Is Christianity standing in the way of progress?

[welsh]

Any country should support scientific research, taking in account the potential benefits for the community. Religion is only an individual's stance to God, if he believes in him/her/it or not, no sense of countries additionally sponsoring the biggest scam on earth.

Yet religion is a guiding force in human morality, tho' it is not, as religious people would have it, the source. It has served Western culture in many ways in its history, and certainly has done enough to outweight the infamous "bad things".

Religion is also a sensitive matter.

But, unlike what people believe, so is science. There are too many fields of science that overlap onto human morality. And even funnier, political parties, especially in America's lobby-based system, are too often influenced by the big companies not to support some forms of science "too much". Energy could probably be a lot cheaper and cleaner by now if it wasn't for the oil-lobbies.

True, but don't forget that the religious lobby is also one of the strongest in the US, and they can help decide if certain scientific projects get funded.

But while I will agree with you that religion often provides us "good" morals that helps guide us, I would make two qualifications.

Religion also helps give people a sense of identity- a person is a Catholic, Buddhist, Protestant, Evangelical, Muslim, and that defines who they are as a group. This is one sense of "us" vs. "them" and while it may allow us to overcome the sense of individuality to achieve results through more community approaches, it's ability to solve the collective action problem has it's down side too. As discussed here before, the notion of "us" vs "them" can be used to instigate or perpetuate violence.

But I would go one step further. With religion we also have a system of "good" and "evil", but are we better off with that system? Religion allows us to see what is virtuous, but it also can be used to define "sin." Are we better off with a system of imposed order derived from belief in a supernatural almighty and divine force, or should we have faith in the mankind's reason to figure out what is moral and what is not? And by creating a system of moral rules, don't we also open up the opportunity for abuse of that system?

In Ireland, for instance, a woman who might want to fool around outside of marriage might be seen as a sinner and sent off to live in the convent. In some Islamic societies, a woman is considered little more than chattle, a view that was common in Christian societies until the last century. It is religion, by setting up a system of order and a status quo that might also constrain human evolution and the evolution of morality. After all it was religion that defined "civilized people" giving justification for terrible acts of violence under colonialism, to black african slaves, and to Indians. It was also relgiion that gave us the notion of "divine right" of kings to rule, and be predators on their own society. Yet the people committing such acts often thought of themselves as "virtuous" by the religious standards of the day.

Perhaps it is the structure of a set of moral rules attributable to religion that holds us back? After all some of the earliest human rights laws came from religious monks in Spain, radicals perhaps of that time, who criticized the Spanish treatment of native americans as being "ungodly" despite it being seen as justified only a few years previously by similar religious authorities.

 

[RAKTHEUNDEAD]

In Ireland, for instance, a woman who might want to fool around outside of marriage might be seen as a sinner and sent off to live in the convent.

Not any more. Ireland's become a hell of a lot more diverse.

 

[John Uskglass]

In Ireland, for instance, a woman who might want to fool around outside of marriage might be seen as a sinner and sent off to live in the convent. In some Islamic societies, a woman is considered little more than chattle, a view that was common in Christian societies until the last century. It is religion, by setting up a system of order and a status quo that might also constrain human evolution and the evolution of morality. After all it was religion that defined "civilized people" giving justification for terrible acts of violence under colonialism, to black african slaves, and to Indians. It was also relgiion that gave us the notion of "divine right" of kings to rule, and be predators on their own society. Yet the people committing such acts often thought of themselves as "virtuous" by the religious standards of the day.

Let's compare this to the non-religious socities we encounter thruought human history;
The Altaic (Turks, Mongols, Khazaks, etc.) are, by the nature of thier origional, pre-islamic culture, non-religious. They managed to kill millions of people under the Hunnish, Scythian or Mongol banner. They also did more damage to exsisting civilizations (Russia, China, Islamic) then any other group in recorded history.
Revolutionary France brought upon the first modern attempt at something close to genocide, or perhaps something along the lines of aristocide, as the upper class where French. Never the less hundreds of thousadns died in a short time, and the fervently anti-religious Jacobites where responsible for most of it. Like all modern tyrranical mass-murdering genocides, the religious, in the form of the Catholic Church (who, it should be said, supported the still very bad Aristocracy) and the British are at the healm.

Now we enter a more modern age. While genocide in Turkey was nothing new, having baisically been invented by Abdul-Majhid II, it was under the relitively secular Young Turks that the Ottoman Empire began one of the least known and destructive genocides in history. Who is at the fore front against this? The Orthodox Churches and American Missions, who shealtered the Armenians and give the best accounts of the genocide.

Now we get to the most modern and destructive-the Communists. Weather Mao, or Pot, or Stalin, these people killed around 100 million people. Who is at the forefront against them? In China, the Falun-Gong, in the Eastern Bloc the Catholics, and the same in Cambodia.

Also, the Nazis. It can be argued if they themselves where a Christian party (though Hitler's view of Christanity as a Jewish plot certainly is a thorn in the side of anyone arguing that position), the best known and most effective fighters of the Nazi party within Germany where not Communists or Social Democrats but people fighting for Christian values, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer or the White Roses.


