Papist-Caesaroism in other words?

Submitted by David W. Lincoln (Canada), May 16, 2007 at 09:07

Why not let the different faith traditions duke it out as to who guides the souls of the populace? After all, what distance was there between the eugenics movement that was accepted by various powerful personages, and what Hitler's early days as Fueher were characterized.

Susan, real politick has its dangers because the distance between "no christian influence allowed" and "an anti-christian influence" isn't all that large. For, the 1800s in European politics has examples where the Vatican was marginalized when in the past, some good came about when it was involved. Because, remember, Richard Pipes in his writings about the Soviet Union uses many words to point out the dangers of having a country (and a way of governing) that will have nothing to do with morals.

As long as real politick only bows to the egos and ambitions of those with their hands on the levers of power - they are a danger. Because there has to be more than a philanthropic approach so that the populace benefits. One needs to recognize that natural law has its origins from outside of creation, namely the supernatural.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".