On Democracy and the Secular State

[mschrank]

Basically, is there such thing as a “common” morality held by all “isms” that anyone can hold regardless of religion or lack thereof, and secondly is whatever is common enough to build a social order on?

Secular to me, seems not to mean “atheistic” but kind of like an idealized arena where religion simply does not matter. Is this realistic or still valid today, or simply the perspective of some late-enlightenment thinkers who were essentially morally conservative (although some were not religious) and couldn’t imagine anything else?

Secondly, doesn’t a democracy (that is, asking the people instead of scientific texts or sacred books) depend on the idea that there is really no truth and the only truth we can have is that by consensus, or that the truth changes?

 

[mackone]

I’m not sure what the connection is between the Consensus of a Democracy that is used as a basis for action and Basic Truth, or Truths, as you would have it. Can you elaborate a little more on what this connection may be?

 

[mschrank]

Well what I meant was, when the idea of divine right and the feudal order went out the window, the new locus of authority was transferred from the idea of a set, divinely mandated order to the idea of the “people”.

For example, Rousseau often spoke of the “collective will”, the idea that mysteriously, when enough people got together, their shared spirit could do the talking sort of like how a medium claims to be speaking for a spirit. Legitimacy was supposed to come from following this spirit, instead of from God and/or the natural order of things.

Now I do not think many people put much stock in Rousseau nowadays, so what are we left with? Basically the only answer I can think of that justifies democracy and not technocracy or theocracy, is that there is no truth, so we should just aim for practical consensus on what to do and what is right and wrong.

 

[mackone]

:yup: The answer to your first two questions is a very definite YES!

The explanation of this is dependent on assumptions about the inherent nature of Humans, and their natural and even Supernatural, read Godly or Righteous, interactions with the World. That would be the World of other humans and the World as God created this World. All Big Thinkers down through history have commonly agreed that Human nature is basically GOOD! This says that we all have something about us that makes us want to discern what GOOD is and to do GOOD.
This would be what the definition of the inherent nature of Humans is and that this inherent nature is basically inclined to the GOOD. Submitted to logical examination by the Intellect, BAD loses out to GOOD by default.
The reasoning is this. Were Humans inherently BAD then we would have Destroyed ourselves a long time ago. By default then we must have a built in, or inherent tendency towards GOOD and by our very nature then we must somehow be able to discern and distinguish between the two ends of the polarization of GOOD and BAD.
This inherent tendency towards GOOD then extends outwardly to our interactions with other people and even to our Human interactions with Nature itself.

So, it would have to be said that there is a common morality that not only can anyone hold, but that EVERYONE does indeed hold. This common morality as you have stated it, is common to all the isms of the world and of history. Every major system of morality, usually known of as a religion, is full of admonitions against BAD and compunctions towards GOOD!

As for the second part of your question.  The largest majority of the Big Thinkers would, and do say is, that this common morality is what social orders are built on.  This is because it is in our nature, it is inherent in the mere fact of being a Human, it is built into all of us, not only to have morality, but to have a common morality as well.  The reasoning goes like this.  Because common morality and common moralities are natural to us Humans that this morality that we hold in common must be what we build our social orders on.  This basic idea of social orders being built on common moralities is considered so fundamental that social orders, even though they must be built on a common morality, are the Natural Condition of we Humans.  To some peo ple this the Hive Theory of socialization and social orders.  There are some exceptions that can be made to this reasoning however, and these exceptions seem to be much more applicable to our day to day realities, the final crucible for every social theory.  
  What that says to us is that we do not really build social orders based on morality of any kind on. further reasoning ofers several theories, even though the consensus holds that we build social orders and that morality is a product of the social order.

That could be why this topic is sometimes confusing and inspires such questions. It could also be why we question the very nature of society. Because it, the nature of society is so complicated that it confounds us into perpetual confusion as to what the nature of society is. Maybe, maybe not!?!?!?!

Very good questions,sir, very good questions!
There should be much discussion of this topic.

  Thumbs up to you, sir:thumbsup: you get a Thumbs Up.

