Is a Theocracy more Moral than a Democracy?

[BobObob]

Part 4/4

BobObob;7020668:

Using governmental power to stop what is objectively evil, specifically drunkenness, by prohibiting alcohol last century, which was a disaster.

You’ve sought to get a lot of mileage out of this example, but the big problem with Prohibition is precisely that it banned something that is morally neutral, alcohol, rather than getting tough on the resultant problem, drunkenness. But pornographic materials, for example, are evil in themselves–there is no licit use for them.

What about the “war on drugs”, which is much like alcohol prohibition, but it has banned many drugs which are intrinsically wrong (since for some of these drugs any use is abuse)? Sure, using marijuana in moderation without smoking it is morally neutral just like alcohol, but some drugs that are illegal aren’t really possible to use without abuse.

Just like alcohol, keeping dangerous drugs like cocaine, crystal meth, and heroin illegal has had the immoral effects of making criminals rich by artificially raising the value of these on the black market, majorly hurt people economically by costing hundreds of billions of tax dollars, further hurt the economy by keeping millions of non-violent potential contributors to the economy in unnecessarily jail, and dangerously increasing governmental power.

I use prohibition as an example because it’s well known and has some very well known effects which are very immoral.

BTW, do you consider matters of an regions’s public security force to be in themselves (as opposed to relevant to) matters of faith, morals, or both?

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Democracy as practised in the modern world is inherently immoral in that it puts on equal footing hte working man and he who will not work. Ancient democracy with its effective imposition of the wages of sin in shame and ostracism were morally acceptable but he modern version is irredeemably debased.

 

[BobObob]

Democracy as practised in the modern world is inherently immoral in that it puts on equal footing hte working man and he who will not work. Ancient democracy with its effective imposition of the wages of sin in shame and ostracism were morally acceptable but he modern version is irredeemably debased.

Why is it evil for someone who does not work to vote?

There’s nothing wrong with choosing not to work if one has enough wealth to do so.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Democracy as practised in the modern world is inherently immoral in that it puts on equal footing hte working man and he who will not work. Ancient democracy with its effective imposition of the wages of sin in shame and ostracism were morally acceptable but he modern version is irredeemably debased.

Can you explain why there simply are not enough jobs for the many people who do desire to work?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Why is it evil for someone who does not work to vote?

There’s nothing wrong with choosing not to work if one has enough wealth to do so.

Is there something wrong with a person who is trying to find employment?

Should they not be able to vote?

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;7025254:

Why is it evil for someone who does not work to vote?

There’s nothing wrong with choosing not to work if one has enough wealth to do so.

Is there something wrong with a person who is trying to find employment?

Should they not be able to vote?

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a person seeking employment.

People aught to be allowed to vote regardless of their employment/work situation (or lack thereof).

 

[Aboveallbereal]

Is there something wrong with a person who is trying to find employment?

Should they not be able to vote?

Like the other respondents you simply - perhaps wilfully perhaps not - misread of misjudge what I wrote.

I did not mention or refer to persons seeking employment. I referred to those who WILL not workand actively seek to avoid gainful employment. That is to say the idle and shiftless whom are regarded biblically as unworthy of bread.

Modern democracy treats these people as equal in weight to the deserving and is consequently delegitimised andthankfully doomed to collapse under theweight of its excesses.

 

[BobObob]

I referred to those who WILL not workand actively seek to avoid gainful employment. That is to say the idle and shiftless whom are regarded biblically as unworthy of bread.

Can you back up that statement of those who are avoiding working as being “regarded biblically as unworthy of bread”? Please remember when citing a passage to interpret a passage in its proper context.

Why do you think those who avoid working should be allowed to vote? Why would working be a necessary condition for voting? Working, as Genesis indicates, is only a necessary evil as a result of the flood. If someone has enough resources to live without working, why should he or she be deprived of the right to vote if he or she chooses not to?

 

[DavidPalm]

Can you back up that statement of those who are avoiding working as being “regarded biblically as unworthy of bread”? Please remember when citing a passage to interpret a passage in its proper context.

