Are you in favor of a New World Order (world governance)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Sock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is this something specifically American? I see stuff sometimes about “New World Order”, and much (all?) of it comes from America. Usually, ISTM, from the conspiracy theory driven section of America.

Before responding to the question, what do you mean by “New World Order”? Be specific please.

rossum
 
I cant say whether im in favor of it or not, I have no idea what life would be like under that system, but I highly doubt it will ever happen in my lifetime, Many many nations would not go along with it.

I have heard some mentions of the NWO by politicians here and there, so I do think it is something a percentage of people want.
 
No. Central governments tend to over control and be rife with corruption. Look at the beast that the US government has become. How can anything even larger and with a mix of ideologies be better?
 
Absolutely not. I just have to think of the European Union and its ambitions of further deepening and shudder.
 
No, certainly not. World government is a very shiny toy that many governmental theorists have played with at length, but have realized to be untenable.

All man-made things are temporary; including government. This can be proven by simply looking at history. Every single government made in the history of mankind has failed miserably due to corruption and, frankly, sin.

Even the Catholic Church, an institution made by Jesus Christ himself, and constantly guided by the Holy Spirit, has had incredibly difficult trials and challenges, simply because of the failures of men.

So no, Robert, a world government would be exactly the last thing we need. It WOULD fail; the only question would be how long it would be. I, personally, don’t expect it would last more than 50 years before some dictator managed to get power.
 
I don’t like the term because it has been so associated with conspiracy theories, and anyway it can and has been used to mean any number of things. If I’m not mistaken at the end of the Cold War it was used to describe the fact that without the Soviet Union the whole global geo-political situation was of course going to be very different, and it was an opportunity to be optimistic and ambitious in plans to make the world a better place.

Regarding the specific question of a world government, here’s my take. I think that whatever form civil authority would have taken in an unfallen world, it would likely have in some sense been a world wide family-state, though doubtless very decentralized and with no need for certain things we so associate with the state, such as the military. But the fact is that we live in a fallen world. That means that the larger and more centralized the state, the more damaging it can be if it becomes tyrannical. A single centralized state would be inescapable and could commit the worst crimes against humanity imaginable. Also less influential regions or ethnicities could easily feel that they are being dominated by others.

For that reason I would suggest a system not actually that different from what exists today, if it could be purified and made what it should be:

Let there be many little independent states. In unusual places like North America and Australia, where there is continent or nearly-continent wide historical and cultural unity, let there be vast decentralized empires, organized federally. Let allied nations set up diverse larger international organizations tailor-made to their unique needs and desires: things like NATO, the EU, the African Union, the Arab League, and so forth. Let there also be a global international body to try war criminals, mitigate conflicts, organize international aid in disasters, and so forth, but without the power to really control the world. And finally, above all, let the Church be recognized as sovereign and elevated above all secular institutions, with a recognized role in guiding and even reprimanding every level of secular authority when necessary while never, except over very small territories needed to maintain the Church’s political independence, actually becoming that secular authority.
 
Absolutely not, unless Jesus Christ Himself is physically present and ruling directly, not through any human agency.
 
I voted yes because I believe in the Kingdom of God and our Lord Jesus Christ who will come one day and establish just such a “new order”…the old will pass away and the new will come.

Before that blessed event - - well others have said it well already - - any attempt - even if achieved - of a single world government will ultimately fail.

Perhaps another - even better question would be - are you in favor a a single worldwide system of morals (as in cultural norms).
I actually think this is what Aelred was really describing.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
I voted yes because I believe in the Kingdom of God and our Lord Jesus Christ who will come one day and establish just such a “new order”…the old will pass away and the new will come.

Before that blessed event - - well others have said it well already - - any attempt - even if achieved - of a single world government will ultimately fail.

Perhaps another - even better question would be - are you in favor a a single worldwide system of morals (as in cultural norms).
I actually think this is what Aelred was really describing.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
I wasn’t specifically describing that but the ideal modern world I was describing does presuppose a certain degree of worldwide moral agreement.
 
The last 4 pontiffs have called for a transformation in world governance towards a “true world political authority” that should replace or come out of a reformed UN.

So yes, I am in favour.
 
rossum said:
Is this something specifically American? I see stuff sometimes about “New World Order”, and much (all?) of it comes from America. Usually, ISTM, from the conspiracy theory driven section of America.

rossum
Click to expand...
The United States is a majority Protestant/Evangelical/Pentecostal nation, and most of those folks see the prospect of a secular world government as the project of the Antichrist. Therefore they oppose it.

I don’t see it as a necessarily bad thing, though. My reading of the book of Revelation indicates the the Antichrist will foment a global war, not a world government.

If there were a viable global Christian democratic party having a strong say without watering down its morals (like some CD parties in Europe), it could be bearable. According to the principle of subsidiarity, it probably shouldn’t have very much power.
KP3243 said:
Only if Jesus is the King of it.
Click to expand...
Hear, hear. That would be the only viable way to keep it going. “Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain.” (Psalm 127:1)
 
Woah! There is a big difference between global governance and global government.

Of course I am in favor of global governance. That’s necessary for the world to function. Without it there wouldn’t be large, multilateral treaties for big issues like human rights, weapons, etc. But, there also wouldn’t be any set policy on international mail delivery, world trade agreements and safety standards, etc. Global governance is positive and necessary.

Global government on the other hand is a firm no. It’s hard enough to have an effective government at the national level. Just imagine if laws were passed by delegates from all over the world and were representing every culture from Sweden to China, to Saudi Arabia. Then imagine the implementation and enforcement of these laws! Impossible, expensive, ineffective, and at the end of the day probably immoral too.
 
Vouthon said:
The last 4 pontiffs have called for a transformation in world governance towards a “true world political authority” that should replace or come out of a reformed UN.

So yes, I am in favour.
Click to expand...
This is why I hesitated for a split second before voting “no”.

Does the OP mean a UN that will actually achieve something by intervening for moral humanitarian reasons in certain crises, or as a kind of global government similar to most nation’s federal governments? If the former, then I am all for it, but I’m assuming the latter was meant so I’m strongly against it.

In all likeliness it would gravely violate subsidiarity and would try and impose secularism on all of us. It would probably be like the EU: a good start with good intentions that slowly morphs into a bureaucracy that wants to create a one-nation secular and godless Europe.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Woah! There is a big difference between global governance and global government.

Of course I am in favor of global governance. That’s necessary for the world to function. Without it there wouldn’t be large, multilateral treaties for big issues like human rights, weapons, etc. But, there also wouldn’t be any set policy on international mail delivery, world trade agreements and safety standards, etc. Global governance is positive and necessary.

Global government on the other hand is a firm no. It’s hard enough to have an effective government at the national level. Just imagine if laws were passed by delegates from all over the world and were representing every culture from Sweden to China, to Saudi Arabia. Then imagine the implementation and enforcement of these laws! Impossible, expensive, ineffective, and at the end of the day probably immoral too.
Click to expand...
Exactly this.
 
Not at all, that is new age at its best and the entire concept belongs to the new age. You have to be very very careful with that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top