Democracy without the Protestant Reformation?

[Catholic20064]

If there had never been a Protestant Reformation would Democracy have taken root in Catholic countries?

 

[Alexander_Smith]

This is speculation of course, but I would imagine it is true that Democracy as the “ultimate” government is a Protestant ideal. People are always touting Democracy as the best form of government, when in fact, it is a greatly flawed system that needs some restructuring.

Voter turnout of people who are old enough to vote in federal elections has hovered around 50% even up to 2008. That means the “American people” as referred to by elected officials is only about half the population. Not only that, but a large portion of the population has either little or no real knowledge about the government and their own politicians, or their opinons are simply led by entertainment-media and horrible reporting.

This is backed up by the fact that we Americans flip between liberal, conservative, democrat, and republican every few years. There’s no real vision, no truth, no intelligence involved.

The way I see it, Protestants revolted against the central “government” that wast the Church. An institution led by one man, the Pope, who is chosen by a small group of people, rather than a the entire population of Catholics.

Protestant churches on the other hand, are modeled much more on the Democratic system. The ministers appeal to the people, and the people support the ministers, much like politicians have to appeal to the people to be elected.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And Protestants would be RIGHT. It is the ultimate form of government. Take a look at your alternatives: monarchy, socialism, communism, theocracy. Not great options.

And you’re correct that the reason our country has not been working is the hearts and minds of the people to a large degree. Uneducated in matters of political science and history as well as fiscal responsibility and judicious use of government, etc. all plays an enormous role in states like mine electing morons like Schwarzenegger, a total incompetent, and Obama, a president that has absolutely no idea what he’s going to do to solve problems except spend $$$$.

But one reason you didn’t include for people flip flopping between Dems for 4 years and Republicans for 8 years and back and forth is $$$$. People really don’t have a viable alternative to the two-party domination and hijacking of our system. The GOP is owned by big business, small business owners, farmers, ranchers, the AMA, etc. They get enormous lobby $$$ and they’re bought and sold by these folks. The Democrats are owned by hippies, George Souroz, labor unions, women’s associations, abortion lobby, and environmentalists to name a few. They get huge lobby $$$ from them.

So the pac money, the lobby money, $$$ talks. And just like ancient Rome, votes get bought, lots of demoguery kicks in, packaged candidates with no real intelligence like Palin and Obama become standard-bearers and talking heads with talking points, and we all have the lesser of evils.

Lesser of evils isn’t what the Founders planned or had in mind.

So I’d say it’s a blend between a crooked, cronyistic, selfish bunch of politicians, $$$$ from lobbyists, a monopoly on the party system by two titanic groups, and an ignorant population voting for these lovely choices.

That being said, the alternative is socialism, communism, etc. No thanks. I’d rather vote for these goobers than wear khaki and call my friends “comrade” eating borsch.

This is speculation of course, but I would imagine it is true that Democracy as the “ultimate” government is a Protestant ideal. People are always touting Democracy as the best form of government, when in fact, it is a greatly flawed system that needs some restructuring.

Voter turnout of people who are old enough to vote in federal elections has hovered around 50% even up to 2008. That means the “American people” as referred to by elected officials is only about half the population. Not only that, but a large portion of the population has either little or no real knowledge about the government and their own politicians, or their opinons are simply led by entertainment-media and horrible reporting.

This is backed up by the fact that we Americans flip between liberal, conservative, democrat, and republican every few years. There’s no real vision, no truth, no intelligence involved.

The way I see it, Protestants revolted against the central “government” that wast the Church. An institution led by one man, the Pope, who is chosen by a small group of people, rather than a the entire population of Catholics.