A final note, the third and fourth questions that you ask require a lot of consideration. I’ll get back to this thread sometime soon and see if I can make a considered reply.

Basically, is there such thing as a “common” morality held by all “isms” that anyone can hold regardless of religion or lack thereof, and secondly is whatever is common enough to build a social order on?

Secular to me, seems not to mean “atheistic” but kind of like an idealized arena where religion simply does not matter. Is this realistic or still valid today, or simply the perspective of some late-enlightenment thinkers who were essentially morally conservative (although some were not religious) and couldn’t imagine anything else?

Secondly, doesn’t a democracy (that is, asking the people instead of scientific texts or sacred books) depend on the idea that there is really no truth and the only truth we can have is that by consensus, or that the truth changes?

 

[mackone]

Well what I meant was, when the idea of divine right and the feudal order went out the window, the new locus of authority was transferred from the idea of a set, divinely mandated order to the idea of the “people”.

For example, Rousseau often spoke of the “collective will”, the idea that mysteriously, when enough people got together, their shared spirit could do the talking sort of like how a medium claims to be speaking for a spirit. Legitimacy was supposed to come from following this spirit, instead of from God and/or the natural order of things.

Now I do not think many people put much stock in Rousseau nowadays, so what are we left with? Basically the only answer I can think of that justifies democracy and not technocracy or theocracy, is that there is no truth, so we should just aim for practical consensus on what to do and what is right and wrong.

Thank you for elaborating!

Since your philosohpical concern relates to the basis for democracy and your references are applicable, then The Question becomes such as this.
Is there even such a thing as Truth? Is there then, once the very Idea of Truth has been questioned,anything that is Truth, and are there then any basic Truths, or such a thing as an overall Basic Truth, since because if there is such a thing as Truth, there must be such a thing as a basic overall Truth to everything. To some people that is God.
I am the Truth, the light, and the way! Not stated as I know the Truth, or I know of the Truth. Stated many times again and again. I AM THE TRUTH.

Practical Consensus that has the mass consciousness, as it is theorized, as the source of guidance would be unable to determine right from wrong, because it has very little if any Intellectual functions of Intelligence. As for determining what to do, sure the collective mind, or as some refer to it, the mass conciousness, can indeed direct the faceless masses, but this is what is usually used to define a mob or a riot.

This almost gets comical here, although you are addressing very real theories.

Democracy as a mass conciousness guiding a rioting mob to some form of social order like automatons or zombies, well you should see what I’m talking about here. Some things may be theoretically sound, although like you have said, not altogether practical. A rioting mob of demon possessed automaton zombies :whacky: lands in the category of, well if that were the case we would have destroyed ourselves along time ago. There are a lot of social theories that end up in that category because they do not reason out.

So when it comes to the masses as having self determination you are quite right. There are no sound theories that support any method of determination, much less self-determination, that apply to forms of government such a democracy, or even oligarchy and any leadership is usually considered superior to none at all or anarchy. The mass conciousness or collective will even, has no way to guide the masses when they are in action or to get them to act, much less a way to get the masses to act in accordance with the leadership of the mind of the masses, as it is sometimes referred to as. End of Story!
And like I said at first the mind of the masses is considered, theoretically be completely unable to determine Right from Wrong.
You mentioned the two things necessary for a social order such as democracy to function and since democracy by definition must be self determining, then unable to determine the nature of Truth as Right and Wrong and unable to Lead or even Push the masses into a course that democracy may pre-determine, then it does not reason out that Democracy whatever it is, could ever be self-determinate. This is because democracy in some form, as a social order must guide the masses and since the masses are unable to be self-determinate as a social order of higher function, then Practical Consensus is not going to do it either.

Make note of this.

All mob theories fail in practice because some one person either fights their way to the top of the human heap or they work their way to the top honestly and order society into heirarchies or classes of some kind, as they acquire their leadership.

