what is great is that they are true conservatives (I mean, of course there are those liberals here too, I’m not saying all are conservative here) because they don’t have to be conservative but they are. Back home I find a lot of hypocrisy, a lot of people act conservative, but they are not. Only because society demands one to be conservative, so everyone pretends to be one but when no one is looking, people are liberal.
I would like it, because I think a lot of everyday stress occurs because we are trying so hard in the U.S. to be “correct” and “non-offensive” to others with different religions, and everyday stress leads to poor health and early death.
E.g., we have to remember to say “Happy Holidays”, especially at work. E.g., we have to be extremely careful if we decide to talk about religious issues at work. My workplace has a policy that if others “perceive” you as “intolerant,” you can be fired on the spot with no warning, no probation. There doesn’t even have to be “proof” of intolerance, just the “perception” of intolerance. Wearing a Santa Claus pin could conceivably be interpreted by some people as “intolerant” of other faiths.
So we always have to be super-careful. The idea of being fired at this time in my life (I’m 55) is devastating. We would be very poor within a few weeks. This policy is highly stressful to me and others.
OTOH, I think religious people are most faithful to their faith when they face opposition . When we are “comfortable,” we tend to become lukewarm and complacent.
I have lived all my life in the U.S. where we are free to practice whatever religion we wish, or to practice no religion. I think that freedom of religion is always better than a “state religion” because people who freely choose a religion are more sincere than people who feel coerced into the religion. Sadly, I believe that our nation is headed towards a “freedom from religion” interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. I fear for my children and future grandchildren.
No, because that would entail human men/women in charge of God’s laws. The potential for corruption and abuse would be astronomical, esp to those that didn’t ‘walk the line’.
I’ll wait for my Savior to come and do it the RIGHT way, thanks.
Agreed. well said.
I have a couple of thoughts on this. I am not fond of the “your particular religion” clause. It makes the question sound silly as it strongly implies that whatever the choice is, it is random and does not apply to everyone.
I would like to live in a country where the law is based on God’s law. This country was founded that way, as were most other countries of the world. Every society’s laws or mores are initially based on that society’s concept of a supreme being. This is natural and universal. This is how a society remains a society. When this changes, society disintegrates. (see: government gridlock, fiscal cliff, mall shooting, etc.)
Since modern societies have “evolved”, adherence to the traditional law based on God has been eroded over time. Hence, we have so many interesting social problems.
God’s law is not particular to any religion. It is what we call natural law. As such, it is pretty much universal. How particular religions or religious leaders interpret these laws is another matter. Too often, people of influence manage to hijack a system (any system) and they find it expedient to use religion as a tool of manipulation. BTW. This is also true of other “value systems”. An example in our times is abortion, which is used to manipulate this society in a similar way.
Western societies are going to great pains to eradicate God and natural law from their legal systems. The results are visible all around us.
There have already been plenty of examples of this throughout history! Empires and Monarchys have ruled according to their ‘faiths’ and imposed - if you will - their faiths on the subjects of their reigns. Others changed or converted their rules to the ‘laws’ of their faiths and spread it where they conquered or ruled. Oriental dynasties also did the same.
Currently, Islamic countries, still demontrate what it looks like; Iran,etc.
In England, the law overtook the monarchy. It’s currently known as ‘broken England’ by some, yet the Monarch is head of the faith there!
In the USA, ‘freedom’ is becoming 'not allowed to express an opinion against anyone!
The Holy See as a country is the perfect example of your question, yet it does not and cannot exist in a vacuum.
If a country conformed to my religion, it would hurt evangilization big time.
We see examples of this currently with Islam.
This may be a reason why Christ wasn’t born into royalty.
So I would say no.
Like Communism, it sounds great in theory, but doesn’t work in real life. The Mennonite experience has been that merging the Church and the State leads to abuse and suffering as the church in power is tempted to abuse its power to persecute those who disagree with it. If we somehow founded a Mennonite Republic of Mennonitistan, it would only be a matter of time before we started jailing Catholics and denying full civil rights to Lutherans.
And this is why I can’t fall into the arguments about how our overglorified democratic republics are supposedly the best form of government possible.
In Italy for decades from 1929 to the 1980s, Catholicism was the official religion of the state, and was mandatory in all the schools. Even today, while Catholicism is no longer the official faith, the crucifix continues to hang in all public institutions, and the* “ora di religione”* classes continue to exist in state schools.
Non-Catholic Christians in Italy have the right to free assembly, guaranteed by the constitution, and to practice their faith. This also goes for all non-Christian religions.
Even in the Medieval and Renaissance eras, usually reputed to be “the most intolerant” ages of religious differences for Europe, there were plenty of cases in which absolutist, one-denomination monarchies allowed for a free practicing of faith.
The reason why today we are more “tolerant” of religious differences is not because we have decided to minimize the importance of religion, as some have suggested, but because our own understanding of our own religion has evolved to the point to where we don’t consider it a Christian necessity force non-Christians to convert.
It depends on what you mean. If you mean that none of the laws of the country would go against the church (ex. There couldn’t be a law that requires someone to do something that goes against the Catholic faith.) then I would be for it. However, if you mean that all citizens would be legally required to practice all aspects of the Catholic faith, even if they aren’t Catholic, then I would not agree with that.