Inspired by Summa Ratio est quae pro Religione facit

[Sharing Lights]

Summa Ratio est quae pro Religione facit. If ever the laws of God and man are at variance, the former are to be obeyed in derogation of the latter.

Disclaimer: Church means any religiin as referenced here.


This is a crucial subject as the law states that there is a separation of Church and State.

It serves a dual purpose:

1)
a) It protects all against dogmas and zealots.

b) Yet, it may deny fundamental and intrinsic to all humans values and morals – even
the basic ones.

2) That creates an open venue for dictatorship (in disguise) and tyranny by majority - as majority is not always right!

An example to 2).

Many laws are based on the numbers of votes.
If tomorrow, the majority would be able to win by votes that homosexuality should be outlawed, does it mean that such law would be just and fair?

What about liberty and justice for all, then?

Why are they any less human than the rest of the population?

Who said the Sun shines for them less or differently than for the others?


By rules of democracy, the majority rules.
However, what if the majority is wrong?
If?

Majority elected Hitler.
Majority elected Stalin.

Something to think about…

In some countries, they, still, imprison, people for homosexual acts.
They do.

Should it not be a free choice in any, true Democracy what and how to use own body?
Should the State or neighbors tell and force their opinions, then?




On the other hand, the mainstream of the religion, also, claims – homosexuality is ungodly and they, all, would burn in hell!

Now, we have a scenario where, most of the religion and most of the population agrees on passing THE LAW.
Jail them all.

By what right?

One claims this is based on God’s law.
The other claims that majority rules.

Different means-the same result.


We have the following conclusions based on the main premises.

The State and Church may disagree or agree on something, while having much difference on major issues.

The votes of majority and invoking God’s name may lead the same or opposite results.

How about the differences in the Religion itself, when some denominations oppenly support homosexualism?


They, also, invoke the God’s name!
Howe about the terrorists of 9/11 who plunged the planes killing thousands in the name of God?

Nothing is wrong with God’s name or the concept - it is how it is interpreted.
Tell it to the interpreters…


What we have, then, are different people and trends referring to the same Source and obtaining from the same Source different outcomes.

to be continued

[Sharing Lights]

Part II
What have, then, are different people and trends referring the same Source and obtaining from the same Source different outcomes.

Opppps!

Now, we got the biggest problem of all times, when indeed wars have been fought and million of lives lost due to the reference to the same Source or Law but the interpretations were totally subjective, as they fitted the agenda of the interpreters.



In the first case, we arrive to the notion of which and how can interpret what is God’s Law?


In the 2), we can see the notion that if the majority of the population would be poor and not well educated, it can be easily manipulated by any shrewd group to its advantage, who can use the power of the vote.

Majority can vote on a wrong law easily when is not intelligent enough to understand
all the ingredients required for making intelligent choices.

Is it not the key element of any Propaganda?

Use the power of the vote but brainwash them first and make sure you destroy any opposition which is intelligent enough to know the difference.

Pinpoint different groups against each other, weaken them, all, and become victorious in your, own party.

Then, cleanse your, own party, particularly those who know too much what you did and how you did it?




Who would be right, then: the progressive and well-educated minority or (vs.) the manipulated majority?

That is why, I believe the wisdom of the Founding Fathers dictated them to choose the form of Government of the Republic, where the ideas were at stakes and not, just, votes.


Yet, if some of the ideas are inherently wrong, who is to protect the People from the wrong being implemented as a law?

I believe I have the answer and I found it in the Nature, itself, where all the answers are kept.

What do you think, Sovereigns?