0
Who should have more power in the Middle Ages religious or secular leaders?
Wiki User
∙ 8y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Should the monarch be religious?
Because of the position and strength held in society by the local shaman most political leaders have found it expedient to follow a religion, usually the strongest or most vocal. That is not to say that some monarchs, presidents and leaders do not hold strong religious convictions. If they are in a position of such strength some may shun all religions and religious teaching.
What is the Official Seal of US?
There isn't one. There should never be one. This is a secular nation.
What was Gelasius's two-swords theory?
According to Gelasius, God had created two symbolic swords. One of the swords was religious and the other was political. The pope should listen to the emperor in political matters, and the emperor ahould listen to the pope in religious matters. With that two leaders could share the power in harmony.
Why did the colonist disagree with the leaders of Massachusetts?
because the colonists did not have freedom.
Should Puritan leaders have banished Ann Hutchison?
Whether they should have or not is all academic -- Hutchison was a religious dissenter, unpardonable by the standards of Massachusetts Puritans. She got off easy by being banished. After all, Quakers were hanged on Boston Common and in Salem, hanging witches was a cottage industry.
Which group believes that religious leaders should be chosen by the faithful?
The Sunnis
What is a secular society?
According to Wikipedia, in studies of religion, modern democracies are generally recognized as secular. This is due to the near-complete freedom of religion (beliefs on religion generally are not subject to legal or social sanctions), and the lack of authority of religious leaders over political decisions.Positive Ideals behind the secular society:Deep respect for individuals and the small groups of which they are a part.Equality of all people.Each person should be helped to realize their particular excellence.Breaking down of the barriers of class and caste.
Why is it much harder to create secular democracies in more religious places than less religious places?
A:Democracy requires traditional power elites, be they religious or secular, to give up power to the ordinary people and even allow the people to choose to create laws that are inconsistent with religious doctrine, should they wish to do so. True democracy can not thrive where entrenched religions are in a position to demand a share of power.
Should religious leaders run for political office?
Religious leaders have enough experience with community services which could serve as their primary knowledge about people's needs. Admitting that it wouldn't compare to other politician's credibility, if we really think about it.. countries thriving in corruption doesn't necessarily need intellectual leaders.. but leaders with a strong moral character; built with dedication and honesty. A religious leader is a man for other people. It might work if he is also a political leader for the people. Not like many politicians.. who are only for themselves.
Should the church be limited to the spiritual and religious realms alone?
Some would say that the Church should also be involved in matters of ethics and morals, as well as just the spiritual and religious realms. However, the history of the Church is such that no faith can genuinely be placed in the Church as a leader in that realm. Not only have many church leaders failed as examples to their congregations, there is no evidence that Christians are less likely than others to break the law or be imprisoned. Whatever Christian teachings may have achieved in the spiritual and religious realms, they seem to have achieved little in the matters of ethics and morals, and should perhaps now encourage the secular teaching of ethics. Certainly, there is no reason for the Church to be involved in politics or in determining the passage of secular laws.
What is the difference between Secular universities and religious universities?
