Christianity & Democracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Christianity, though it serves and worships a King, is fundamentally democratic. That is, all humans are equal in the eyes of God. All will be treated fairly in the last analysis. According to atheism, a man might live an evil life, prosper greatly, and never be punished for his crimes. Or a man might live a virtuous life, suffer greatly, and be punished for his virtue.

With Christianity, such ultimately unfair destinies are not possible. All souls are treated fairly. The prosperous criminal will suffer at the end. The persecuted saint will be rewarded.

But all, criminals and saints, are equally invited to the Table of the Lord.
 
inocente said:
😃
All this is apropos of nothing, except maybe Chesterton was on the wrong wavelength.
Click to expand...
“Men will more and more realize that there is no meaning in democracy if there is no meaning in anything; and that there is no meaning in anything if the universe has not a center of significance and an authority that is the author of our rights.”

This can be broken down into two statements:
  1. No meaning in anything = no meaning in democracy.
  2. If the meaning of the Universe is not fixed and is relative (i.e everyone has their own meaning for it) = this is essentially the same as saying there is no meaning at all.
Which of these do you have a problem with?

It appears you don’t appreciate the value of Truth. When Truth is denied it has consequences. What meaning does democracy have for all those unborn babies who have been aborted? When Pilate had Jesus come before him and tell him he had come to bear witness to the Truth, Pilate also disregarded Truth and its importance. The denial of that Truth that Jesus was bearing witness to was a large part of what eventually caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
 
empther said:
Perhaps Warrenton can explain how democracy wouldn’t descend into oligarchy or tyranny if we knew nothing about the people at the top.

We’re here to learn. Share your knowledge, Warrenton.
Click to expand...
Put as simply as I can, if there are people at the top, I don’t think we have democracy. What we have is democratic method of voting for certain people.

As long as the people at the top frame the question, as long as they get to select the solutions with or without the consent of the governed, it’s not democracy.

And when the press is more or less owned by the same class of people at the top, their observations are not necessarilly conducive to advancing democracy.
 
Warrenton

**And when the press is more or less owned by the same class of people at the top, their observations are not necessarilly conducive to advancing democracy. **

That has always been true … that the people with money have tended to control the press (William Randolph Hearst the classic instance). However, the people with money have not always agreed with each other. Thus you have choices in what you read or watch … for example … CNN versus Fox news channels.

Likewise, the Internet has radically altered the way ideas and information can be disseminated, not only quickly but from every source, down to the poorest person who can afford a computer.

That’s good for democracy … not good for those who oppose democracy.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Perhaps Warrenton can explain how democracy wouldn’t descend into oligarchy or tyranny if we knew nothing about the people at the top.

We’re here to learn. Share your knowledge, Warrenton.

Put as simply as I can, if there are people at the top, I don’t think we have democracy. What we have is democratic method of voting for certain people.

As long as the people at the top frame the question, as long as they get to select the solutions with or without the consent of the governed, it’s not democracy.

And when the press is more or less owned by the same class of people at the top, their observations are not necessarilly conducive to advancing democracy.
Click to expand...

So apparentlly you don’t believe the United States is a democracy! 😊 🤷 :confused:

Because we have people at the top? :rolleyes:

We have ways to get rid of them.

They can’t do anything without the consent of the governed because they’ll be voted out of ofiice,
or impeached,
or recalled,
or expelled from Congress
or arrested in five minutes
if their actions are serious.

And the press, which serves as our watchdog over these people, are owned by thousands of independent groups, including the hometown newspager in my little city of 20,000 people which is owned by a small group of people here. They tell us when a Senator feels a pagegirl’s butt.