The idea that these things happen only because of religion as you seem to be suggesting is totally absurd, not to meniton the fact that every single group opposed to slavery before the French Revolution did so on the Christian religious grounds

 

[SkynetV4]

Partly, right. You are right that the Roman-Christian majority here did give me a few principles (that when I analyze them, they clash with my current beliefs (if you could call them that)): i.e. the virgin girls being preferable than other girls for marriage, the fact that things like smoking and doing drugs seem inherently wrong to me (aside from medical reasons, I did want to be a doctor a long time ago). You are wrong however in believing that my benevolence (sp?) and good will have anything to do with religion. Trust me.

Think in a more obscure sense. Much as Sander said, you shouldn't concentrate on Christianity's rules, but rather the feeling it expressed. It's a very discussable subject how much Christianity stems from human morality or how much human morality stems from Christianity.

However, it can't be denied that Western morality, and thus the morality it's spread with its big guns throughout the world, has been heavily influenced by Christianity. You, personally, may not be influenced directly by religion, but the society you live in has largely been formed the way it is under influence of Christianity. Hence you have been formed under heavy influence of Christianity.

Funny that you mention that. Down here we have such a religious diversity (although with a Catholic majority (this will change if the Chinese keep arriving illegally and staying)) and you know what?Most of the negative aspects from the wide array of religions are missing. You don't see Jews and Arabs fighting it out. Nor Christians bashing the other ones. Most of the annoying shit comes from the Catholic way of life which fucks up people (mostly girls, who will tolerate that their husbands beat them rather than divorcing them (which is quite hard because they marry by the church)) in some ways. Prigishness (sp?) is also omni-present and Double Standards for everything are accepted by the society (it is dishonest for an employee to steal a bit of money from a company but it is perfectly honest that an employer pays his employees less than minimum wage (remember the Work Code are mere suggestions, not actual laws that are enforced)).

 

[Sander]

No, I'll not shut up simply because CCR was the one to say this. Whether he decides to reply is his business.

Let's compare this to the non-religious socities we encounter thruought human history;
The Altaic (Turks, Mongols, Khazaks, etc.) are, by the nature of thier origional, pre-islamic culture, non-religious. They managed to kill millions of people under the Hunnish, Scythian or Mongol banner. They also did more damage to exsisting civilizations (Russia, China, Islamic) then any other group in recorded history.
Revolutionary France brought upon the first modern attempt at something close to genocide, or perhaps something along the lines of aristocide, as the upper class where French. Never the less hundreds of thousadns died in a short time, and the fervently anti-religious Jacobites where responsible for most of it. Like all modern tyrranical mass-murdering genocides, the religious, in the form of the Catholic Church (who, it should be said, supported the still very bad Aristocracy) and the British are at the healm.

Oh yeah, because, you know, being Christian would surely have stopped all that...
No, wait, it wouldn't. I've seen racists use the bible as an excuse for their racism (remember the Tower of Babel?), and whenever someone wants to justify what they are doing from their religion, they can find something, whether others agree with him or not.
The point is that religion isn't going to stop people from being violent if they're violent already, and non-religion isn't a cause for violence.

Now we enter a more modern age. While genocide in Turkey was nothing new, having baisically been invented by Abdul-Majhid II, it was under the relitively secular Young Turks that the Ottoman Empire began one of the least known and destructive genocides in history. Who is at the fore front against this? The Orthodox Churches and American Missions, who shealtered the Armenians and give the best accounts of the genocide.

Yeah, and because they're all Christian, they must be good, and because they're all supporting those Armenians, non-Christians are all evil.
The world isn't that black and white, just the fact that the Orthodox Churches and American Missins have supported the Armenians the most does not make them a force of good, and it doesn't mean that this somehow has anything to do with morals coming from Christianity.
A lot of charity works, for instance, are non-Christian. Greenpeace, Care and others.

Now we get to the most modern and destructive-the Communists. Weather Mao, or Pot, or Stalin, these people killed around 100 million people. Who is at the forefront against them? In China, the Falun-Gong, in the Eastern Bloc the Catholics, and the same in Cambodia.

And you really think this has anything to do with the fact that they're genocidal rather than religiously oppressive?
If you want to talk about religions taking the forefront against religion, you've taken the wrong century. During the Nazi reign, the catholic church did absolutely nothing against the Nazis, and in fact, most religions just didn't talk about it, or simply supported them.

Also, the Nazis. It can be argued if they themselves where a Christian party (though Hitler's view of Christanity as a Jewish plot certainly is a thorn in the side of anyone arguing that position), the best known and most effective fighters of the Nazi party within Germany where not Communists or Social Democrats but people fighting for Christian values, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer or the White Roses.

Why? What do you base this on? Why do you assume that Bonhoeffer was more effective than the communist resistance?
Plus, you seem to forget what I said up there. Most religions did not say anything about Hitler. Bonhoeffer was an exception, one of the few religous people to oppose Hitler.

The idea that these things happen only because of religion as you seem to be suggesting is totally absurd,

Which is why that's not what he's mentioning. He's saying that religion can act as a straitjacket, he's not claiming it to cause genocides.
And why do you always fall back on those genocides?

not to meniton the fact that every single group opposed to slavery before the French Revolution did so on the Christian religious grounds

How surprising. Maybe that's because there barely were any non-religious groups, eh?

