Unprecedented Move! Norway Abolishes State Church

[st0wandgrow]

...how do 'white' people do when trying to become a part of another country's governing body? Has it ever happened?

"White" has nothing to do with it. A "white" person can be Muslim, Hindu, whatever.

 

[st0wandgrow]

the difference is that one is based on the traditions of the people themselves and the other is a matter of laws enforced by the state. that "formal acknowledgement" makes all the difference in the world. no matter how close we may get, the people and the state are not the same thing. "the people" is made up of individuals, each with no more real power than any other. "the state" may represent the will of the majority or merely of those with the power to bend others to their will, but it cannot represent each individual. in either case, "the state" must always make use of force to achieve its ends. that force, when used to enforce the dogma of any religion, negates the free will of the individual. this is the worst case scenario of state sponsored religion. even in a less repressive society a state sponsored religion must unduly influence the actions of and receive preferential treatment by the state. though the end result may seem no different, the means by which we reach that result differ greatly. one is a matter of individual choices influencing authority, the other is a knee-jerk reaction of central authority.

I see what you're saying, and you do make some good points. I guess I just don't see much of a practical difference between the two. Certainly if we were talking about North Korea or something I could see the contrast, but in the case of the OP the only differences I see are formalities.

 

[eye exaggerate]

"White" has nothing to do with it. A "white" person can be Muslim, Hindu, whatever.

...you didn't answer the question. Has 'any of the above' ever managed to be elected in a country not native to them?

 

[undertheice]

I guess I just don't see much of a practical difference between the two.

but the means by which we achieve our ends are as important as the ends themselves. take for instance two societies, both with healthy, well fed, well housed and productive populations. if one people had been free to choose how they got to that state and the other had been forced to that point by some central authority, which population would you rather be a part of? both attained the desired state, but one valued the freedom of the individual while the other saw value only in the will of the majority which gave it power. you say that this the dangers may be more applicable to more repressive regimes, but it should be remembered that even the freest nation may fall prey to totalitarian tendencies of its leaders.


this thread probably belongs more in the political section than here. though it concerns religion, a state religion is more political than spiritual.