That’s not democracy?
:ballspin:
Goodby, Warrentot. 👋
 
Nate13 said:
This can be broken down into two statements:
  1. No meaning in anything = no meaning in democracy.
  2. If the meaning of the Universe is not fixed and is relative (i.e everyone has their own meaning for it) = this is essentially the same as saying there is no meaning at all.
Which of these do you have a problem with?
Click to expand...
Democracy is about each person determining the truth for herself, one person one vote, no taxation without representation, having an equal say. It has nothing to do with what Chesterton might think is The Meaning Of Life, The Universe And Everything, and he’s trying to have me on that unless I accept his new meaning, I can’t value democracy as much as he does. But by trying to replace the meaning he shows he doesn’t value the original meaning, he’s fine with me making up my own mind just so long as I vote for what he wants, as long as I accept his truth. That ain’t democracy.
What meaning does democracy have for all those unborn babies who have been aborted? When Pilate had Jesus come before him and tell him he had come to bear witness to the Truth, Pilate also disregarded Truth and its importance. The denial of that Truth that Jesus was bearing witness to was a large part of what eventually caused the fall of the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...
Suppose you are passionate about something, e.g. abortion. If you also passionately believe someone who disagrees with you MUST have an equal say and an equal vote to yours then you understand the true meaning of democracy, if not then you don’t. 🙂
 
inocente

he’s fine with me making up my own mind just so long as I vote for what he wants, as long as I accept his truth. That ain’t democracy.

Er … that isn’t what Chesterton said. What Chesterton said is that for democracy to prevail, we we need to agree with God. As a Baptist, do you have a problem with that? :confused:

“Men will more and more realize that there is no meaning in democracy if there is no meaning in anything; and that there is no meaning in anything if the universe has not a center of significance and an authority that is the author of our rights.” G.K. Chesterton
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Er … that isn’t what Chesterton said. What Chesterton said is that for democracy to prevail, we we need to agree with God. As a Baptist, do you have a problem with that? :confused:
Click to expand...
Yes. There are a lot of people who want to tell us what God wants, trouble is they never actually agree. They can all try to persuade us about which of them God really spoke to, but the golden rule implies they must not coerce us, that we must each act on our (God given) conscience, and we must defend the right of everyone else to do likewise. We can’t be disagreeing with God if we do that, and no doubt much to Chesterton’s chagrin an atheist can believe exactly the same on grounds democracy makes the world a better place to bring up their kids.
 
inocente

**and no doubt much to Chesterton’s chagrin an atheist can believe exactly the same on grounds democracy makes the world a better place to bring up their kids. **

So, as a Baptist you believe that a world without religion would be as democratic as a world with religion?

You seem to be a tad confused about Chesterton. He did not say he wanted to impose Christianity on a democracy. Nor is he against the right of people in a democracy to choose atheism. All he is saying is that if a democracy resists God, there will be tough sledding ahead for the democracy.

Do you disagree with this too?
 
We can certainly see how the fall of religion under Lenin and Stalin was contemporary with the rise of brutal dictatorship rather than the supposedly “people oriented” economics of Karl Marx.
 
inocente said:
Yes. There are a lot of people who want to tell us what God wants, trouble is they never actually agree. They can all try to persuade us about which of them God really spoke to, but the golden rule implies they must not coerce us, that we must each act on our (God given) conscience, and we must defend the right of everyone else to do likewise. We can’t be disagreeing with God if we do that, and no doubt much to Chesterton’s chagrin an atheist can believe exactly the same on grounds democracy makes the world a better place to bring up their kids.
Click to expand...
How can an atheist believe on exactly the same grounds as a theist that democracy makes the world a better place to bring up their kids? :confused:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
So, as a Baptist you believe that a world without religion would be as democratic as a world with religion?
Click to expand...
If by religion you mean spiritual in general then it’s part of who we are, it’s in our genes and you’ll never have a world without it, so the question would be ultra hypothetical. If you mean a particular organized religion, are you saying democracy has no meaning without Allah? (Or Krishna, or Thor?)
*You seem to be a tad confused about Chesterton. He did not say he wanted to impose Christianity on a democracy. Nor is he against the right of people in a democracy to choose atheism. All he is saying is that if a democracy resists God, there will be tough sledding ahead for the democracy.
Click to expand...
Do you disagree with this too?*
Click to expand...
You bet your little cotton socks. We can all agree that an anarchy or a dictatorship is almost certainly resisting God, but how can Chesterton possibly know that a democracy is resisting God?
 
tonyrey said:
How can an atheist believe on exactly the same grounds as a theist that democracy makes the world a better place to bring up their kids? :confused:
Click to expand...
The order of the words count: I said “the same on grounds”, not “on the same grounds”. 🙂
 
inocente

but how can Chesterton possibly know that a democracy is resisting God?