 

[RAKTHEUNDEAD]

Now we get to the most modern and destructive-the Communists. Weather Mao, or Pot, or Stalin, these people killed around 100 million people.

Ah, ah, ah, STALINIST-Communist. Don't tar all Communists with the same brush.

the best known and most effective fighters of the Nazi party within Germany where not Communists or Social Democrats

That's because the Communists and Social Democrats were all silenced and slayed.

 

[Sander]

Ah, ah, ah, STALINIST-Communist. Don't tar all Communists with the same brush.

Wait, since when are Mao and Pol Pot Stalinist?

 

[Brother None]

The Altaic (Turks, Mongols, Khazaks, etc.) are, by the nature of thier origional, pre-islamic culture, non-religious. They managed to kill millions of people under the Hunnish, Scythian or Mongol banner. They also did more damage to exsisting civilizations (Russia, China, Islamic) then any other group in recorded history.

Wait, wait, hang on, they were pre-islamic, but non-religious? What about Zoroaster? The Achaemenians were certainly religious, yet their religion was pre-islam. Yes, they weren't Altaic, tho' I find it strange that you're using that term to denote some kind of ancient group of people. A lot of people wouldn't like that.

The Mongols were Buddhist, tho', under Kublai.

I really can't picture these people as non-religious. "Primitive religions", maybe, but non-religious.

Revolutionary France brought upon the first modern attempt at something close to genocide, or perhaps something along the lines of aristocide, as the upper class where French. Never the less hundreds of thousadns died in a short time, and the fervently anti-religious Jacobites where responsible for most of it.

Mon dieu, what hogwash. First of, to prevent mix-ups, the Jacobites are a group of Brits closely tied to several throne-ascensions, including that of the Dutch king to the French throne. The Jacobin Club is what you're referring to.

However, the Jacobin Club are the spiritual sons of the Dominican Order. You're not seriously going to argue that the Dominican Order is non-religious, are you?

I would argue sooner that the Jacobins are expressive of the self-destructing elements of Christianity.

In any case, Jacobins or not, the characteristics of the French Revolutions certainly weren't non-religious.That had little to nothing to do with it.

Now we enter a more modern age. While genocide in Turkey was nothing new, having baisically been invented by Abdul-Majhid II, it was under the relitively secular Young Turks that the Ottoman Empire began one of the least known and destructive genocides in history. Who is at the fore front against this? The Orthodox Churches and American Missions, who shealtered the Armenians and give the best accounts of the genocide.

*frowns* Wait, you've always pointed at the Ottoman's islamic religion as the main cause of their violent tendencies, and now you're saying it got worst when they turned secular?

That's kind of...non-consistent.

Now we get to the most modern and destructive-the Communists. Weather Mao, or Pot, or Stalin, these people killed around 100 million people. Who is at the forefront against them? In China, the Falun-Gong, in the Eastern Bloc the Catholics, and the same in Cambodia.

*nods*

Also, the Nazis. It can be argued if they themselves where a Christian party (though Hitler's view of Christanity as a Jewish plot certainly is a thorn in the side of anyone arguing that position),

The nazis weren't a Christian party, but the people were a Christian people.

the best known and most effective fighters of the Nazi party within Germany where not Communists or Social Democrats but people fighting for Christian values, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer or the White Roses

That might be because the nazis wiped out all the communists and social democrats. National Socialism didn't put up for other political stances, y'know.

The idea that these things happen only because of religion as you seem to be suggesting is totally absurd, not to meniton the fact that every single group opposed to slavery before the French Revolution did so on the Christian religious grounds

Like who is suggesting?

And I will hold on to the fact that religion in a lot of its characteristics is a reaction to social tendencies, not the cause of it. It's not totally one way or the other, but it's more a reaction than a cause.

No, I'll not shut up simply because CCR was the one to say this. Whether he decides to reply is his business.

Y'know this childish behaviour was amusing at first, bt it gets tiring soon. It's obvious you love each other too much to leave one another alone, so deal with it and stop acting a like kids, or accept your annoyance with one another and ignore one another. Either way, stop letting the forum enjoy your little drama.

Oh yeah, because, you know, being Christian would surely have stopped all that...
No, wait, it wouldn't. I've seen racists use the bible as an excuse for their racism (remember the Tower of Babel?), and whenever someone wants to justify what they are doing from their religion, they can find something, whether others agree with him or not.
The point is that religion isn't going to stop people from being violent if they're violent already, and non-religion isn't a cause for violence.

Not his point and a pretty weak reply at that. You can't really prove religion or non-religion was an influence on these events, just by comparing them to events in completely different situations.

Unless you're going to argue religion has no influence on human behaviour, which would be pretty dumb.

Yeah, and because they're all Christian, they must be good, and because they're all supporting those Armenians, non-Christians are all evil.
The world isn't that black and white, just the fact that the Orthodox Churches and American Missins have supported the Armenians the most does not make them a force of good, and it doesn't mean that this somehow has anything to do with morals coming from Christianity.

I suggest you read up on a subject before making a dipshit reply like that. The Second Armenian Genocide that CC is referrin to was a reaction to Ottoman fears that the Armenians would sympathise more with the Alliance than with Ottoman's allies

1.5 million (est.) Armenians died during that genocide. (depends on who you ask, the Turks put it as low as 300,000, the Armenians as high as 2.5 million. 500,000 to 2 million are considered historically proveable numbers, and 1.5 million is generally accepted)

I think the Second Armenian Genocide is one of those historic events that comes pretty close to being black-and-white, like the Terror or the Second World War.

