To further explain Lewis' views on the matter in context of his article:

"In reality, however, we must face the possibility of bad rulers armed with a Humanitarian theory of punishment. A great many popular blue prints for a Christian society are merely what the Elizabethans called "eggs in moonshine" because they assume that the whole society is Christian or that the Christians are in control. This is not so in most contemporary States. Even if it were, our rulers would still be fallen men, and, therefore, neither very wise nor very good. As it is, they will usually be unbelievers. And since wisdom and virtue are not the only or the commonest qualifications for a place in the government, ...

To further explain Lewis' views on the matter in context of his article:

"In reality, however, we must face the possibility of bad rulers armed with a Humanitarian theory of punishment. A great many popular blue prints for a Christian society are merely what the Elizabethans called "eggs in moonshine" because they assume that the whole society is Christian or that the Christians are in control. This is not so in most contemporary States. Even if it were, our rulers would still be fallen men, and, therefore, neither very wise nor very good. As it is, they will usually be unbelievers. And since wisdom and virtue are not the only or the commonest qualifications for a place in the government, they will not often be even the best unbelievers. The practical problem of Christian politics is not that of drawing up schemes for a Christian society, but that of living as innocently as we can with unbelieving fellow-subjects under unbelieving rulers who will never be perfectly wise and good and who will sometimes be very wicked and very foolish."

http://bkmarcus.com/cache/Lewis/punishment/

Thank you, chestnut! I've tried to make that point again and again by refusing to be drawn into argument by simply repeating Lewis' own words. Seems crystal clear to me, too.

While Lewis addressed in his writings the "big issues" of his day, he was decidedly apolitical, even refusing a knighthood. He declared himself a democrat and argued that theocracy is the worst form of government.

Lewis opposed the idea of a "Christian party" or a "Christian political platform" in his essay Meditation on the Third Commandment:

It (a Christian Party) [i]will be exposed, in an aggravated degree, to that temptation which the Devil sp...

Thank you, chestnut! I've tried to make that point again and again by refusing to be drawn into argument by simply repeating Lewis' own words. Seems crystal clear to me, too.

While Lewis addressed in his writings the "big issues" of his day, he was decidedly apolitical, even refusing a knighthood. He declared himself a democrat and argued that theocracy is the worst form of government.

Lewis opposed the idea of a "Christian party" or a "Christian political platform" in his essay Meditation on the Third Commandment:

It (a Christian Party) will be exposed, in an aggravated degree, to that temptation which the Devil spares none of us at any time --- the temptation of claiming for our favourite opinions that kind and degree of certainty and authority which really belongs only to our Faith.

Hey, I like this Lewis guy. Usually I have to read something more than once to understand it, but not with him. I just read his Meditations on the Third Commandment. The Christian Party is one of all religions, however all religions are not like the Christion religion. We are familiar with it and know that it sprinkles acts of kindness and good will around in an effort to distract us from its similarity with all religion. That being that all religions have as their main purpose the willful control of other people unlike themselves. Take marriage for example. If I remember this right from my college days. The institution of marriage started to take hold long before modern religion. It was pre...

Hey, I like this Lewis guy. Usually I have to read something more than once to understand it, but not with him. I just read his Meditations on the Third Commandment. The Christian Party is one of all religions, however all religions are not like the Christion religion. We are familiar with it and know that it sprinkles acts of kindness and good will around in an effort to distract us from its similarity with all religion. That being that all religions have as their main purpose the willful control of other people unlike themselves. Take marriage for example. If I remember this right from my college days. The institution of marriage started to take hold long before modern religion. It was pretty much a joint effort spred out over many years, between "church" and "state". Love and responsibility had nothing to do with it. Keeping a man from running from his children and their mother, down the road to the next available virgin, had everything to do with. When men left, the responsibility(or quilt) of taking care of those he left behind would fall on the townspeople or state. This whole business of mankind acting like heterosexual marriage comes about as some kind of virture is a bunch of BS. Fortunately there are many wonderful family loving responsible heterosexuals out there. Ironically, they don't need the laws of matrimony to keep them together. Now why am I telling you this. Because you'll listen to me and the people who need to hear it won't.
Now getting back on track, the point I really want to make is that both religion, including the Christian Party, and Government, exist in a large part for the purpose of controlling the masses (people they see as being somehow separate from themselves). One claims inspiration from God and the other one doesn't. I imagine they will both be around until the end of time.
So dulios, what do you think? Am I just full of hot air? Being a lay person, I could ask you to be gentle, but I'd like to know what you really think.