The Church could not have launched the Crusades or the Inquisition without the ready willingness of secular monarchs with their military muscle.? The kings who did the bidding of the popes or the High Priests of the world's past religious systems did so as vassals and as partners in the civic power structure.? True religion was nowhere in the minds of either party I assure you.

Couldnt it be said that it would have been easier for those ambitious men to reach out for power when the churches were telling them God was on their side? So the question is; was religion using the man or the man religion?  But I have another question as well, regarding a post of Historywonk's he mentioned reality shows. It made me think of the kind of things people are entertained by now days. Could we say that maybe a degraded moral base could also be a threat to peace?

First let's establish some basic definitions.  Religion is a moral philosophy that is used to guide your basic decision-making process – should I or shouldn't I do this – and to help you get through both the daily bs and the major catastrophes in life by providing some sort of answer to the eternal question WHY.  The best guide to life I've ever heard is the Golden Rule – do unto others as you would have them do unto you.  Life your life by that precept and chances are more people are going to be sad when you die than will be partying in the streets.  The best answer to WHY that I have ever heard is “S–t happens”.  In other words, life is random and often unfair and the only thing you can do is the best you can.  Layered on top of those simple philosophies are churches which are bureaucratic structures that, while they were probably established with all the best intentions – usually quickly become more interested in controlling lives than anything else, except maybe collecting money and spending it on huge churches and fat salaries, for the hierarchy and not the poor schmucks in the trenches.  That is why they all have some sort of dogma.  Some set of rules that you absolutely must obey or you will suffer some sort of eternal punishment, plus they'll figure out some way to punish you on earth, even if its just making sure that all your friends in the church never, ever speak to you again.  The problem today, and you can call it moral relativeism if you want, is that people have lost sight of what is really important – treating your fellow human with the same respect that you want to be treated with.  As the species, especially the American branch, has become more materialistic the emphasis has become on providing for MY wants and to hell with everybody else.  And too often the churches haven't helped because they provide incentive for taking from others for the benefit of the church.  Look at tithing – rather than let you decide what you can afford, give us a flat 10% otherwise God won't love you.  Assuming there is a God, do you honestly think he gives a rat's rear?  In fact, the God that most churches have created would, if he were a human, probably be under intense psychiatric care.  He absolutely must control most facets of everybody's life, if you fail to follow his rules he will punish you now and forever, and he often wants you to destroy anyone who doesn't follow his rules.  Have rulers and demagogues taken advantage of this.  Of course they have, but if all churches demanded that you follow the Golden Rule without exception, would anybody have ever been killed in the name of God?  And yes I know that some of this is a bit oversimplified but I can only rant for so long before I lose my own way.  The bottom line is that man has always been an immoral beast and, while religion can help tame the beast, churches have too often taken advantage of it for their own aggrandizement.

Don't know if you read my very last post but I draw a very specific distinction between religion and churches.  Religion is a life-philosophy and everybody needs one.  Churches are bureaucratic structures whose primary purpose is to control its members and collect money for its own aggrandizement.  The former is absolutely critical, the latter is an abomination.

Religion is a good thing until man gets a hold of it.historywonk: I can't bring myself to see the Churches as negatively as you do.  They were instrumental in the Civil Rights Movement and the Abolition Movement.  So these two examples alone can show how the Churches can have a postive effect for social change.

It's the people who belong to the churches, who believe in the core of their philosophy, who practice the RELIGION, who do the good deeds.  The churches, the entrenched hierarchy, spend most of their time and effort attacking anyone who disagrees with their dogma.  Look at any of the major religions, how do they spend their time and money?  Attacking "heresy" and trying to convince more people to accept their dogma.  Good works are just another way to gain converts.  Hezbollah and Hamas do the same thing.  If you provide services that the people need they will support you and may be willing to die for you.  What's important is the philosophical underpinnings, the religion, and not the dogma that is all too often the whole focus of the hierarchy, but then that is what maintains them in their lifestyle, it is their career.

Well, as one of those who belongs to an "entrenched hierarchical" church, I differ greatly in my opinion of the role and activities of churches.? Churches respond to attacks on their dogma just as anyone else with an idea would respond to an attack.? I don't see anything wrong with that.? Churches have moral authority - sometimes this may seem strict - but they do not have political authority; that is, churches cannot force you to act in a particular way the same that governments can.? If you act against a governmental statute, you can be locked up.? Just as a person can move out of a country, a person has the free will to leave a particular church (although this can be difficult if we recall the recent case of a Christian convert in Afghanistan).The point you raise about Hezbollah and Hamas hits on a good point - that the religious person can be the most loving or have the best heart in the world, but he can also be the most dangerous person in the world.? However, non-religious people can be just as dangerous.? The people reportedly killed under Stalin could exceed those killed under Hitler by tens of milllions.

What concerns me is that churches DO have political power far too often.  And they often have that power indirectly so that it is not subject to the usual checks that government may be limited by.  It used to be the Roman Catholic church, then various Protestant denominations that ruled directly.  And it hasn't been that long ago that Catholicism dominated Ireland, Spain, and Italy.  It wasn't even that long ago, in historical terms, that we had state-supported churches in this country.  And now we have Islam being the defacto government in a number of countries.  The problem is that churches, by definition, are made up of true believers and true believers always make me nervous because they are absolutely convinced that they, and only they, have the ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND RIGHT on their side.  This makes them extremely dangerous.  Unfortunately true believers are not limited to religion - look at the McCarthy era in this country or the reign of terror that the IRA inflicted on Northern Ireland, or the original Reign of Terror.  Any group or organization that will not tolerate dissent because they are absolutely convinced that they know the TRUTH is dangerous because they are willing to do ANYTHING to suppress any inkling of that dissent.  Churches are more susceptible to this than  political parties because they have GOD ON THEIR SIDE.

I advocate Christians to seek office and to use their Christian principles and faith in Jesus Christ to guide their decisions as they represent their constituents.? I see nothing in the teachings of Christ that would be detrimental to a representative democracy.? Unless you don't agree with obedience to God, but our republic was founded on the principle that? a Creator endowed inalienable rights to us even if that language didn't get transposed onto the Constitution.? It is still behind the thought processes of the Founders.

But at the same time they did not use the term "God" at all in the Constitution, and the only mention of religion is in the 1st Amendment and says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" so while they may have believed in the moral philosophy commonly identified as Christian they most assuredly did not think it should be part of our governing philosophy.  They established this country as a nation of LAW not of philosophy or even morality.  I think they hoped that our laws would always follow a basic Christian moral code but they never put that in our governing document.  So religion and morality can play a part in our government and administration IF AND ONLY IF it is written into law.  On the other, every individual can follow any moral system he wants AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT VIOLATE OUR LAWS.  If you want to worship the devil and sacrifice chickens, knock yourself out, but if you are a devout worshiper of the Christian God but kill those who don't, you're going to jail.  The point is that anyone who attempts to force their moral beliefs on anyone else is in violation of everything this country supposedly stands for.  Convince, yes, convert, yes, argue with, great, but not force.