What the masses only ever want is to have leaders that act in accordance with the common interest. The funny thing about it is this. To even ever be a leader you must keep the masses happy and in so doing act in accordance with the common interest. As a member of the masses you must keep the leader from acting out of selfish interest and to so the masses must insist that the leader would do so if he could, even though in all likelihood he would no,t nor would he be able to. So leaders are like figureheads that the masses point in a particular direction and say go fast or go slow ,and the masses are like a ship that doesn’t really want to go where it has pointed itself. The ship wants the figure head to pull it and the could car less where it goes. My comment on this is that like modern technology and like civilization, we the people only ever want to go higher and higher as fast as we can!

This reply may not have answered your question completely.
Maybe it can help you form the basis of an in depth examination of some very good philosophical questions.

Glad to be a part of this discusion today

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I have a question. Why do you think one man alone would be better able to govern than a group of trained politicians elected by the people? I do think that Christian moral values should be mandated in the constitution of any such country, and should not be subject to any change by the will of the people. Christian moral values should be set in stone for any government or nation, for they are unchanging, timeless truth.

Yet if this existed, if the democracy operated on the basis of Christian doctrine, why would this group of politicians elected by the people be a worse system than the monarchy?

“The people” should not be able to determine the moral values of their country. But could a democracy that constitutionally enshrined Christian moral principles (not legally possible to change) work? Why would you see a feudal structure as superior?

I’m not settled in my own mind as to which is better, democracy or the feudal system. I’m open on this subject. I will hit whatever arguments I hear made with as difficult of questions as I can think of .

 

[Hastrman]

I have a question. Why do you think one man alone would be better able to govern than a group of trained politicians elected by the people? I do think that Christian moral values should be mandated in the constitution of any such country, and should not be subject to any change by the will of the people. Christian moral values should be set in stone for any government or nation, for they are unchanging, timeless truth.

Yet if this existed, if the democracy operated on the basis of Christian doctrine, why would this group of politicians elected by the people be a worse system than the monarchy?

“The people” should not be able to determine the moral values of their country. But could a democracy that constitutionally enshrined Christian moral principles (not legally possible to change) work? Why would you see a feudal structure as superior?

I’m not settled in my own mind as to which is better, democracy or the feudal system. I’m open on this subject. I will hit whatever arguments I hear made with as difficult of questions as I can think of .

Well first off, feudalism is not monarchy. It’s a confederation of monarchs, one of whom is supreme (in each territory, the lord is as unquestionable as a king). In practice it works out as a weak aristocracy (the only good kind–aristocracies go bad, and turn into oligarchy, much more often than the alternatives, because they’re based on a clique).

Monarchy is best, when done right, because it’s the most efficient. Unfortunately when it goes wrong (much less often than aristocracy, probably slightly less often than polity), it’s the most efficient *bad *government–tyranny.

What people don’t realize is, the system that, for instance, de Tocqueville described in America, is Polity, not democracy. Democracy is a polity that turns bad–the many rule, but for their own sakes, not the common good. Polity is the worst good government, but democracy is the best bad government, because they’re the least efficient.

Ought to be mandatory to read Aquinas’ On Kingship.

“Trained” politicians are even worse than the regular kind: they suffer from the delusion they deserve their power. That makes them arrogant, and arrogance means they’ll try to arrange everything how they like.

The Supreme Court (Roe v. Wade, anyone?) comes to mind.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Well first off, feudalism is not monarchy. It’s a confederation of monarchs, one of whom is supreme (in each territory, the lord is as unquestionable as a king). In practice it works out as a weak aristocracy (the only good kind–aristocracies go bad, and turn into oligarchy, much more often than the alternatives, because they’re based on a clique).

Monarchy is best, when done right, because it’s the most efficient. Unfortunately when it goes wrong (much less often than aristocracy, probably slightly less often than polity), it’s the most efficient *bad *government–tyranny.

What people don’t realize is, the system that, for instance, de Tocqueville described in America, is Polity, not democracy. Democracy is a polity that turns bad–the many rule, but for their own sakes, not the common good. Polity is the worst good government, but democracy is the best bad government, because they’re the least efficient.

Ought to be mandatory to read Aquinas’ On Kingship.

I’ll probably do that .