“For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either” (2 Thess 3:10). You two can argue about the context, but I think the bolded words are the key to the meaning.

Working, as Genesis indicates, is only a necessary evil as a result of the flood.

A common misconception, but not true. We were made to work. Before the Fall: “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). That’s work (ask Hahn if he agrees. I’ll bet he does.) The Fall brought about not work per se, but rather that the created order would be rebel so that even getting basic sustenance would require arduous effort.

I’m in China and trying to get settled in here, so will not be able to reply to your points above for a while. I’ll get to them when I can. God bless,

 

[Timothy17]

“For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either” (2 Thess 3:10). You two can argue about the context, but I think the bolded words are the key to the meaning.

In order for your interpretation to work, you’d have to assume that the Apostles monopolized the bread industry, and were thus able to determine who would be able to eat and who would not or, that the Apostles established a very clandestine ministry wherein Christians would be commissioned to deprive their co-religionists of their food. Frankly, I was worried this quote would be used against the unemployed or persons who have difficulty finding or keeping work in the modern world, especially persons who have little reason to work, or anything to work for (namely, a family or a passion for a specific kind of work, which itself can become destructive in the form of a “workoholic”).

This quote makes perfect sense, however, if it is refering to those associated with the Apostles in ministering to the Church. If someone were to accompany the Apostles or ministers of the Church, but refuse to offer any service, obviously such a condemnation would make perfect sense, even in Christian charity. Bishops, priests or deacons refusing to fulfill their most basic duties could easily be denied sustenance from the hands of those who ultimately provided it - either by their co-workers in Christ or the particular Church to which they were attached. That being said, idleness - the kind we see that naturally abhors us, wherein people waste away in a kind of happy oblivion, is certainly condemnable, and certainly tends to sinfulness. If we were to interpet this injunction to work as being an absolute, then how many who were, say, unwilling to work for the Nazis or otherwise unwilling to work due to moral considerations be condemned by the Apostles ? We could hardly imagine such a thing, so it follows that the availability of moral work would pre-suppose the injunction to work.

Governments have had, for a very long time, power over the working world and jobs in general. It would be most alarming if a government that manipulated the working world to be absolutely congruent to direct, moral evils (like a work-conscription to help administer evil polcies or a subtle slavery) would become a moral necessity for Christians to participate in. So I’d be careful about how much lee-way we give to the world of work, which is - of all things in the scripture - almost never discussed at any length. We find prayer and liturgy in general to be the desired addiction - the desired work - of God’s people.

A common misconception, but not true. We were made to work. Before the Fall: “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). That’s work (ask Hahn if he agrees. I’ll bet he does.) The Fall brought about not work per se, but rather that the created order would be rebel so that even getting basic sustenance would require arduous effort.

I agree ; however, we must recall the character of our Creator, who also taught that “Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath.” God did not make us to be mindless bumble-bees, otherwise our capacity to think, feel, etc., would be redundant - even cruel in the context of the Fall and the addition of toil to work. Work, I would argue, like the Sabbath, is a purely benevolent injuntion of Almighty God : that is, it is entirely for us, for our happiness and welfare, and by no means some miserable dictate to occupy us in mindless toil. Work, like so much following the Fall, has been clouded and darkened by sin.

 

[StrawberryJam]

What does God think of those who dilligently try to find work, yet can not?

 

[StrawberryJam]

Like the other respondents you simply - perhaps wilfully perhaps not - misread of misjudge what I wrote.

I did not mention or refer to persons seeking employment. I referred to those who WILL not workand actively seek to avoid gainful employment. That is to say the idle and shiftless whom are regarded biblically as unworthy of bread.

Modern democracy treats these people as equal in weight to the deserving and is consequently delegitimised andthankfully doomed to collapse under theweight of its excesses.

How do we know who is or is not actively seeking gainful employment?