Answer 1: There need be no real difference between secular and religious universities, depending on the subject areas your proposed degree should cover, as long as the religious universities are well funded and meet national standards in their curricula and facilities.The largest religious universities undertake valuable research, but smaller universities may be limited in their research programmes. University research is considered valuable not only in its own right, but because professors and teaching staff are kept informed of the very latest thoughts in their area of expertise and can pass "state of the art" knowledge on to undergraduate students. Students may have the opportunity to observe or participate in research.In favour of religious universities, they are often the best institutions in which to undertake theological and related studies.It is important that the religious views of a religious university do not intrude into the teaching of science. Allowing creationism or other religious concepts to colour the teaching of science, may affect the students' understanding of some science material and ultimately his or her ability to practise in a science-related field.Some religious institutions that teach the health professions may not provide full information to students on, or may proselytise against, birth control or termination procedures.Answer 2: Liberty University, which is religious -- specifically, Christian -- allows its conservative, biblically-literal form of Christianity to inform how it teaches the sciences; which teaching has, for example, resulted in a small museum on the Liberty University campus which portrays the earth as being only a few thousand years old (when hard science says it's closer to 6 billion years old); and, also, said museum portrays humans and dinosaurs as having co-existed (when hard science says dinosaurs lives from about 245 million years ago, for about 180 million years, until about 65 million years ago).To include those arguments, though, either directly or indirectly, does not actually answer this question; and, in fact, veers off into areas unnecessary to a complete understanding of the actual answer. That said, such arguments can help to make the point of, and illustrate, the answer, as the previous paragraph about Liberty University just did. However, including these arguments, even as illustration, could mislead the reader into believing that the only kind of religious schools are Christian schools. More on that in a moment."Secular" means not in any way related to, or having anything to do with, religion... of any kind... Christianity being only one of many religions which cannot, by definition, be secular."Non-secular" means decidedly religious... things having to do with religion... any kind of religion... Christianity being only one of many religions which are all, by definition, non-secular.The difference between a secular university, and a religious one, then, has at least something to do with whether or not the university's owner/operator is either secular (non-religious) or religious (non-secular); but likely as far more to do with how the university is run, and whether or not any sort of religious belief informs or influences same.A secular university is run by some entity -- be it government, or a public or private for-profit or non-profit corporation -- which is in no way religious, nor has anthing whatsoever to do with religion. The entity, though, could be religious in nature, but it could quite intentionally run the university in a completely non-religious/secular manner; and so that, too, would qualify as a secular university.A non-secular university is run by a religious entity -- usually a church, or some organization that's decidedly religious in nature, charter and/or operation; and such a university is usually run in a completely religious manner, pursuant to whatever are the tenets of the religion in question. Said religion could be Christianity, or Judaism, or Islam, or any of a number of other religions.As with universities which could, technically, be owned and operated by religious (non-secular) entities, but which are nevertheless strictly operated secularly (non-religiously)......it is technically possible for the opposite to be the case; for a secular (non-religious) entity to own and operate a completely religious (non-secular) university.Such cross-purposed ownership-versus-operational situations would tend to be extremely rare, however. So, then, it is usually true that secular (non-religious) schools tend to be operated by secular entities, and non-secular (religious) schools tend to be operated by non-secular entities.More commonly observed, secular (non-religious) schools tend to be run by either government or private -- usually for-profit -- corporations; and religious (non-secular) schools tend to be run by religious groups... usually national churches, or religious church, para-church or non-groups (but still religious) groups.In order to illustrate examples, though, of how the differences could materially affect the school's ethos and teching, we need to circle back to the whole evolution versus either or both of creationism and/or intelligent design issues.Secular schools would be more likely to teach hard sciences such as chemistry, physics, biology, etc., as