Monarchy is a rather freaky form of government, though, because, as you mentioned, it has the potential to go so badly wrong. There aren’t any checks except God and the Pope for a bad king to contend with. Except that they can’t oppress their people too heavily, or a revolt may occur. That’s one automatic check I should mention. But one can do some very atrocious things, especially to individuals (as opposed to large groups), without sparking a revolt.

Also, usually monarchs successfully crushed rebellions.

“Trained” politicians are even worse than the regular kind: they suffer from the delusion they deserve their power. That makes them arrogant, and arrogance means they’ll try to arrange everything how they like.

Inheritance rights passing down from one monarch to another have the same result, pretty much. People would feel they deserve their power under those circumstances.

 

[mackone]

I have a question. Why do you think one man alone would be better able to govern than a group of trained politicians elected by the people? I do think that Christian moral values should be mandated in the constitution of any such country, and should not be subject to any change by the will of the people.[SIGN] Christian moral values should be set in stone for any government or nation, for they are unchanging, timeless truth. [/SIGN]
Yet if this existed, if the democracy operated on the basis of Christian doctrine, why would this group of politicians elected by the people be a worse system than the monarchy?

“The people” should not be able to determine the moral values of their country. But could a democracy that constitutionally enshrined Christian moral principles (not legally possible to change) work? Why would you see a feudal structure as superior?

I’m not settled in my own mind as to which is better, democracy or the feudal system. I’m open on this subject. I will hit whatever arguments I hear made with as difficult of questions as I can think of .

IF a Democracy were to do as you suggested there would be one vote and they would be done. Only then there would be no leader of the people or of the nation. Maybe that is God’s preferred method. The Jews did not have a King for a long time and God didn"t want them to. When they said they were going to have a king anyway, because all of the other peoples and nations had Kings, God said that he would be the one to pick their King. Apparently at that point in the negotiations they didn’t want to push the issue any further.

Maybe you won’t like this but think about it anyway. As far back in history as anyone can remember there have been Kings. And GOD! Think GOD and Kings, think satan and democracy. Why? Because democracy is against kings. Kings have been proven along with God down through history, a tried and true method of governing. Like satan is against God.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

IF a Democracy were to do as you suggested there would be one vote and they would be done.

How so? We’d still have the president and political leaders elected by the people. They’d still govern for the people, too, only they’d govern according to moral laws that are based upon purely Christian principles. The people wouldn’t select the morality, and the government would be bound to act in accord with the morality (though of course, being human, there would obviously be times when people didn’t live up to their laws), but the government still would function in matters of economy, foreign affairs, etc., only with a democratic structure rather than a monarchy or feudal system.

Only then there would be no leader of the people or of the nation. Maybe that is God’s preferred method. The Jews did not have a King for a long time and God didn"t want them to. When they said they were going to have a king anyway, because all of the other peoples and nations had Kings, God said that he would be the one to pick their King. Apparently at that point in the negotiations they didn’t want to push the issue any further.

Do you think that this Old Testament structure was reestablished during the Medieval Ages? I personally actually think it was, for several reasons.

1. The laws of the nations were based upon Biblical principles. The kings were anointed in Christian ceremonies, and Christian religious rituals, symbols and prayers filled community and aristocratic life.
2. The Vatican was able to bear a vast influence in the political events of the time.
3. Europe was able to resist outside invaders again and again (Vikings, Magyars, Slavs, most notably of course Islam, etc.) and extinguish heresies (through both the sword and preaching).
4. Up to the Late Medieval Ages, there were no major rebellions in any Medieval kingdoms.
5. The rich and the poor in the Medieval Ages had nowhere near so great a disparity of wealth between them (until the Late Medieval Ages) as has been seen since, and the general populace seems to have been about as healthy and well provided for as Westerners in the 20th century have been. researchnews.osu.edu/archive/medimen.htm
6. The number of accounts of miracles and visions of saints and Jesus from this period could fill vast numbers of books. The existence of the cathedrals, the religious basis for law, and the passion with which the Religious Wars were fought proves that people were intensely zealous about religion during these centuries.
7. The Vatican possessed immense political power and the Church does seem to have been generally very attentive to God’s will.
8. The Church had unparalleled influence in every facet of life, and it seems to have used that influence without very many gigantic abuses. Abuses did exist here and there, but from what I’ve seen in looking at the history, these abuses don’t seem to have been the rule but the exception. They became much more prominent toward the close of the Medieval Ages, of course.
9. There was near complete unity in the Church.
10. The “science” of the day tended to focus more on spiritual truth than material truth. The emphasis of our time is on purely physical reality.
11. Jesus said that he would reign over the Earth for a thousand years. The Medieval Ages lasted about a thousand years. Seeing the connection between the thousand years and the Medieval Ages was actually what directed me toward Catholicism in the first place.
12. The Book of Daniel says that after the Fourth Beast, which is commonly interpreted as the Roman Empire, the kingdoms of men would be handed over to the saints of God (Daniel 7:27), and it says that the Son of Man would be “given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language [would worship] him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed” (Daniel 7:14).

