State - Church



[1935]  Albert Jay Nock,  Our Enemy, the State, Hallberg Publishing Corporation, Tampa, Florida, 2001

-  "It is interesting to observe that in the year 1935 the average individual's incurious attitude towards the phenomenon of the State is precisely what his attitude was towards the phenomenon of the Church in the year, say, 1500. The State was then a very weak institution, the Church was very strong. The individual was born into the Church, as his ancestors had been for generations, in precisely the formal, documented fashion in which he is now born into the State. He was taxed for the Church's support, as he now is for the State's support. He was supposed to accept the official theory and doctrine of the Church, to conform to its discipline, and in a general way to do as it told him. If he were reluctant or recalcitrant, the Church made a satisfactory amount of trouble for him, as the State now does. Notwithstanding all this, it does not appear to have occurred to the Church-citizen of that day, any more than it occurs to the State-citizen of the present, to ask what sort of institution it was that claimed his allegiance." (pp. 40-41)


[1952]  J. L. Talmon,  The Origins of Totalitarian Democracy, Mercury Books, London, 1961

-  "With the rejection of the Church, and of transcendental justice, the State remained the sole source and sanction of morality. This was a matter of great importance, at a time when politics were considered indistinguishable from ethics." (p. 4)

-  "In the past it was possible for the State to regard many things as matters for God and the Church alone. The new State could recognize no such limitations. Formerly, men lived in groups. A man had to belong to some groups, and could belong to several at the same time. Now there was to be only one framework for all activity: the nation." (p. 4)


[1993]  Charles Adams,  For Good and Evil. The impact of taxes on the course of civilization, Madison Books, Lanham, USA

-  "Henry VIII ... pulled off the biggest heist of all time - he stole the assets of the Roman Catholic Church throughout England." "Henry's appetite for money even exceeded his appetite for women." "Every month large quantities of gold and silver left England for Rome. The pope received more wealth than Henry did, and the Pope did not have to battle Parliament." Henry seemed to be waiting for his excommunication. Parliament responded and proclaimed Henry supreme ruler of the church in England. This permitted him to execute the greatest heist of all time. Henry started selling monastic lands, and he redirected tithes and offerings to his coffers." (pp. 241-242)


[1999]  Martin van Creveld,  The Rise and Decline of the State, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

-  "... the Reformation enabled rulers to lay their hands on the ecclesiastical estates which, in some countries, amounted to 25-30 per cent of all land." (p. 68)

-  "Turning necessity into virtue, they [the secular rulers] used the need to fight on behalf of the 'true' religion as a convenient excuse for taking over ecclesiastical principalities, confiscating church properties, and imposing taxes, as Charles V did in 1520 when he turned the tercio reale and the Cruzada from voluntary contribution into permanent levies. Francis I on his part ordered all ecclesiastical benefices worth over 100,000 livres  to be sold and the proceeds put into the royal coffers. His successors developed extortion into a fine art. Church property was regularly confiscated and, equally regularly, sold back to its original owners." (p. 69)

-  "... nobody could be more zealous in defending the 'state' against the church in Rome than Richelieu himself - to the point that he has often been regarded as its true founder." (p. 71)