Protestant churches on the other hand, are modeled much more on the Democratic system. The ministers appeal to the people, and the people support the ministers, much like politicians have to appeal to the people to be elected.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This topic is always speculative and has been discussed in CAF by me a couple years ago. My contention is NO. Democracy comes from the spirit of liberty and a sense of nationhood. The Catholic system in the Middle Ages kept the Church deeply entwined in the judicial systems, law-making apparatus, religious, social, and political decision-making scheme of monarchs. Monarchs ruled absolutely with “divine right” and as long as they backed popes and cardinals, they were fine. The Magna Carta was a step in the right direction. But it was Luther that set the idea in motion of “godly princes” and the Catholic Church being plucked from civil affairs. The idea of a secular government was new and largely thanks to Protestant thinking. Protestantism is based on the liberty of each individual to make his/her mind up about religion, a strong sense of Christian liberty. The Founding Fathers of this country, for example, looked to Protestant values, not Catholic ones, in creating this Republic. Jefferson himself supported Virginia’s anti-clerical laws with the purpose of keeping the Catholic Church out of his state’s business and religious life. In Europe, your baptism was usually your citizenship in Catholic medievel days. And excommunication basically stripped you of all your rights. This kind of thinking and inability to descent from and disagree with a state religion is an impediment to a democracy. The Founding Fathers looked to ancient Greece and Rome for inspiration on democratic values. The Catholic Church has looked at antiquity not in such matters at all but more for philosophic and theological as well as moral thinking, not political use.

I personally think democracy was one of the fruits of the Reformation. But I know in making this statement I’m about to get hammered and pummeled in here. So I’m putting on my Kevlar, helmet, leg armor, and ducking for the incoming salvos!

If there had never been a Protestant Reformation would Democracy have taken root in Catholic countries?

 

[tomarin]

I personally think democracy was one of the fruits of the Reformation. But I know in making this statement I’m about to get hammered and pummeled in here. So I’m putting on my Kevlar, helmet, leg armor, and ducking for the incoming salvos!

Nobody said the Internet would be pretty.

Forget it, Gurney; it’s Chinatown.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You got that right, buddy!

Love your avatar, man. HUGE Lee fan here. “Fists of Fury” and “Enter” are the greatest ever! “It is like a finger, pointing to the moon. Focus on the finger and you miss all the heavenly glory!”

Nobody said the Internet would be pretty.

Forget it, Gurney; it’s Chinatown.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

And Protestants would be RIGHT. It is the ultimate form of government. Take a look at your alternatives: monarchy, socialism, communism, theocracy. Not great options.

You left out a Constitutional Republic which is what America is. Remember *“I pledge allegiance… and to the Republic” *. Also democracy killed Socrates

My point is that Democracy can lead to an extreme (mobism ) just as those examples you gave can (Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, tyranny etc). I think the founders knew this and thus established a Republic, not a democracy. A government where not even mob rule (democracy) could take away a man’s rights.

God bless

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I personally think democracy was one of the fruits of the Reformation. But I know in making this statement I’m about to get hammered and pummeled in here. So I’m putting on my Kevlar, helmet, leg armor, and ducking for the incoming salvos!

So ancient Greece owed their government to the 16th century reformers?

God bless

 

[rr1213]

If there had never been a Protestant Reformation would Democracy have taken root in Catholic countries?

Sure? Why not? There were various forms of limited democracy in ancient pagan Greece millenia before the Reformation. Also, some of the Italian city states during the Rennaissance were republican and democratic in a limited fashion. Also, there were democratic reforms present in England prior to the Reformation when England was still Catholic. The Reformation may have “pushed” democratic ideals along at a faster pace–perhaps–but democracy is not a solely Protestant concept.

 

[CDNowak]

If there had never been a Protestant Reformation would Democracy have taken root in Catholic countries?

Democracy certainly not, probably not the Republic either. Given the high standards set for the possibility of rebellion in Catholic Social teaching of the time, it would have been very difficult for the monarchy to be overthrown.

I do think it important to note that economic theories are not political theories: socialism and communism are economic theories that, in practice, have been coupled with totalitarian governments (ie dictatorship).

 

[Alexander_Roman]

First of all, democracy was and is an ideal that has never truly been realized.

It is also something of a naive ideal that has been, and still is, used to get people to think they rule themselves, but in fact are ruled by hidden elites etc.