 

[Lief_Erikson]

When it says “all peoples and nations,” and “every language,” this must be understood to refer to the known world of the time. You see, in the Book of Daniel it also refers to Babylon as ruling the whole world, and it says that the Roman Empire would devour the entire Earth. St. Paul said in Romans that the message of Christ had gone out to the entire world, and it had passed throughout the whole Roman Empire, crossing over a vast territory.

So the entire world to them was rather different from what it is to us.

It also says in Revelation that Satan would be bound for the thousand years, but that after the thousand years were over he would be released and would deceive all the nations. It is not hard to see how an enormous deception followed the thousand years of the Medieval Ages.

I don’t believe that Jesus ever “fell” from his throne. There can be no doubt that our modern nations have purposefully cut God and religion out of our lives, though, and considering the trends of the last few hundred years, they will most probably continue to do so for a long time.

It says in Revelation 20 that the “souls” of the saints who had been martyred would reign on thrones throughout that period, and it is certain that the martyrs were prayed to and honored, and visions were seen of them, and miracles were done by them in great quantities during this period. Kings even would go to war in the names of saints, sometimes, “For England and St. George!” They plainly were acknowledged as having great authority, though now, in our later time period, far fewer people (proportionally) acknowledge their authority.

I also find it interesting that the Protestant idea that this millennium will be a physical reign is actually completely unfounded. It doesn’t say in the Bible that Christ will reign physically. In fact, the Book of Daniel talks about him reigning on a throne in heaven, with his saints, and the entire world submitting to him.

I personally strongly feel that God led me to this interpretation of the Millennium. The Bible seems to strongly confirm it, though I know I don’t have space or time here to go into that in its appropriate depth.

All of this to say, I think it’s interesting that all of the (known) world acknowledged Christ as their king during that period of time, and the martyrs as his fellows in authority. And the Vatican, the center of the church, which also listened to God’s voice, wielded enormous political as well as moral power over the nations.

God led Israel in the past through Moses and various prophets and judges. He led Israel directly, through individuals. I think that God was doing the same thing in the Medieval Ages, speaking to large numbers of people on some level, and revealing his will through the Vatican in some of the most important ways, especially on an international level. I believe Christ was an accepted, direct sovereign over the nations during this time period, though our current nations and human civilizations have cut God out of our lives in many ways.

Maybe you won’t like this but think about it anyway. As far back in history as anyone can remember there have been Kings. And GOD! Think GOD and Kings, think satan and democracy. Why? Because democracy is against kings. Kings have been proven along with God down through history, a tried and true method of governing. Like satan is against God.

I have thought about that, actually, and still do from time to time. It seems to me that there is a neat symbolism between a king ruling his subjects and God ruling in the lives of his saints and angels. And the Pope leading in the Church. Democracy, though, is without a head. So symbolically, it’s leaderless, empty. As a man without God is empty.

And I definitely haven’t seen God advocate any human political system other than monarchy in the Bible or the Medieval Ages (when Christianity dominated).