 

[BobObob]

BobObob;7028687:

Can you back up that statement of those who are avoiding working as being “regarded biblically as unworthy of bread”? Please remember when citing a passage to interpret a passage in its proper context.

“For even when we were with you, we used to give you this order: if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either” (2 Thess 3:10). You two can argue about the context, but I think the bolded words are the key to the meaning.

2 Thess 3:7-10 seems to be referring to those in ministry who are traveling. A somewhat similar situation would be a person in the religious life today who didn’t do what is expected of someone in their state of life.

It’s also interesting that the usccb indicates that this passage may have a lot to do with a lot of early Christians no longer working because they thought Christ was about to come again:

usccb.org/nab/bible/2thessalonians/2thessalonians3.htm (see footnote 2)

BobObob;7028687:

Working, as Genesis indicates, is only a necessary evil as a result of the flood.

A common misconception, but not true. We were made to work. Before the Fall: “Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). That’s work (ask Hahn if he agrees. I’ll bet he does.) The Fall brought about not work per se, but rather that the created order would be rebel so that even getting basic sustenance would require arduous effort.

The creation stories, which don’t have to be viewed as literal, have great liturgical significance. That’s why there are seven days (perfect number) with the final one being the climax (Sabbath). Liturgy, BTW, is how God communes with man. God made Adam, in a liturgical sense, was made priest, prophet, and king, like Christ, which is partly why Jesus is sometimes referred to as the “New Adam”. God giving Adam authority over all creation made him king. I don’t remember how Adam was a “prophet”, but according to my Bible professor, to “work and guard” in the context of Gen 2:15 had priestly connotations.

What does this mean (in relation to this discussion)? It means that the “work” was more of a spiritual thing than what we think of work.

BTW, it seems like God didn’t intent for work, in the sense that we mean it today, to be necessary for Adam or Eve because He provided for their corporeal needs.

we must recall the character of our Creator, who also taught that “Sabbath is for man, not man for the Sabbath.” God did not make us to be mindless bumble-bees, otherwise our capacity to think, feel, etc., would be redundant - even cruel in the context of the Fall and the addition of toil to work. Work, I would argue, like the Sabbath, is a purely benevolent injuntion of Almighty God : that is, it is entirely for us, for our happiness and welfare, and by no means some miserable dictate to occupy us in mindless toil. Work, like so much following the Fall, has been clouded and darkened by sin.

That’s an interesting way to view it. In some ways I agree. However, Gen 3:17-19, as well as other things, leads me to think that the need for work is sometimes more of a punitive thing, which in more dire situations can push the “problem of evil” if you understand what I mean.

 

[Timothy17]

That’s an interesting way to view it. In some ways I agree. However, Gen 3:17-19, as well as other things, leads me to think that the need for work is sometimes more of a punitive thing, which in more dire situations can push the “problem of evil” if you understand what I mean.

Well, let us consider that work, when combined with the punitive toil - which is an addition to work - does produce certain virtuous benefits in the context of Fallen Man ; for example, toil and work tend to tire us, and thus produce a very deep and real desire for true “rest” (Sabbath). Thus even the punitive injunction of toil ultimately leads us back to God, and creates an internal Messianic craving : that of liberation from toil. It makes us seek the One who can give us rest.

Work, traditionally, is esteemed because of the positive benefits it has for the man (not the economy or the state) : in work, we learn first and above all to master and tame ourselves. We learn discipline over temptations and distractions, which things pull us away from work in general. We begin, after much work, to take satisfaction in our work, and grow a sense of nobility, of worth, or intrinsic value, which is for our good, undoubtedly, but such an understanding also works for the common good, for it views man as being intrinsically beneficial - as being a positive good in general. Work helps us to develop, and understand, our humanity.

All of these things specifically benefit man, which is why I believe it is quite Catholic to state that work is for man, not man for work. The latter view becomes tyrannical and dictatorial. It views man as a commodity, as a private possession of society meant for its peculiar benefit or satisfaction - and this debases man, his dignity, and his intrinsic value as a living, breathing, God-given life.

Pax,
Tim