It can know that by a democracy asking itself questions and honestly admitting the answers…

Does it promote same-sex marriage?
Does it promote killing the unborn?
Does it promote physician assisted suicide?
Does it promote the suppression of public worship?
Does it promote the publishing of pornography?
Does it promote legalized prostitution?
Does it promote the legalization of sodomy?
Does it promote justifying sodomy in the grade schools?

None of these things were promoted fifty years ago in America. Certainly not by the government. Are we closer to God because we have adopted promoting these causes?

Or do you think that whatever a democracy promotes is always good for the people just because they have freely chosen it?
 
inocente said:
I’m a Christian and like democracy as much as the next man but his argument sounds a bit, well, how to say this politely, crazy - can’t folk find their own meaning, or would that be just too darned democratic?
Click to expand...
The problem is not that people will not find their own meaning. For some tearing the wings off of flies would be very meaningful, and what’s wrong with that? And who’s to say that it shouldn’t be?

Democracy though requires that people become the masters of their own destiny and take care of themselves and make their own decisions rather than having someone taking care of them and making their own decisions for them.
Like out of bounds areas on ski hills, such freedom requires parameters in order that the people do not end up dashing their heads against the rocks—or define their freedom as tearing wings off of flies, or other frivolous and ultimately perilously fruitless activities.

To live free requires an ethic and righteous people who have the moral tools that allow them to take care of themselves.

the main precondition for freedom though is to have authority resting outside of the state, in God.God the create is by definition outside of his creation, and that alone is the sufficient condition for freedom to become possible. Otherwise, it is the state and the powers-that-be which ultimately will define our freedoms for us.

And that would be a contradiction to the very meaning of freedom in the first place.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Does it promote same-sex marriage?
Does it promote killing the unborn?
Does it promote physician assisted suicide?
Does it promote the suppression of public worship?
Does it promote the publishing of pornography?
Does it promote legalized prostitution?
Does it promote the legalization of sodomy?
Does it promote justifying sodomy in the grade schools?

None of these things were promoted fifty years ago in America. Certainly not by the government. Are we closer to God because we have adopted promoting these causes?
Click to expand...
You’ve kind of proven my case :). If we’re talking about the democratic process then your party’s policies are irrelevant, since the whole point is that everyone can vote for what they see fit, not what you see fit!
Or do you think that whatever a democracy promotes is always good for the people just because they have freely chosen it?
Click to expand...
That’s a bit of a non sequitur, since we won’t have democracy unless people are free to choose. Do you think one of the alternatives is better? (I’d guess that Chesterton would really have preferred a patriarchal theocracy :eek:).
 
Darryl1958 said:
The problem is not that people will not find their own meaning. For some tearing the wings off of flies would be very meaningful, and what’s wrong with that? And who’s to say that it shouldn’t be?

Democracy though requires that people become the masters of their own destiny and take care of themselves and make their own decisions rather than having someone taking care of them and making their own decisions for them.
Like out of bounds areas on ski hills, such freedom requires parameters in order that the people do not end up dashing their heads against the rocks—or define their freedom as tearing wings off of flies, or other frivolous and ultimately perilously fruitless activities.

To live free requires an ethic and righteous people who have the moral tools that allow them to take care of themselves.

the main precondition for freedom though is to have authority resting outside of the state, in God.God the create is by definition outside of his creation, and that alone is the sufficient condition for freedom to become possible. Otherwise, it is the state and the powers-that-be which ultimately will define our freedoms for us.

And that would be a contradiction to the very meaning of freedom in the first place.
Click to expand...
I was with you up to a point, then I think we parted ways :). Certainly democracy requires a strong ethic. Voltaire rendered it as “think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too”, which Evelyn Beatrice Hall paraphrased as “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”.

That’s a tough ethic, but it’s that which defines our freedoms in a democracy. I’d suggest you can’t alter Hall’s maxim to include any preconditions without severely weakening it, and of course once weakened it would no longer be democracy.
 
inocente

**That’s a bit of a non sequitur, since we won’t have democracy unless people are free to choose. Do you think one of the alternatives is better? (I’d guess that Chesterton would really have preferred a patriarchal theocracy **

That a bit of non sequitur.

From Chesterton warning that democracy without God is a recipe for disaster you conclude that Chesterton would prefer a patriarchal theocracy?

Sheesh!!! :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top