To me, as regards symbolism, the Bible and Christian history, democracy looks pretty poorly. It only emerged with the non-Christian era, which gives me a lot of foreboding when I look at it, and makes me extremely suspicious of it. It also is a government form that was principally practiced in the past by the Greeks and Romans, and Roman civilization was described in the Book of Daniel as a monstrous beast that devoured the world. It was satanically empowered and grounded. Certainly something I’d hesitate before emulating, especially when this root is contrasted with the Christian tradition.

You also make a good point that democracy opposes kings as the populace rejected God (another king). Which, you correctly point out, resembles Satan’s rebellion against his king.

I want very much to know how democracy fails practically speaking, though. I can see the symbolic and spiritual relationships pretty well, but technically speaking, I want to make sense of it. I want to see the arguments in favor of democracy, which are many, refuted. So I will pose any I can think of . And if you all know of others that I don’t mention, mentioning them and then refuting them would help me.

I’m biased in favor of the feudal or monarchial society. However, I want to be argued out of my old democratic way of thinking. It needs to make clear logical sense to me.

I’m willing to read books on this, by the way, if any of you know of some really good book recommendations. By “good,” I mean books that have a lot of evidence and data built around the case they make, in addition to arguments.

 

[mschrank]

Wow some great posts on here.

Lief, your idea about the “thousand years” is really intriuging. I have never heard of such an idea, but as you put it, it makes so much sense.

There is a distinctly “satanic” flavor to much of Modern thought, in fact I have always felt that Christianity explains Modern thought eerily well (even before I was a Christian). The basic sentiment is that of Milton’s Satan- “better than to serve in heaven is to rule in hell”. Is it a coincidence that many “new Atheists” call themselves “brights”? Lucifer (the bright one) revolts against the set order of things because of his own pride- he chooses to be master of hell rather than a servant in heaven.

Chesterton said that the truth of the Christian faith is demonstrated by the fact it explains modernity with all its complexity, that is, it fits a very complicated lock. Its truth is even more obvious now than In ages of faith, where problems were simpler.

I too, because I also see the connection between democracy and paganism and the post-Christian era, have a theoretical suspicion of democracy in the normative sense (as being good in itself).

However as Russell Kirk (brilliant man) once said, politics is the passion of the quarter educated. What he meant is, politics can’t be approached as politics- you can’t try to change the political by political means. Politics is merely superstructure (i.e., depends upon) the philosophical and “cosmic” worldview of the people comprising that society.

It was because Christ ruled in people’s hearts that Christendom existed. It is quite literally true rule, as Lief pointed out in his interpretation of Revelation. Political rule is epiphenomena.

 

[rwoehmke]

If we accept that mankind has existed for tens of thousands of years and that the governments of Athens and Rome were the pinnacles of government systems before the advent of the Judeo-Christian system, would one be able to say that mankind left naturally to itself can develop a “good” system of government. A system that provides order. most certainly, but a system that is fair, equitable, and good in the Judeo-Christian sense hardly.

I have a son who tries to convince me that if we were all atheists the world would be a better place and would naturally tend to the good. What he forgets is the history of mankimnd apart from God and the fact that the “goodness” of atheists today is a residium of the Christian-Judeo system of law and morality. The old books, “Brave New World” and “Animal Farm” would provide good reading for anyone who thinks that left to ourselves mankind is naturally good. God created us good, but we are a fallen race.

 

[mackone]

We have to include in our considerations that the Human tendency towards good somehow originates with God. Even so Humans belong to a higher order in the cosmogony and must use their minds to understand and comprehend, the world around us as it is, and God as well.

Some people say that this is a matter of choice, this tendency towards good, while others say that the tendency towards good is enough to keep a person from being sent to hell. Rather than choice then, a person either naturally lives a good life, or the person finds cause to defy God even if they defy God, as the expression goes, just to see if you can.

It’s so SAD that people who defy God often say that they don"t understand why God didn’t make it so you can"t defy Him. First, thats what animals are. This excuse that is so commonly made by those in defiance of God doesn’t hold because these people have to understand what to do to be in defiance of God and so they must understand why they are even able to. De Facto.

rwoehmke
you are basically right about those two things.
some dis.cussion could be made about the model or models for the form or forms of government and their origination.