However, that's just this case, specifically. You're arguing outside of this case, which is pretty weak. CC was referring only to this case, nowhere did he make the extravagant claim that the Christians are a force of good as opposed to the evil non-Christians. Don't put words into his mouth.

How surprising. Maybe that's because there barely were any non-religious groups, eh?

He said they did so on religious grounds. They could've argued it on non-religious grounds, using the old Roman empire as comparison. There are many sociological theories on the detrimental effects on creativity that a slave-labour society has.

But they didn't, they argued on Christians grounds.

 

[John Uskglass]

Wait, wait, hang on, they were pre-islamic, but non-religious? What about Zoroaster? The Achaemenians were certainly religious, yet their religion was pre-islam. Yes, they weren't Altaic, tho' I find it strange that you're using that term to denote some kind of ancient group of people. A lot of people wouldn't like that.

The Mongols were Buddhist, tho', under Kublai.

I really can't picture these people as non-religious. "Primitive religions", maybe, but non-religious.

Our records of the Huns call them athiestic. Now, it is entirely possible that our historians of the time, almost all of them being particularly firey Christian converts, could have just called them that for thier lack of respect or interest in Christanity, but we have enough of this "athiest" critiscism that, when combined with what we know about other Altaic groups, it's not enirely unlikely.

Now, the Altaic people where not without religion, to be perfectly honest. They where vaugley monotheistic, with an all powerful sky/moon God that was served by lesser ones (in Turkish called Tanri-a word that now describes all percived non-Islamic Gods), but oddly enough there is little evidence of any kind of structure to this religion, and generally even after Kublai who respected the Lahma as his religious advisor for a short time, the Mongols did not care about religion.

They honestly did not care about religion. They had Nestorian Naimen Turkmen in thier court, to Alevi Muslims to Catholics to Pagans. Heck, even the mongol succesor states, such as the Il-Khanate and the Golden Horde where generally non-religious, even in thier Islam.

However, the Jacobin Club are the spiritual sons of the Dominican Order. You're not seriously going to argue that the Dominican Order is non-religious, are you?

I would argue sooner that the Jacobins are expressive of the self-destructing elements of Christianity.

I don't know much about French history, honestly. Though I think you mean "French Revolution non religious" as even in American Democracy the French regard the Americans as overly religious.

*frowns* Wait, you've always pointed at the Ottoman's islamic religion as the main cause of their violent tendencies, and now you're saying it got worst when they turned secular?

That's kind of...non-consistent.

The Ottoman Empire was a bizzare beast. It was expansionist because of it's religion, it practiced state-instituted intolerance, but only with Secularization, weirdly enough, did it become truly genocidal.

The nazis weren't a Christian party, but the people were a Christian people.

Oy, that's what I'm trying to say.

That might be because the nazis wiped out all the communists and social democrats. National Socialism didn't put up for other political stances, y'know.

True. But I still think that what Bonhoeffer or the White Roses did or a dozen other seperate groups (including someone who is roughly the equivilent of a Mormon Supersaint, a German convert who was about 16 and exicuted). And I generally respect thier ways more then the Communists....

Like who is suggesting?

And I will hold on to the fact that religion in a lot of its characteristics is a reaction to social tendencies, not the cause of it. It's not totally one way or the other, but it's more a reaction than a cause.

Depends on the society and the people. But I think that's a part of what Welsh was suggesting.

1.5 million (est.) Armenians died during that genocide. (depends on who you ask, the Turks put it as low as 300,000, the Armenians as high as 2.5 million. 500,000 to 2 million are considered historically proveable numbers, and 1.5 million is generally accepted)

Good numbers, but many where Turkified, almost a million Pontic Greeks died and many, many more where forcefully converted (thus Turkified, it was'nt really religious).

 

[Sander]

Y'know this childish behaviour was amusing at first, bt it gets tiring soon. It's obvious you love each other too much to leave one another alone, so deal with it and stop acting a like kids, or accept your annoyance with one another and ignore one another. Either way, stop letting the forum enjoy your little drama.

I was precipitating a possible response. Stupid post of mine, though.

Not his point and a pretty weak reply at that. You can't really prove religion or non-religion was an influence on these events, just by comparing them to events in completely different situations.

Unless you're going to argue religion has no influence on human behaviour, which would be pretty dumb.

But that wasn't his point either. His point was, as always, that somehow being non-religious makes matters worse and will cause genocides, or make them more likely.
Although I may have read that wrongly. Hrmph.

I suggest you read up on a subject before making a dipshit reply like that. The Second Armenian Genocide that CC is referrin to was a reaction to Ottoman fears that the Armenians would sympathise more with the Alliance than with Ottoman's allies

1.5 million (est.) Armenians died during that genocide. (depends on who you ask, the Turks put it as low as 300,000, the Armenians as high as 2.5 million. 500,000 to 2 million are considered historically proveable numbers, and 1.5 million is generally accepted)

I think the Second Armenian Genocide is one of those historic events that comes pretty close to being black-and-white, like the Terror or the Second World War.

