The Rebel Faction

A little off topic, but it applies to some things above. If I recall, the last time Christianity was in power we ended up calling it the dark ages.

Both of you need to stay in school.

Kach Thorton:

---

A little off topic, but it applies to some things above. If I recall, the last time Christianity was in power we ended up calling it the dark ages.

To be precise, when the Pope was the most powerful ruler in Europe, we had the Crusades and the Dark Ages. A strong case can be made for the fact that Christianity actually contributed to our removal from the Dark Ages and the rise of the modern state. I think we would all agree that Christian ideals and morals (i.e. individual rights, self-reflexivity, etc.) are an integral part of modern society.
*goes back to writing his Politics essay*

Yeah, I agree with Beff on that one. Kach, your problem is to make a blanket statement about "Christianity" being in charge. Not even today's Roman Catholics agree with many of the doctrines of the medieval Church, and Protestants certainly don't. While certain people may claim to be "Christian" and not follow Christ, these people are certainly not representative of the Christian faith, even from a secular standpoint. The secular world does not judge all of Islam by the few radicals who, in the name of Islam, blow up buildings. Christianity should not be judged by a few, or even a majority, who do not follow the faith.

Wilkar, you are partially right; however, if you really want to look at the last time Christianity was in charge, you need to look to several different world leaders in the modern era. Most of America's founders were, if not outright Christians, at least deists sympathetic to Christianity. Several U.S. presidents, such as Washington and Lincoln, come to mind as examples of Christianity, and more recently men like Wilson. My historical knowledge of other nations leaders is not as good, so I can't provide names for you, but even in the modern era there have been nations ruled by Christian principles.

But this thread digresses from it's original purpose, which I believe was to discuss the sentencing of Saddam Hussein. Personally, as I said before, I think hanging him is merciful compared to what he forced his countrymen to suffer. While I can see a valid argument against the death penalty, there is something to be said for justice. For myself, arguing from a Christian standpoint, there are moral reasons for both preserving life and putting Saddam to death, and these can be debated. However, from a purely secular standpoint, I see no reason why he should not be killed. If killing is wrong (from whatever standpoint, be it societal norms or otherwise), then it is simply justice that Saddam pay for what he did in like fashion. If it is not wrong, then why not kill him? I don't see the problem.

EDIT: Demos beat me to it. I agree with him, plus what was said above.

American Idealism is still alive? I thought it was just a corpse on strings. *shrugs*