Oliver Cromwell, who overthrew the Crown in England, was no democrat (he was the first to ban Christmas). Neither were the northern European princes who adopted Protestantism - they never asked their charges if they wanted to be Protestant but simply told them they now were. Early Lutheranism allowed a lot of Catholic rituals to stand so that the people wouldn’t see the difference. This is why Lutherans in the U.S. were originally persecuted together with Catholics - Protestants didn’t see the difference either.

The early Lutherans believed that if they subtracted the papal traditions from the bible, then everyone would believe as they did. But then along came the Anabaptists who didn’t and which caused the Lutherans to go after them with a vengeance.

The Puritans who came to America arrived here to escape religious persecution. That didn’t mean they weren’t capable of persecuting others for the same reason. Ms Hutchison, I believe, was a Puritan lady who was persecuted relentlessly by her co-religionists for her beliefs in the equality of women before God etc.

Democracy as we know it today is really only effective when it is tied to tradition and traditional values. The democracy that by 51% of the vote makes an objective good out of an objective evil is not only unprogressive, it is simply wrong.

And most “democratic” republics around the world, many of whom overthrew their kings, are the most dictatorial constructs known to human history.

And as for the separation of church and state in the U.S. - historically that never obtained and, as we see in the life of Fr. McGiveney who founded the Knights of Columbus, he lived in a state where everyone actually paid a tax to support the state church of his day - the Congregational Church. This is documented in the life of the holy priest.

Alex

 

[JHow]

And here I always thought it was gun powder that lead to democracy. You don’t have to take any **** from a mounted nobleman if you can drill a hole in his breastplate at 100 yards.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Democracy certainly not, probably not the Republic either. Given the high standards set for the possibility of rebellion in Catholic Social teaching of the time, it would have been very difficult for the monarchy to be overthrown.

I do think it important to note that economic theories are not political theories: socialism and communism are economic theories that, in practice, have been coupled with totalitarian governments (ie dictatorship).

You are right sir!

In fact, many Americans fought for the Crown in the American Revolution (Canada was established by American Loyalists who left the U.S. after the Revolution beginning in 1791). The American situation where the head of state is also the head of government is not without its problems and tensions either.

At the time of the Civil War, the southern states, owing to a different economy, refused to vote for Lincoln, who won the election as President, nevertheless.

Had Lincoln been simply the head of government and not also the head of state (with, say, the Crown as the head of state), the Civil War might not have ever have occurred. Heads of government in constitutional monarchies can get moved around if the people don’t like them - this is actually much more democratic and less violent a process.

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

And here I always thought it was gun powder that lead to democracy. You don’t have to take any **** from a mounted nobleman if you can drill a hole in his breastplate at 100 yards.

I think history has shown that for every mounted nobleman that is picked off, there are several others standing in the shadowy wings ready to exercise a more subtle social control that we cannot get rid of.

Alex

 

[tomarin]

You got that right, buddy!

Love your avatar, man. HUGE Lee fan here. “Fists of Fury” and “Enter” are the greatest ever! “It is like a finger, pointing to the moon. Focus on the finger and you miss all the heavenly glory!”

When I pick an icon, I pick an icon.

Now, back to your scheduled programming.

 

[CDNowak]

I think history has shown that for every mounted nobleman that is picked off, there are several others standing in the shadowy wings ready to exercise a more subtle social control that we cannot get rid of.

Alex

Not to mention that the longbow and cross bow presented a similar benefit long before guns were stable, cheap, and accurate enough for a free man to be effective an his own.

 

[zerinus]

If there had never been a Protestant Reformation would Democracy have taken root in Catholic countries?

That is an interesting question. I am no fan of Protestantism, but I believe that one of the unintended outcomes of the Protestant Reformation was the promotion of democracy in the world. The early immigrants to North America who later established the US Constitution and form of government were mostly of the Protestant faith who had fled religious persecution in Europe, not just at the hands of the Catholics, but even more so at the hands of their own fellow Protestants; and as a result of that bitter experience, when they came to devise the US form of government, they ensured that the separation of church and state, and freedom of worship, was enshrined in the US Constitution, which formed the basis of the American democracy; and the American Constitution has since served as the model for the constitutions of many other countries around the world since then.

