The institution is occupied by people, and those people will have values. Either those values will be chaotic, and the institution will collapse, or those values will harmonize, that harmony being described by a moral system.
A state having a moral system described by a religion doesn't necessarily mean it will violently enforce that religion. It depends on the religion. Islam, progressivism, communism, these will be violently enforced. Christianity, there is no guarantee.
Nonsense. A government exists only through violence. Coercion is the only mechanism of the state, and it is the only legitimate mechanism of the state. It is designed for the purposes of being a structure that can settle the disputes of individuals, and has the overwhelming capability of violence, to threaten into compliance anyone that does not meet to it's conclusions.
The state is far more aggressive and self-perpetuating than any simple gun. It is akin to a rabid wolf, or a rampaging dragon, or a permanent runaway-gun.
The state must be forced, violently, typically with the bindings of law, into compliance with the law; and still you must starve it of revenue and opportunity to make sure it can't kill you.
States are not moral actors, and have nor moral system. They are weapons. It can only violently enforce a religion that expresses itself through the state. All the religions you mentioned explicitly express themselves through the state, making their violence maximized.
Christianity has the exact same guarantee. A cursory examination of the atrocities of the 30 Years War explains in no uncertain terms why Christianity is no different. Protestants, Catholics, French, Germans, Sweedes, Spainards, none of it made any difference because the problem is that no government is moral, and the moral system is now enforced with violence inevitably.
The only time when the state wasn't mandated with violence is when English Protestantism, rebuked the authority of the state itself. Religion intentionally separated itself from the state, in order to prevent the state from regulating it. Once the English, Protestant, Liberals decided that religious values could teach men to confine the powers of the state, the violence and madness of the state was finally in check.
Everyone else who didn't learn this lesson, including the French and Spanish, quickly re-learned that the state is a weapon and began fighting for control over it.
When English Protestantism teaches men to contain the state, then the state will not act violently, because it has a boot on it's neck.
When English Protestantism is enforced by the state, then the state will act violently because that is it's nature.
You are not speaking to my point, but around it. English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state, in order for it to limit itself. The doctrine of separation caused English Protestantism to vacate the state, making room for Progressivism to enter.
You moved the goal posts away from "Christian" generally. But, even with this, it is not that English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state (See: Anglican Church); it is that English Protestantism must be the value system of everyone to limit the state.
The state will never limit itself and can never be trusted to. This is very nature of the Bill of Rights. Every single Federalist claimed it was silly to make constitutional articles that explicitly limited state power since everyone was going to be represented anyway. They were wrong, and likely lying.
A rabid bear wearing a cross does not make it less dangerous. A rabid bear tied to the ground is what is needed.
I said that there was no guarantee that Christianity would be as forceful with government as Islam. You correctly identified the Christian denomination that is least likely to be forceful using the state. Thank you for improving on my already correct point.
I am an anarchist myself. I am describing the realities of the situation if there is a state.
The institution is occupied by people, and those people will have values. Either those values will be chaotic, and the institution will collapse, or those values will harmonize, that harmony being described by a moral system.
A state having a moral system described by a religion doesn't necessarily mean it will violently enforce that religion. It depends on the religion. Islam, progressivism, communism, these will be violently enforced. Christianity, there is no guarantee.
Nonsense. A government exists only through violence. Coercion is the only mechanism of the state, and it is the only legitimate mechanism of the state. It is designed for the purposes of being a structure that can settle the disputes of individuals, and has the overwhelming capability of violence, to threaten into compliance anyone that does not meet to it's conclusions.
The state is far more aggressive and self-perpetuating than any simple gun. It is akin to a rabid wolf, or a rampaging dragon, or a permanent runaway-gun.
The state must be forced, violently, typically with the bindings of law, into compliance with the law; and still you must starve it of revenue and opportunity to make sure it can't kill you.
States are not moral actors, and have nor moral system. They are weapons. It can only violently enforce a religion that expresses itself through the state. All the religions you mentioned explicitly express themselves through the state, making their violence maximized.
Christianity has the exact same guarantee. A cursory examination of the atrocities of the 30 Years War explains in no uncertain terms why Christianity is no different. Protestants, Catholics, French, Germans, Sweedes, Spainards, none of it made any difference because the problem is that no government is moral, and the moral system is now enforced with violence inevitably.
The only time when the state wasn't mandated with violence is when English Protestantism, rebuked the authority of the state itself. Religion intentionally separated itself from the state, in order to prevent the state from regulating it. Once the English, Protestant, Liberals decided that religious values could teach men to confine the powers of the state, the violence and madness of the state was finally in check.
Everyone else who didn't learn this lesson, including the French and Spanish, quickly re-learned that the state is a weapon and began fighting for control over it.
When English Protestantism teaches men to contain the state, then the state will not act violently, because it has a boot on it's neck.
When English Protestantism is enforced by the state, then the state will act violently because that is it's nature.
You are not speaking to my point, but around it. English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state, in order for it to limit itself. The doctrine of separation caused English Protestantism to vacate the state, making room for Progressivism to enter.
You moved the goal posts away from "Christian" generally. But, even with this, it is not that English Protestantism must be the ideology occupying the value system of the state (See: Anglican Church); it is that English Protestantism must be the value system of everyone to limit the state.
The state will never limit itself and can never be trusted to. This is very nature of the Bill of Rights. Every single Federalist claimed it was silly to make constitutional articles that explicitly limited state power since everyone was going to be represented anyway. They were wrong, and likely lying.
A rabid bear wearing a cross does not make it less dangerous. A rabid bear tied to the ground is what is needed.
I said that there was no guarantee that Christianity would be as forceful with government as Islam. You correctly identified the Christian denomination that is least likely to be forceful using the state. Thank you for improving on my already correct point.
I am an anarchist myself. I am describing the realities of the situation if there is a state.