However, that's just this case, specifically. You're arguing outside of this case, which is pretty weak. CC was referring only to this case, nowhere did he make the extravagant claim that the Christians are a force of good as opposed to the evil non-Christians. Don't put words into his mouth.

Don't you think I know all that? Did you anywhere see me claim that the Armenian genocide was somehow fake, false, never happened or any such thing?

And, again, I was arguing not against this case, but against the implications that followed from that case and the other things he was saying. He took some facts, and then said that religion saved lots of people.
I probably read the implications wrongly, though, so if that's the case, I apologise.

He said they did so on religious grounds. They could've argued it on non-religious grounds, using the old Roman empire as comparison. There are many sociological theories on the detrimental effects on creativity that a slave-labour society has.

But they didn't, they argued on Christians grounds.

That's because, again, there was little else. There were very few non-religious people, there were even fewer non-religious groups, and to then support the claim you make on a non-relogious basis when the first rights of man hadn't even been published seems very very very unlikely.

I don't know much about French history, honestly. Though I think you mean "French Revolution non religious" as even in American Democracy the French regard the Americans as overly religious.

If I recall correctly, the French revolution was anti-clerical, but not anti-religious. They went through a lot of different phases, each one lasting a short time.

True. But I still think that what Bonhoeffer or the White Roses did or a dozen other seperate groups (including someone who is roughly the equivilent of a Mormon Supersaint, a German convert who was about 16 and exicuted). And I generally respect thier ways more then the Communists....

You have to look then at whether you respect their ways more than the communist ways because of who the communists are or because of what the communists did to resist the nazis. Plus, you should explain why.

 

[welsh]

CC- I am not going to respond to your historical comments not because they are not interesting, but because others already have. From what I remember, the Mongol did have a religion, but's been awhile and I forget the detail.

Nor am I saying that those without an ideology, be it socialist, facist or maoist would not be capable of such violence. But those ideologies pick up a theme that one finds in religion- that there is an ideology "right" way of thinking, that other ways of thinking are wrong and should be bannished. And like many religious ideologies, people have used them to create great violence. I think I have posted it here before but to me, the hardline ideologues of communist societies look to me as little better than another religion.

But that's not exactly the point I was getting at.

What I was referring to was that religion gives us a divine notion of 'right' and 'wrong' without necessarily thinking it through. It imposses an order based on faith, often in a sanction from above.

It gives us a bases on which to call thinks evil are wrong, without necessary looking at the reasons for that evil or wrongness- an opportunity to condemn.

Sometimes for instance it comes up in the things we decide to call biblical values- for instance anti-same sex marriages is a big campaign issue as is anti-abortion. But what about peace, love, social justice, brotherhood? Aren't those more important values? In that sense I wonder if religion is just a means by which some folks can tell us what to think or consider without necessarily thiking it through.

But by creating a notion of evil itself, one creates the dualism that becomes a construct in thinking- between the good guys (those true to certain faith based systems) and the bad guys (those who are against or support another system of faith based systems). THis also gives a better reason for anchoring ourselves to those ideas.

I wonder if that's healthy or perhaps blinds us? Remember both sides in World War 2 thought God was on their side (well except the Russians, but that's another story). Had both taken God out of their equation, perhaps they might have thought otherwise.

 

[RAKTHEUNDEAD]

Wait, since when are Mao and Pol Pot Stalinist?

Maoism is a subset of Stalinism, totalitarian governments, transfer of wealth to a new bureaucratic elite, etc.

 

[John Uskglass]

Wait, since when are Mao and Pol Pot Stalinist?

Maoism is a subset of Stalinism, totalitarian governments, transfer of wealth to a new bureaucratic elite, etc.

Not to mention socialism in one country.

The big diffirence is that Maoism is more agircultural based then Stalinism, or for that matter any other branch of Communism lest you consider Pol Pot's a seperate one, and Mao was just an idiot, when Stalin was intellegent if sociopathic and a womanizer.

 

[John Uskglass]

From what I remember, the Mongol did have a religion, but's been awhile and I forget the detail.

They did by the time of Ghengis. Then again, so do the French. Does'nt make them religious, does it?

Nor am I saying that those without an ideology, be it socialist, facist or maoist would not be capable of such violence. But those ideologies pick up a theme that one finds in religion- that there is an ideology "right" way of thinking, that other ways of thinking are wrong and should be bannished. And like many religious ideologies, people have used them to create great violence. I think I have posted it here before but to me, the hardline ideologues of communist societies look to me as little better than another religion.

Good point. Okay, I did'nt really understand you're point then.

Sometimes for instance it comes up in the things we decide to call biblical values- for instance anti-same sex marriages is a big campaign issue as is anti-abortion. But what about peace, love, social justice, brotherhood? Aren't those more important values? In that sense I wonder if religion is just a means by which some folks can tell us what to think or consider without necessarily thiking it through.

For the record, you don't have to be religious to hate abortion or gay marrige. Heck, if anything I think Athiests have alot more reason to be against abortion.

 

[welsh]

You're not really thinking about the question.

 

[welsh]

Ok, here's one I will give the Christians.

One thing that Christianity has helped is the notion of human rights primarily by coming up with an idea that individuals deserve some basic human rights, and that we get this notion of "divine rights of man" from the God.

