I've been reading Churchill's "The Birth of the Britain" and came across a passage on John Wyclif and the Lollards (the first British heresy). Cross-checking "Lollards" with the Catholic Encyclopaedia I came across a statement that in 1401 England passed a law granting the church the power to identify heretics, who were to be handed over to the state to be burned at the stake. The CE claimed this was "merely the application to England of the common law of Christendom."
In the case of the Lollards, they were burned for claiming the Eucharist was nothing more than "a mouthful of bread".
That got me wondering about today's christianity.
Given the power the church had over the state, and through the state: the people, to terrorize people into supporting the state and church through the threat of the stake, why would you favour an end to the division between church and state? Who would you wish to see burned: Unbelievers? Heretics? And who should judge them on Earth?
2006-08-14
12:05:12
·
5 answers
·
asked by
bobkgin
3
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
When Christians are in a majority, and the vast majority of politicians elected are also Christian, how does one argue that one lives in a country where the separation of church and state exists?
2006-08-14
12:05:32 ·
update #1
Lila: "don't get cathoclicism and Christianity confused" - Are you aware that at the time of the Lollards the only other "Christianity" was the Eastern Orthodox Church? All divisions of Christianity trace their ancestry back to the Catholic Church. Through the burning of heretics, there was only one Christianity in the West.
2006-08-14
12:22:08 ·
update #2