Alexis de Tocqueville: Democracy and Christianity

Then I have no idea what it means. Care to explain?

No. I don't care to discuss Christian theology. I was only making the point that if Christianity causes distrust of government that is not a bad thing if distrusting government results in refusing to perform immoral acts ordered by government.
 
Then, religion is useless. Just self-righteous pontificators.

But you said it causes distrust of government. I don't think you have any evidence that is true, but if people refuse to commit immoral acts because of their religious beliefs then religion served a useful purpose because that immoral act was not committed.

Many of the churches were very involved in the civil rights movement to end segregation. I don't consider that trivial or useless although they were causing distrust of government and violated the law.
 
Then you have no argument.

That was not the topic I was discussing so my argument had nothing to do with Christian beliefs. It was about people who use their religious beliefs to defy evil government actions.

They could be motivated by non-religious moral beliefs and achieve the same thing. Do you think trust in government means its citizens should commit immoral acts in order to be loyal to their government.

Obviously the "killing Jews" was referring to Nazi Germany. Not treating men with symphillis was referring to the U. S. government health experiments in Alabama. "Killing Indians" was referring to American government policy about American Indians. I assumed you were familiar with those events.
 
But you said it causes distrust of government. I don't think you have any evidence that is true, but if people refuse to commit immoral acts because of their religious beliefs then religion served a useful purpose because that immoral act was not committed.

Many of the churches were very involved in the civil rights movement to end segregation. I don't consider that trivial or useless although they were causing distrust of government and violated the law.

My point is that religion is arbitrary. You stated you have no interest in discussing Christian beliefs. So there is no reason for the state to allow people to violate law based on belief.
 
That was not the topic I was discussing so my argument had nothing to do with Christian beliefs. It was about people who use their religious beliefs to defy evil government actions.

They could be motivated by non-religious moral beliefs and achieve the same thing. Do you think trust in government means its citizens should commit immoral acts in order to be loyal to their government.

Obviously the "killing Jews" was referring to Nazi Germany. Not treating men with symphillis was referring to the U. S. government health experiments in Alabama. "Killing Indians" was referring to American government policy about American Indians. I assumed you were familiar with those events.

It is only about belief. What if a religion believed in raping children. Should the government say, yeah, whatever, believe what you want
 
Probably.

I have to go to the Store. Have fun discussing 'Christians' with Cypress. He sees nothing wrong in believing in a Man-God. And that after it dies ... it came back to Life ... and flew off into outer space.

You don't know what I believe and the thread is about what Alexis de Tocqueville believes.

One cannot discuss the history of western civilization without taking into account Christianity.

Can you explain exactly why you get upset when I post anything having to do with Christianity,
but you never get upset when I post anything about Buddhism, Hinduism, Atheism, Animism, B'ahia, Sikhism, Daoism, or Confucianism?

What exactly is the reason?
 
Here is my bottom line.


I am not sure if Tocqueville is right.

I think he might be wrong that Catholicism is a better breeding ground for democracy than Protestantism. Though I think I can understand why he said that.

I can see the premise that the spritual equality implied by Christian theology and philosophy, along with the individualistic proto-democratic strain of a priesthood of all believers in the Martin Luther-esque strain of Protestantism could contribute to a breeding ground for democracy.

I do not think there was a good breeding ground for democracy in the Confucian, Hindu, or Islamic traditions - these systems of thought promoted hierarchy, social caste system, deference to authority, detachment from worldly concerns, and in some cases an emphasis on theocracy.
 
Here is my bottom line.


I am not sure if Tocqueville is right.

I think he might be wrong that Catholicism is a better breeding ground for democracy than Protestantism. Though I think I can understand why he said that.

I can see the premise that the spritual equality implied by Christian theology and philosophy, along with the individualistic proto-democratic strain of a priesthood of all believers in the Martin Luther-esque strain of Protestantism could contribute to a breeding ground for democracy.

I do not think there was a good breeding ground for democracy in the Confucian, Hindu, or Islamic traditions - these systems of thought promoted hierarchy, social caste system, deference to authority, detachment from worldly concerns, and in some cases an emphasis on theocracy.


Christianity is very compatible with fascism. Is that a positive quality?
 
Christianity is very compatible with fascism. Is that a positive quality?
extremely silly and non-rationale premise.

Using that logic, Atheism is extremely compatible with totalitarian communism and terror, aka Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Eastern communist bloc, French Revolution Great Terror.
 
And I asked you how.

And I did not write "Nazism." Please read my post before replying.

You said Hitler and Christianity were bedfellows, or did you forget.

This thread was a dispassionate and detached look at the historical context Tocqueville asserted about democracy and religion.

Can you explain why you always have to make it about your personal grudge against Christianity, when you never do that about any other world religion I create threads about?

As for your claim that Hitler and Nazism were a perfectly predictable consequence of Christianity....

The Roman Catholic Church suffered persecution in Nazi Germany. The Nazis claimed jurisdiction over all collective and social activity and the party leadership hoped to dechristianize Germany in the long term.

Clergy were watched closely, and frequently denounced, arrested and sent to Nazi concentration camps. Welfare institutions were interfered with or transferred to state control. Catholic schools, press, trade unions, political parties and youth leagues were eradicated. Anti-Catholic propaganda and "morality" trials were staged. Monasteries and convents were targeted for expropriation. Prominent Catholic lay leaders were murdered, and thousands of Catholic activists were arrested.

In all, an estimated one third of German priests faced some form of reprisal in Nazi Germany and 400 German priests were sent to the dedicated Priest Barracks of Dachau Concentration Camp. Persecution of the Church in Germany was at its most severe in the annexed Polish regions. Here the Nazis set about systematically dismantling the Church and most priests were murdered, deported or forced to flee.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_persecution_of_the_Catholic_Church_in_Germany
 
You said Hitler and Christianity were bedfellows, or did you forget.

This thread was a dispassionate and detached look at the historical context Tocqueville asserted about democracy and religion.

Can you explain why you always have to make it about your personal grudge against Christianity, when you never do that about any other world religion I create threads about?

As for your claim that Hitler and Nazism were a perfectly predictable consequence of Christianity....

I think you are too immature to debate.
 
"Can you explain why you always have to make it about your personal grudge "

The fact you have no university training means you cannot debate ideas objectively. Everything is personal opinion for you.
Like I said, you are too immature to have a rational discussion.
 
Back
Top