The art intended, as I said, is to promote virtue and restrain vice. Period. If the state does this, it does its job.

You can’t show dogmatic authority that the confessional state is the ideal, nor can you prove that the secular state is inherently defective.

And, if your political philosophy is only brought current though to the 13th century, I suggest you take some time to read something other than St. Thomas on the subject. Much light has been thrown on the subject in the ensuing 800 years, including nuanced, orthodox, Catholic thought. You might even enjoy it.

Not being suited is a defect, just as a blind man is not suited guide men as a sea captain because of that defect. In both instances the defect is a barrier to action which is proper to the art intended.

An art exemplified by King David.

We were very nearly a monarchy ourselves (The United States). That ought to give pause to the idea that only one form of government is appropriate for all peoples. What would you have been arguing if the United States had been ruled by a monarchy? It was a close thing.

Mr. WAC says: “When it comes to Iraq, we got the invalid, demonic, baby-eating despot out of power, and we gave that nation the opporunity for self-determination. If they let another baby-eater waltz in and take over, I guess that’s just the way it goes, huh?”

I couldn’t agree more.

Furthermore, even the Church is against the confessional state nowadays, recognizing, as it has, that it is impossible for a plurality to be governed as a “Catholic” state. That’s why they renegotiated the Italian Concordant (at the request of the Vatican!) back in the 1980’s- to repudiate the Italian Government’s recognition of the Catholic religion as the State religion.

Bill, I believe that all governments should be self-determined, though not necessarily democratic. I detest dictatorship, and I wouldn’t dream of living under a monarch. But if my countrymen decided they want a monarch, well, long live the king, I s’pose. When it comes to Iraq, we got the invalid, demonic, baby-eating despot out of power, and we gave that nation the opporunity for self-determination. If they let another baby-eater waltz in and take over, I guess that’s just the way it goes, huh?

wac

How do I come to the conclusion that you believe morals and/or reason are relative? First, I asked because I don’t think you really believe that. The reason I asked is because of your “fetishize the American concepts of freedom and democracy” comment.

I do believe freedom from unreasonable constraints and a democratic government are morally right. All men have a duty to work towards these goals. Yes, I believe all governments ought to be democratic. And yes, I believe all of Humankind ought to live under a capitalism based system. No, I do not think that that requires a “global government.” The United States, Great Britain, Canada, you name it, we all live under these basic and knowable moral systems. Yet we manage to exist without a global government.

Church??? Heretics “attend church”. So no. Nor can the law cannot force a man to incorporate himself into the Faith, which would also include going to mass.

Your better question was : “Should there be a national religion?”

Yes, if it is Catholic. And should all laws conform to Catholicism? Yes.

Let’s take a specific. Do you think the government should mandate weekly attendance at church? That certainly will conduce to man’s final good, so according to your latest comment, you should have no objection to such a law.

Nice try. I asked for specifics, you gave: “through its laws.” What laws in particular could a government institute that would ensure salvation?

I don’t see how you conclude that I have taken the position that reason or morals are relative. Acknowledging that two people from different cultures will reason differently says nothing about morals and says little about whether their reasoning is equivalent inasmuch as the goal of reasoning is to arrive at the truth.

For instance, must every person on earth live under the same economic system, the same type of government, and the same enumeration of rights? If so, do you advocate a global government?

Through its laws. As I have written before, every law aims at making men good. Because even the tyrant aims at making men good, not for the citizen’s own sake and according to the true good, but good according to the tyrants specific corrupt good.

And likewise does every state and society aim at some good. But that society which aims at man’s final good aims most accurately because it aims at that good which all other goods are properly directed towards.