 

[seeker57]

First of all, democracy was and is an ideal that has never truly been realized.

It is also something of a naive ideal that has been, and still is, used to get people to think they rule themselves, but in fact are ruled by hidden elites etc.

Oliver Cromwell, who overthrew the Crown in England, was no democrat (he was the first to ban Christmas). Neither were the northern European princes who adopted Protestantism - they never asked their charges if they wanted to be Protestant but simply told them they now were. Early Lutheranism allowed a lot of Catholic rituals to stand so that the people wouldn’t see the difference. This is why Lutherans in the U.S. were originally persecuted together with Catholics - Protestants didn’t see the difference either.

The early Lutherans believed that if they subtracted the papal traditions from the bible, then everyone would believe as they did. But then along came the Anabaptists who didn’t and which caused the Lutherans to go after them with a vengeance.

The Puritans who came to America arrived here to escape religious persecution. That didn’t mean they weren’t capable of persecuting others for the same reason. Ms Hutchison, I believe, was a Puritan lady who was persecuted relentlessly by her co-religionists for her beliefs in the equality of women before God etc.

Democracy as we know it today is really only effective when it is tied to tradition and traditional values. The democracy that by 51% of the vote makes an objective good out of an objective evil is not only unprogressive, it is simply wrong.

And most “democratic” republics around the world, many of whom overthrew their kings, are the most dictatorial constructs known to human history.

And as for the separation of church and state in the U.S. - historically that never obtained and, as we see in the life of Fr. McGiveney who founded the Knights of Columbus, he lived in a state where everyone actually paid a tax to support the state church of his day - the Congregational Church. This is documented in the life of the holy priest.

Alex

Great post. The part about the tax sponsored church is absolutely correct. In New England, each community had a tax supported Congregationalist Church.

These churches eventually split, divided and became different denominations. Unitarians were one such splinter group.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The idea that all Protestants from the Reformation through to U.S. history were pro-democracy is the strawman argument of the week here. Nobody is saying that. I know what I believe from my reading of history is that the ideals that Luther and the Reformation fostered was the notion of individual liberty with religion and in his time with the rise of the nation-states of Europe breaking the chains of religious domination by Catholicism, they were able to craft their own destinies without religious control in their courts, churches, legal system, and politics by the Catholic Church. This set things in motion; it didn’t create instant democracy and a horde of democratically-minded men. Look at Calvin!

But the ideals of individual choice in faith led to a secularization also of art and expression in the years following the Reformation. Not everything was tied to religion. The idea of secular government emerged.

The idea of the Puritans and Pilgrims being given charters or support to go to the New World to find religious freedom wouldn’t have happened under Catholic rule. Religion was always tied to the state.

Anglicans were children of the Reformation but very much liked the church tied to the state. The Americans took care of that not being a problem in the States. Democracy was a process that took place over centuries. It was the Reformation that played a big role but didn’t invent it unilaterally.

 

[Georgia]

You left out a Constitutional Republic which is what America is. Remember *“I pledge allegiance… and to the Republic” *. Also democracy killed Socrates

My point is that Democracy can lead to an extreme (mobism ) just as those examples you gave can (Totalitarianism, Authoritarianism, tyranny etc). I think the founders knew this and thus established a Republic, not a democracy. A government where not even mob rule (democracy) could take away a man’s rights.

God bless

Exactly! The founders of this great country feared democracy and set up a constitutional republic, fearing the excesses that can arise. No American president used the term “democracy” until the 20th century.

The government was flavored by much of what the founders believed about God and about the status of man. I doubt that we would have seen government is the configuration they set were it not for those assumptions that we brought to the table. They believed that man must have liberties that have to be protected by the government. If you read their writings, you see they never envisioned other than a hard-working voting class set free to do the things that were considered moral and beneficial. They never thought of government as a way to collectively run charity.