real and true (and provable) science; and said scientific studies would include "evolution." Such things as "creationism" and/or "intelligent design, on the other hand, would tend not be taught in secular schools as hard science... or maybe not even as science, at all. Rather, such non-scientific subjects would tend to be covered, at most secular schools, in said school's religious studies department.A religious (non-secular) school, on the other hand, might or might not be inclined to teach those very same subjects any differently than how a secular (non-religious) school would teach them. Just because the school is religious (non-secular) does not necessarily mean that it will try to teach relgious tenets as though they were factual science. It all just depends on what kind of religious school it is... how theologically and socio-politically conservative versus liberal/progressive is the religious (non-secular) school.Indeed, some of the more theologically and socio-politically conservative, and/or fundamentalist/evangelical religious (non-secular) Christian schools might teach such as "creationism" and/or "intelligent design" as if their were scientifically provable, and so were validly scientific, right alongside the provable and unambiguously scientific actual science of "evolution." But more foward-thinking, less-conservative, more theologically and socio-politically liberal/progressive religious (non-secular) schools would likely teach such subjects (evolution, versus creationism and/or intelligent design) exactly the same way as secular (non-religious) schools would tend to teach them: With evolution as a hard and provable actual science, and things like creationism and/or intelligent design as mere religious beliefs.So, then, the difference between secular universities and religious universities has nothing, really, to do with how such things as creationism and/or intelligent design are taught. Rather, the differences have to do with whether the owner/operator of the university is secular (religious) versus religious (non-secular), and how that, then, factor's into how said owner/operator runs his/her school.If a school -- regardless who owns/operates it, or whether said owner/operator is or isn't religious -- is run in a secular (non-religious) manner, wherein religious tenets don't factor-in to how it operates or what it teaches, then said school is decidely secular (non-religious) in nature. Even if religion is taught in such a school, it tends to be taught from an "arm's length" sort of perspective, wherein the teacher simply explains what the various religions believe and do, but without suggesting that what any religion believes is inherently true, or what anyone else should believe.If a school -- regardless who owns/operates it, or whether said owner/operator is or isn't religious -- is run in a religious (non-secular) manner, wherein religious tenets do factor-in to how it operates or what it teaches, then said school is decidedly religious (non-secular) in nature. Even when religion is taught in such a school, though, it may or may not necessarily be taught as though it were true, or what anyone should believe. The more theologically and socio-politically conservative religious schools might, indeed, teach religion that way; but the more theologically and socio-politically liberal/progressive schools will likely teach religion in much the same manner as a secular (non-religious) school would teach it. And in the case of the latter, typically even the school's particular kind of religion might not necessarily be taught as truth, or that in which anyone should believe. The more progressive/liberal schools tend to take the "here's what the religion believes, now make up your own mind" sort of approach.One salient difference between a secular (non-religious) and religious (non-secular) school is, though, that the latter will tend to clearly and unambiguously declare that it's religious (non-secular), what is its religion, and what are its (and its religion's) religious beliefs. Secular (non-religious) schools don't do such things.How much of what the religious (non-secular) school teaches of its beliefs as though they were fact which should be believed by all will tend to depend on how theologically and socio-politically conservative versus liberal/progressive is the school in question.More conservative religious (non-secular) schools will tend to teach their religious (non-secular) tenets as though there were universally true for all people in all situations... including even secular (non-religious) ones; and more liberal/progressive religious (non-secular) schools will tend to teach their religious (non-secular) tenets as simply what those who run the school believe, but not as what anyone else needs to necessarily believe.Both, though, are considered "religious" (non-secular) schools, even though the latter tends to teach religion much the same as secular (non-religious) schools teach it.Sweeping generalizations, then, cannot reliably be made about how the two types of schools (secular versus religious) will do things. Rather, what differentiates them is how they're run, and what they clearly state are their beliefs about religion (or the lack, thereof).
What is the difference between Secular values and Spiritual values in management?