 

[mackone]

GOOD THINKING Lief Erikson
and good discussion.

Let me explain why there would be only ONE vote.

The morality to be legislated and signed into Law is a morality that is considered, even by people who hate God’s morality, to be set in stone. Once the democratic consensus put this morality in place they would not ever have to Legislate again!!! Don’t you see!!! you see that don’t you???

The first and only legislative session would go like this. Do the representatives of the people, the democracy, do they favor God’s morality, or some other morality? So as the representatives of the people, the democracy, we agree on God’s morality as the law of the land. Mr. Speaker? YES! We do! Session Adjourned!
Now that God’s morality is in place as law, there is no need for legislators any more because what they do is make laws and change laws. They’re not going to make the Laws of God’s morality, nor are they going to change them! So once they have agreed to put God’s morality in place and have done so, then their job is DONE. They are out of a job because God’ morality is Set In STONE! The only thing a legislature of representatives of the democracy of a people or the people can do is put God’s morality in place and then God does the legislating,and he has already done that!

This could by why mschrank
wanted to know what would happen if a Democracy accepted God’ s morality as the basis for laws and the law.
And by the way many nations have lived by the laws of God’s morality,or at least history tells us this.

 

[mackone]

When it says “all peoples and nations,” and “every language,” this must be understood to refer to the known world of the time. You see, in the Book of Daniel it also refers to Babylon as ruling the whole world, and it says that the Roman Empire would devour the entire Earth. St. Paul said in Romans that the message of Christ had gone out to the entire world, and it had passed throughout the whole Roman Empire, crossing over a vast territory.

So the entire world to them was rather different from what it is to us.

It says in Revelation 20 that the “souls” of the saints who had been martyred would reign on thrones throughout that period, and it is certain that the martyrs were prayed to and honored, and visions were seen of them, and miracles were done by them in great quantities during this period. Kings even would go to war in the names of saints, sometimes, “For England and St. George!” They plainly were acknowledged as having great authority, though now, in our later time period, far fewer people (proportionally) acknowledge their authority.

I also find it interesting that the Protestant idea that this millennium will be a physical reign is actually completely unfounded. It doesn’t say in the Bible that Christ will reign physically. In fact, the Book of Daniel talks about him reigning on a throne in heaven, with his saints, and the entire world submitting to him.

I personally strongly feel that God led me to this interpretation of the Millennium. The Bible seems to strongly confirm it, though I know I don’t have space or time here to go into that in its appropriate depth.

All of this to say, I think it’s interesting that all of the (known) world acknowledged Christ as their king during that period of time, and the martyrs as his fellows in authority. And the Vatican, the center of the church, which also listened to God’s voice, wielded enormous political as well as moral power over the nations.

God led Israel in the past through Moses and various prophets and judges. He led Israel directly, through individuals. I think that God was doing the same thing in the Medieval Ages, speaking to large numbers of people on some level, and revealing his will through the Vatican in some of the most important ways, especially on an international level. I believe Christ was an accepted, direct sovereign over the nations during this time period, though our current nations and human civilizations have cut God out of our lives in many ways.

I have thought about that, actually, and still do from time to time. It seems to me that there is a neat symbolism between a king ruling his subjects and God ruling in the lives of his saints and angels. And the Pope leading in the Church. Democracy, though, is without a head. So symbolically, it’s leaderless, empty. As a man without God is empty.

And I definitely haven’t seen God advocate any human political system other than monarchy in the Bible or the Medieval Ages (when Christianity dominated).

To me, as regards symbolism, the Bible and Christian history, democracy looks pretty poorly. It only emerged with the non-Christian era, which gives me a lot of foreboding when I look at it, and makes me extremely suspicious of it. It also is a government form that was principally practiced in the past by the Greeks and Romans, and Roman civilization was described in the Book of Daniel as a monstrous beast that devoured the world. It was satanically empowered and grounded. Certainly something I’d hesitate before emulating, especially when this root is contrasted with the Christian tradition.