Of course, this is bullshit if you don't believe in the whole supernatural "it came from a burning bush" paradigm of natural human rights. But that's ok.

Here's why- with the notion of human rights we believe that individuals have certain "inalienable rights" that no government can deny. Governments deny these rights all teh time, but enough people believe that governments are wrong to deny those rights (because of God!) that the governments lose their legitimacy.

It is a matter of faith, belief that individuals are entitled to these rights. In reality, they don't deserve anything.

However, had we stuck with the positivist notion that all law comes from sovereign power, than the government could simply says- this notion of human rights is hogwash, I am the soveriegn and can enforce my law with power. If you don't like it, I can have you imprisoned or killed.

Thus, this notion of inalienable rights creates a faith or belief that governments are accountable to a higher authority and that man has the right to expect governments to help men obtain those rights.

So, ok, the Christians have done one thing good.

And before this continues, let me be clear. I have nothing against Christ, just Christians.

 

[John Uskglass]

So, ok, the Christians have done one thing good.

Consdiering that that's among the most imporant moral issues to the continued freedom of mankind, I'd say that 's a big fucking good thing.

Not to mention seperation of Church and state and such...

 

[welsh]

Ok, but there are problems, and the come up with that seperation of church and state issue.

Some of the earliest human rights law come for natural law- which itself comes from religion.

The idea here was that rational men could realize what the natural order (back then that meant God) meant, and that God, being a cool dude, wanted things to be good, humane, just, loving and otherwise cool.

The problem though was that God, being all wise and all powerful, could, according to some folks (absolute rulers) have chosen rulers as kings to rule over us, and we should do everything the king wants. Afterall if God didn't want kings, then they wouldn't exist. But it gets better, because Christianity is a heirarchy, God both likes Kings and likes us to suffer.

So you could see why the religion could be used as a means of propaganda and legitimization of Kings as divine rulers appointed to rule over us and being better and more wise then the rest of us.

So in that case religions fucks it up.

It is perhaps the fact that our founding fathers were often freemasons that things get a bit different in the US, and the king gets challenged. Freemasonry, which comes over from England, at least for the US, involved the notion that men could hang out and talk- in otherwords a club for free speech.

Upon independence from England and the founding of the country, free masons kept those institutions of free speech in our Constitution. It is also pretty clear that the founding fathers were averse to the notion of a linkage between the state and church, and let's not forget that the King of England was also head of his church (and religions have always been good rackets). Such ideas were also becoming vogue in enlightenment liberalism, which was widely adhered to by the founding fathers.

So free speech and the seperation of church and state come not from the bible so much or from existing practices, but from practices of free masonry and enlightenment liberalism.

 

[John Uskglass]

So you could see why the religion could be used as a means of propaganda and legitimization of Kings as divine rulers appointed to rule over us and being better and more wise then the rest of us.

Never in the scriptures though-only thing Jesus says about monarchies is rendering Ceaser unto Ceaser and God what is god's.

It is perhaps the fact that our founding fathers were often freemasons that things get a bit different in the US, and the king gets challenged. Freemasonry, which comes over from England, at least for the US, involved the notion that men could hang out and talk- in otherwords a club for free speech.

Freemasons? What next, the Nazis that live in the center of the earth and spread over the world in flying saucers and the greys being the perfect Aryans?

Upon independence from England and the founding of the country, free masons kept those institutions of free speech in our Constitution. It is also pretty clear that the founding fathers were averse to the notion of a linkage between the state and church, and let's not forget that the King of England was also head of his church (and religions have always been good rackets). Such ideas were also becoming vogue in enlightenment liberalism, which was widely adhered to by the founding fathers.

The Georges where German. The idea of free speach is central to the Anglo-Saxon (mebbe Dutch too) mentality. Only with foreign monarchs (the Georges from Hannover, the Stuarts from Scotland) did this change.

Freemasonry's effect was something close to an ultra secret coffee house; and I'd argue the advent of the Coffee house was signifigantly more important.

So free speech and the seperation of church and state come not from the bible so much or from existing practices, but from practices of free masonry and enlightenment liberalism.

Seperation of Church and State has it's history in the Catholic Church, much to the church's shegrin, Free Speech has been around sense the Magna Carta.....non issue, untrue.

 

[welsh]

CC- you have been more rude than usual lately. I would suggest that you mind your manners a bit least others mind them for you.

As for what is church doctrine and what is in the scriptures- sometimes they don't go together.

The church did quite well for itself when the Pope was more a political figure than a church leader. Then there was the church's role in supporting divine right kings.

The Magna Carta

Magna Carter 1215



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introductory note
Translation note

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.


KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the knighthood of the Temple in England, William Marshal earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

+ (1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

TO ALL FREE MEN OF OUR KINGDOM we have also granted, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

(2) If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a `relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of `relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay £100 for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight's `fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of `fees'

(3) But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without `relief' or fine.

(4) The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.

(5) For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.

(6) Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be' made known to the heir's next-of-kin.

(7) At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.

(8) No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

(9) Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.

* (10) If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

* (11) If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

* (12) No `scutage' or `aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes ouly a reasonable `aid' may be levied. `Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

+ (13) The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

* (14) To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an `aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a `scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.