"Secular" means something that's devoid of any involvement, of any kind, with religion."Non-secular" means pretty much the exact opposite.One with "secular values," then, has, by definition, categorically non-religious values.I'm troubled by the premise of the question, though, because the opposite would be one with "non-secular" (or religious) values......and those are not necessarily the same as "spiritual" values. There is, in fact, an entire "spiritual but not religious" movement afoot in the world, these days, which could, would and does fairly-convincingly argue the point that being "spiritual" and being "religious" are two very different things.If so, then it's possible to have both secular (non-religious) and spiritual (not necessarily either religious or non-religious) values......and if that's the case, then the comparison posed in the question is categorically impossible to make.However, there are many -- particularly in the religious (as opposed to spiritual, but not religious) community -- who believe that being spiritual, but not religious is a distinction without an actual difference; and so they would argue that what the asker clearly meant is whether or not there's a difference between the management styles of one who's secular (non-religious) versus one who's religious (non-secular). They would argue that the asker is using the word "spiritual" to mean "religious;" that for the asker, they're synonymous.If so, then that's the question: What is the difference between secular values and spiritual/religious values in management?To answer that, one would have to first make the point that religious belief does not necessarily result in virtue, honesty, a good work ethic, or pretty much anything else that a manager in business would want in an employee. Religion is not required in order for a person to be good. Persons who have no religious beliefs -- who are are, in fact, declared atheists; aka, "secular humanists" -- often cite the so-called "Golden Rule" (always treat others the way you want to be treated by said others) as their reason for being virtuous, honest, and good workers. They insist that the Golden Rule is inherently non-religious/secular; and so religious belief by a worker isn't required in order for said worker to be the kind of good worker which any goiod manager would want.Of course, the irony of the secular humanists trying to so neatly differentiate the Golden Rule from religious belief is that the Golden Rule, as it happens, is one of the only tenets present, in one form or another, in the sacred texts of all 13 of the world's major religions; and also the vast majority of the literally hundreds -- nay, thousands -- of the lesser ones. But, alas, that is a mere interesting parenthetical aside which doesn't really address the question.The point is, simply, that religion is not necessary in a worker in order to ensure that s/he will be a good worker.So, then, if the manager has religious (non-secular) values, he or she is more likely to look for qualities -- religiously-related qualities -- in the worker which may not necessarily be there (especially if said worker is a secular humanist). The lack of said religious qualities in the work may be looked-down upon by the religious manager, who may then let it affect whether the worker gets promoted, or is placed onto a special project team, etc.If the opposite were true -- that the manager is secular (non-religious), but the worker is religious (non-secular) -- then the manager might find the worker's religious beliefs to be nothing but ridiculous fantasy. In such case, the non-religious manager may think to himself/herself that s/he would not want to promote, or put onto a special project team, any worker who believed in what are, from the manager's perspective, mere fairy tales.Other problems can also exist whenever the manager is religious (non-secular)... problems having to do with the atmosphere of the workplace. If the religious (non-secular) manager allows his/her beliefs to be conspicuously present throughout the workplace, then secular (non-religious) workers may be offended, intimidated, or come to believe that they will not be promoted or put onto special project teams because of their lack of religious belief. A largely-religious workplace can feel very hostile to non-religious workers.There is, then, in the end, no place for religious/spiritual values in management, and/or in managers, and/or in the workplace. Period.The workplace, and its workers, should always be managed secularly (non-religiously), even if the manager is religious (non-secular) in his/her private life.Similarly, workers should, even if they're religious (non-secular) in their private lives, should nevertheless keep it to themselves while at work.Even if both management and the workers are religious (non-secular), the business should, nevertheless, be run secularly (non-religiously).And the law of the United States is in sync with all of that by prohibiting employers to allow things like religioin to factor-in, in any way, to management decisions regarding hiring, firing, promotions, etc.A business run based on religious/spiritual values is a poorly-run business......even if it's an inherently religious business... even if it's a church. There is simply no place -- no place -- in the workplace for religion. Period.
How did the Catholic Church in Spanish America and religious leaders in the British colonies impact?
The Catholic Church in Spanish America and the religious leaders in the British colonies impacted the community by setting examples of how people should live. Religion has always played an important role in society.
Why should stem cell not be continued in point of religious leaders?
I have yet to meet any religious leader that is against stem cell research. The issue is not about stem cell research. What some religious leaders are against is the use of aborted children's stem cells for research. They have no issue with using adult stem cells or stems cells cultured.
Can you give me a sentence using the word secular in it?
The school promotes a secular education system that is inclusive of students from diverse religious backgrounds.
How should we honor our religious leaders?
The same way our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ is honored, by eating the flesh and drinking the blood after his death.
Should the monarch be religious?
Because of the position and strength held in society by the local shaman most political leaders have found it expedient to follow a religion, usually the strongest or most vocal. That is not to say that some monarchs, presidents and leaders do not hold strong religious convictions. If they are in a position of such strength some may shun all religions and religious teaching.
