--- In [email protected], "Irmeli Mattsson" 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This is an interesting theme I have been pondering also. The way of
> thinking that our religion, our belief system, is the best, and 
peace
> and happiness for all humanity (or heaven on earth), is attained 
only,
> when we have got victory over the other religions, belongs to 
certain
> stages of moral development, most notoriously the mythical
> fundamentalist stage. Only when you develop beyond that stage you
> start to see the general pattern in it that is similar in many 
other
> religions and what is created by that pattern.
> 
> I belong to a spiritual organization, that doesn't see itself to be
> the best. Rather seeing itself to be contributing to the progress 
of
> humanity and the individual. It doesn't accept rigid doctrines at 
all,
> only some general moral principles, one of which is to see the
> differences between people as richness rather than a threat. This 
kind
> of approach doesn't attract too many people. 

But fortunately it still attracts some.  I like the way my favorite 
songwriter, Bruce Cockburn, once put it:

   To be one more voice in the human choir
   rising like smoke from the mystical fire of the heart 

> I have been wondering why there are so many stable democracies 
only in
> the part of the world where Christianity has prevailed for a long
> time. Also those countries have been most successful in eliminating
> poverty. I consider true democracy to be the most advanced form of
> governance created by humanity so far. Has this progress happened
> because Christianity has allowed more real human rights for women 
than
> other religions? Or has this part of the world been capable of
> maintaining those rights in spite of the religion?

I'm not convinced that the correspondence between democracy and 
Christianity works quite the way you are envisioning it.  :-)  

The first democracies (America and France) were conscious 
revolutions *against* the uniting of Church and State.  When 
Jefferson spoke the words, "I have sworn upon the altar of God 
eternal hostility to any form of tyranny over the mind of man," he 
was explicitly referring to *religion* as the tyrant.  Those words 
come from a letter he wrote in response to an attempt by a Christian 
group to take over a school system and impose a "proper" religious 
education on everyone.

In addition, for almost a millenium Christianity has actively 
*suppressed* the rights of women rather than "allowing" them.  It 
really started to get heavy in the 13th century, in the south of 
France.  At that time, in that place, women had equal rights with 
men.  Women could own property in In their own name, something that 
did not happen in the rest of France until De Gaulle.  In the Cathar 
religion that sprung up as an alternative to the Roman Church in 
that area, there were equal numbers of men and women priests.  Women 
were celebrated as artists, writers, and poets.  The Roman Church 
reacted to this by creating two Crusades and the Inquisition 
to "deal with" this "problem" and basically exterminated 200,000 
fellow Christians.  They then set about reversing all of the 
advances that women had gained in that region and throughout Europe.

So I would say that perhaps there IS a relationship between 
democracies and Christianity, but would suggest that if you look 
into that relationship more deeply, you might find that the 
democracies were created to *stop* the tyranny of Christianity 
rather than created as an expression of it.

Barry/Unc






To subscribe, send a message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Or go to: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 


Reply via email to