* (15) In future we will allow no one to levy an `aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable `aid' may be levied.

(16) No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's `fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it.

(17) Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.

(18) Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.

(19) If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.

(20) For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

(21) Earls and barons shall be fined only by their equals, and in proportion to the gravity of their offence.

(22) A fine imposed upon the lay property of a clerk in holy orders shall be assessed upon the same principles, without reference to the value of his ecclesiastical benefice.

(23) No town or person shall be forced to build bridges over rivers except those with an ancient obligation to do so.

(24) No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices.

* (25) Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors.

(26) If at the death of a man who holds a lay `fee' of the Crown, a sheriff or royal official produces royal letters patent of summons for a debt due to the Crown, it shall be lawful for them to seize and list movable goods found in the lay `fee' of the dead man to the value of the debt, as assessed by worthy men. Nothing shall be removed until the whole debt is paid, when the residue shall be given over to the executors to carry out the dead man s will. If no debt is due to the Crown, all the movable goods shall be regarded as the property of the dead man, except the reasonable shares of his wife and children.

* (27) If a free man dies intestate, his movable goods are to be distributed by his next-of-kin and friends, under the supervision of the Church. The rights of his debtors are to be preserved.

(28) No constable or other royal official shall take corn or other movable goods from any man without immediate payment, unless the seller voluntarily offers postponement of this.

(29) No constable may compel a knight to pay money for castle-guard if the knight is willing to undertake the guard in person, or with reasonable excuse to supply some other fit man to do it. A knight taken or sent on military service shall be excused from castle-guard for the period of this servlce.

(30) No sheriff, royal official, or other person shall take horses or carts for transport from any free man, without his consent.

(31) Neither we nor any royal official will take wood for our castle, or for any other purpose, without the consent of the owner.

(32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the `fees' concerned.

(33) All fish-weirs shall be removed from the Thames, the Medway, and throughout the whole of England, except on the sea coast.

(34) The writ called precipe shall not in future be issued to anyone in respect of any holding of land, if a free man could thereby be deprived of the right of trial in his own lord's court.

(35) There shall be standard measures of wine, ale, and corn (the London quarter), throughout the kingdom. There shall also be a standard width of dyed cloth, russett, and haberject, namely two ells within the selvedges. Weights are to be standardised similarly.

(36) In future nothing shall be paid or accepted for the issue of a writ of inquisition of life or limbs. It shall be given gratis, and not refused.

(37) If a man holds land of the Crown by `fee-farm', `socage', or `burgage', and also holds land of someone else for knight's service, we will not have guardianship of his heir, nor of the land that belongs to the other person's `fee', by virtue of the `fee-farm', `socage', or `burgage', unless the `fee-farm' owes knight's service. We will not have the guardianship of a man's heir, or of land that he holds of someone else, by reason of any small property that he may hold of the Crown for a service of knives, arrows, or the like.

(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

+ (39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

+ (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.

(41) All merchants may enter or leave England unharmed and without fear, and may stay or travel within it, by land or water, for purposes of trade, free from all illegal exactions, in accordance with ancient and lawful customs. This, however, does not apply in time of war to merchants from a country that is at war with us. Any such merchants found in our country at the outbreak of war shall be detained without injury to their persons or property, until we or our chief justice have discovered how our own merchants are being treated in the country at war with us. If our own merchants are safe they shall be safe too.

* (42) In future it shall be lawful for any man to leave and return to our kingdom unharmed and without fear, by land or water, preserving his allegiance to us, except in time of war, for some short period, for the common benefit of the realm. People that have been imprisoned or outlawed in accordance with the law of the land, people from a country that is at war with us, and merchants - who shall be dealt with as stated above - are excepted from this provision.

(43) If a man holds lands of any `escheat' such as the `honour' of Wallingford, Nottingham, Boulogne, Lancaster, or of other `escheats' in our hand that are baronies, at his death his heir shall give us only the `relief' and service that he would have made to the baron, had the barony been in the baron's hand. We will hold the `escheat' in the same manner as the baron held it.

(44) People who live outside the forest need not in future appear before the royal justices of the forest in answer to general summonses, unless they are actually involved in proceedings or are sureties for someone who has been seized for a forest offence.

* (45) We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or other officials, only men that know the law of the realm and are minded to keep it well.

(46) All barons who have founded abbeys, and have charters of English kings or ancient tenure as evidence of this, may have guardianship of them when there is no abbot, as is their due.

(47) All forests that have been created in our reign shall at once be disafforested. River-banks that have been enclosed in our reign shall be treated similarly.

* (48) All evil customs relating to forests and warrens, foresters, warreners, sheriffs and their servants, or river-banks and their wardens, are at once to be investigated in every county by twelve sworn knights of the county, and within forty days of their enquiry the evil customs are to be abolished completely and irrevocably. But we, or our chief justice if we are not in England, are first to be informed.

* (49) We will at once return all hostages and charters delivered up to us by Englishmen as security for peace or for loyal service.

* (50) We will remove completely from their offices the kinsmen of Gerard de Athée, and in future they shall hold no offices in England. The people in question are Engelard de Cigogné', Peter, Guy, and Andrew de Chanceaux, Guy de Cigogné, Geoffrey de Martigny and his brothers, Philip Marc and his brothers, with Geoffrey his nephew, and all their followers.

