Who, aside from you, has insinuated such?
Eh?
My education in social and political philosophy came from an american-established state university -- hence is the furthest thing from religious conformism.
Duh?
As is the Inquizition; the slaughter of the Huguenots, Albingeses, etc.; what is called the "Midnight of rhe Dark Ages", and the "Rule of the Harlots" in reference to the papacy; etc.
And you think catholics never experienced persecution in europe and asia, eh?
What ignorant nonsense!
More deception. What has the RCC done to eliminate poverty? In every country in which it has had an immense amount of influence poverty has grown. Look at Brazil, Argentina, Guatamala, Mexico, Spain, etc. NONE have risen to the wealth of the US under Protestant influence. In the meantime, the coffers of the RCC have grown beyond belief, and the priests live quite comfortably regardless of the poverty around them. Not quite what Christ had in mind.
You really believe that there is a logical relationship between protestantism and economic development?????
And I'm the one with more deception, eh?
As to equality, you again avoid the discussion by pleading ignorance. You try to limit it to a qualifier being the sexes when you know quite well that my question was not that at all, unless you are such a dolt that common sense cannot permeate your brianwashed mind. Is there even equality within the RCC if you want to use the sexes? Is there a famale "pope", or a female "bishop"?
Which begs the question -- what the hell kind of equality are you asking for, anyway? Is equality even a quantitative phenomenon?
And if you even have the merest intellectual honesty, you would realize that the country I mentioned was a former us colony whose constitution, jurisprudence and political setup is very much like yours.
Duh?
So, whether you want to use poverty as a measure, or equality, the RCC is lacking.
What idiotic nonsense! Is there even equality in wealth within a laissez faire economy? And you say the us does not have a gap between rich and poor, eh?
Besides, the rcc isn't a country. The vatican is a country.
Duh?
Has nothing to do with Christiandom.
LOL.
But it has something to do with protestantism, eh? What a bald-faced liar you are!
Obviously you are the scent of the fart.
What a witty comeback! Sort of like trying to solve calculus by scratching your butt.
Duh?
Guess it is something the RCC has determined it need not practice. Or, could you just be full of BS. In any event, Jefferson, Locke, Rosseau, Smith, and many others, would strongly disagree with your conclusion.
Well, it certainly explains your braindead attitude when it comes to the influence of Protestantism on the "American experiment".
Sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[3] and have featured
greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez,
Richard Hooker,
Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf,
John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
and
Christian natural law
Paul of Tarsus wrote in his Epistle to the Romans: "For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things contained in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law unto themselves, their conscience also bearing witness."[32] The intellectual historian A.J. Carlyle has commented on this passage as follows:
"There can be little doubt that St Paul's words imply some conception analogous to the 'natural law' in Cicero, a law written in men's hearts, recognized by man's reason, a law distinct from the positive law of any State, or from what St Paul recognized as the revealed law of God. It is in this sense that St Paul's words are taken by the Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries like St Hilary of Poitiers, St Ambrose, and St Augustine, and
there seems no reason to doubt the correctness of their interpretation."[33]
Some early Church Fathers, especially those in the West, sought to incorporate natural law into Christianity. The most notable among these was Augustine of Hippo, who equated natural law with man's prelapsarian state; as such, a life according to nature was no longer possible and men needed instead to seek salvation through the divine law and grace of Jesus Christ.
In the Twelfth Century, Gratian equated the natural law with and divine law. A century later, St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae I-II qq. 90-106, restored Natural Law to its independent state, asserting natural law as the rational creature's participation in the eternal law. Yet, since human reason could not fully comprehend the Eternal law, it needed to be supplemented by revealed Divine law. (See also Biblical law in Christianity.)
Meanwhile, Aquinas taught that all human or positive laws were to be judged by their conformity to the natural law. An unjust law is not a law, in the full sense of the word. It retains merely the 'appearance' of law insofar as it is duly constituted and enforced in the same way a just law is, but is itself a 'perversion of law.'[34] At this point, the natural law was not only used to pass judgment on the moral worth of various laws, but also to determine what the law said in the first place.
This principle laid the seed for possible societal tension with reference to tyrannts.[35]
The natural law was inherently teleological and deontological in that although it is aimed at goodness, it is entirely focused on the ethicalness of actions, rather than the consequence. The specific content of the natural law was therefore determined by a conception of what things constituted happiness, be they temporal satisfaction or salvation.
The state, in being bound by the natural law, was conceived as an institution directed at bringing its subjects to true happiness.
In the 16th century, the School of Salamanca (Francisco Suárez, Francisco de Vitoria, etc.) further developed a philosophy of natural law.
After the Church of England broke from Rome, the English theologian Richard Hooker adapted THOMISTIC notions of natural law to Anglicanism.
Surprise, surprise! You are WRONG. And your wrong opinion is directly attributable to -- guess what??? -- your painful lack of education about the topics you talk about.
Uhmmm....duh?