* (51) As soon as peace is restored, we will remove from the kingdom all the foreign knights, bowmen, their attendants, and the mercenaries that have come to it, to its harm, with horses and arms.

* (52) To any man whom we have deprived or dispossessed of lands, castles, liberties, or rights, without the lawful judgement of his equals, we will at once restore these. In cases of dispute the matter shall be resolved by the judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§ 61). In cases, however, where a man was deprived or dispossessed of something without the lawful judgement of his equals by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once render justice in full.

* (53) We shall have similar respite in rendering justice in connexion with forests that are to be disafforested, or to remain forests, when these were first a-orested by our father Henry or our brother Richard; with the guardianship of lands in another person's `fee', when we have hitherto had this by virtue of a `fee' held of us for knight's service by a third party; and with abbeys founded in another person's `fee', in which the lord of the `fee' claims to own a right. On our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice to complaints about these matters.

(54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.

* (55) All fines that have been given to us unjustiy and against the law of the land, and all fines that we have exacted unjustly, shall be entirely remitted or the matter decided by a majority judgement of the twenty-five barons referred to below in the clause for securing the peace (§ 61) together with Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and such others as he wishes to bring with him. If the archbishop cannot be present, proceedings shall continue without him, provided that if any of the twenty-five barons has been involved in a similar suit himself, his judgement shall be set aside, and someone else chosen and sworn in his place, as a substitute for the single occasion, by the rest of the twenty-five.

(56) If we have deprived or dispossessed any Welshmen of lands, liberties, or anything else in England or in Wales, without the lawful judgement of their equals, these are at once to be returned to them. A dispute on this point shall be determined in the Marches by the judgement of equals. English law shall apply to holdings of land in England, Welsh law to those in Wales, and the law of the Marches to those in the Marches. The Welsh shall treat us and ours in the same way.

* (57) In cases where a Welshman was deprived or dispossessed of anything, without the lawful judgement of his equals, by our father King Henry or our brother King Richard, and it remains in our hands or is held by others under our warranty, we shall have respite for the period commonly allowed to Crusaders, unless a lawsuit had been begun, or an enquiry had been made at our order, before we took the Cross as a Crusader. But on our return from the Crusade, or if we abandon it, we will at once do full justice according to the laws of Wales and the said regions.

* (58) We will at once return the son of Llywelyn, all Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as security for the peace.

* (59) With regard to the return of the sisters and hostages of Alexander, king of Scotland, his liberties and his rights, we will treat him in the same way as our other barons of England, unless it appears from the charters that we hold from his father William, formerly king of Scotland, that he should be treated otherwise. This matter shall be resolved by the judgement of his equals in our court.

(60) All these customs and liberties that we have granted shall be observed in our kingdom in so far as concerns our own relations with our subjects. Let all men of our kingdom, whether clergy or laymen, observe them similarly in their relations with their own men.

* (61) SINCE WE HAVE GRANTED ALL THESE THINGS for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons, and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, for ever, we give and grant to the barons the following security:

The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter.
If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offence is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress. If we, or in our absence abroad the chiefjustice, make no redress within forty days, reckoning from the day on which the offence was declared to us or to him, the four barons shall refer the matter to the rest of the twenty-five barons, who may distrain upon and assail us in every way possible, with the support of the whole community of the land, by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon. Having secured the redress, they may then resume their normal obedience to us.

Any man who so desires may take an oath to obey the commands of the twenty-five barons for the achievement of these ends, and to join with them in assailing us to the utmost of his power. We give public and free permission to take this oath to any man who so desires, and at no time will we prohibit any man from taking it. Indeed, we will compel any of our subjects who are unwilling to take it to swear it at our command.

If-one of the twenty-five barons dies or leaves the country, or is prevented in any other way from discharging his duties, the rest of them shall choose another baron in his place, at their discretion, who shall be duly sworn in as they were.

In the event of disagreement among the twenty-five barons on any matter referred to them for decision, the verdict of the majority present shall have the same validity as a unanimous verdict of the whole twenty-five, whether these were all present or some of those summoned were unwilling or unable to appear.

The twenty-five barons shall swear to obey all the above articles faithfully, and shall cause them to be obeyed by others to the best of their power.

We will not seek to procure from anyone, either by our own efforts or those of a third party, anything by which any part of these concessions or liberties might be revoked or diminished. Should such a thing be procured, it shall be null and void and we will at no time make use of it, either ourselves or through a third party.

* (62) We have remitted and pardoned fully to all men any ill-will, hurt, or grudges that have arisen between us and our subjects, whether clergy or laymen, since the beginning of the dispute. We have in addition remitted fully, and for our own part have also pardoned, to all clergy and laymen any offences committed as a result of the said dispute between Easter in the sixteenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215) and the restoration of peace.

In addition we have caused letters patent to be made for the barons, bearing witness to this security and to the concessions set out above, over the seals of Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, Henry archbishop of Dublin, the other bishops named above, and Master Pandulf.

* (63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fulness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever.

Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others.

Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).

Deals primarily with the power to tax, not free speech. The only thing that comes close is the seperation of church and state- why? Because of the predatory reach of the king into the pocket of the church.