[SIGN]You also make a good point that democracy opposes kings as the populace rejected God (another king). Which, you correctly point out, resembles Satan’s rebellion against his king.

I want very much to know how democracy fails practically speaking, though. I can see the symbolic and spiritual relationships pretty well, but technically speaking, I want to make sense of it. I want to see the arguments in favor of democracy, which are many, refuted. So I will pose any I can think of . And if you all know of others that I don’t mention, mentioning them and then refuting them would help me.[/SIGN]

I’m biased in favor of the feudal or monarchial society. However, I want to be argued out of my old democratic way of thinking. It needs to make clear logical sense to me.

I’m willing to read books on this, by the way, if any of you know of some really good book recommendations. By “good,” I mean books that have a lot of evidence and data built around the case they make, in addition to arguments.

I like your replies very much!

Although it could be a while before I can fully discuss them with you here.

This word says it all. Self-determining.
Self determination is not only in defiance of God-determining, if you’ll let me make up a word for this one quick minute, self-determination of each and every person fails practically as well. So you see Democracy fails in Practice as a self determining people fails, like this. Conflict. In practice there are going to be differences amongst the democracy, the people, and those conflicts are sure to be over matters of life and death. So the people, the democracy as the populace of the nation is in conflict 100% of the time and the conflict fully interferes even with the ability to govern. Not only that the conflict is so extreme that it occupies all of their time and they have no time available to govern adequately. Basically, they are too busy doing something else, and that would b conflicting!

So much for democracy!?!?!?!?!

 

[mackone]

Abstract theories Not included!

like democracy’s batteries not included.

What most people think democracy gives them is some pre-assigned definition of Freedom. Freedom of What? Or from What?

Does anyone really have to say it? Yeah, when no one is talking about it, you have to.

Not only this Mythical or Fraudulent FREE Enterprise.
This too.

Freedom to do aaaanyyythiiing that YOU want to do! No, Thanks! I am going to go on being free to do as God wants me to do, and in doing so gain even more freedom, and real freedom. You may have heard this before or maybe too many times. What can I say? It really does work that way!
History again proves this out! This too common myth of freedom some how originates with the Mayflower Puritans who were exiled to the New World in lieu of being executed en masse in Europe. After a short while there were enough of them that they fought with the Jamestown Tories who were loyal to the Crown and basically stole the Colonies from England under the guise of rebellion. The British still keep all of the paperwork on file that exerts an unindemnifiable claim on what is now the Democratic USA. Stupid puritans anyway!?!?!?!?!

SO WHAT WAS THE FIRST THING THEY DID?
Well they wrote it down somehow that every one has a right to religious freedom. Really. And you had to write it down! Gee, that’s funny no one had to write it down before??? Every where else in the world for countless centuries every Human has had religious freedom and every one knew it! You didn"t have to tell them. And now you have to write it down??? Oh Well! Oh, yeah and that part about Democatic Puritans being created equal? What’s that about? Same as Above. Like we didn’t know that? AAAAAHH, that part about after that! Once you’re created then as you live your life you’re not so equal any more, are you now? Does it depend on What you do with your life? Well, then we’re glad you wrote that down then, now aren’t we?

Free enterprise? The foundation of Democracy!!!

Does anyone have to say it? And no one does!?!?!?!?!

Free enterprise. Enterprising, that’s doing business isn’t it? Well, you can’t let people be free to to do dishonest business! It just happens to be bad for business! Some people are going to go on defining bad, dishonest business as out and out theft, and usually theft on a large scale. There’s your definition of free enterprise a la Democratic Puritans of the USA.

That’s Two, count’em Two thefts right there.

And all of this as Religion? Morality? NO,no,no,no. Theft is theft and then, well and then there’s God to deal with now too. Because you may be able to play technicalities with the law and the laws of the land. To play technicalities with GOD? the only thing that can be said about that is this. Stupidity. Ignorance. Idiocy. Imbecility, even!

mschrank
you did a good job when you put this topic in:thumbsup: the forums!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Chesterton said that the truth of the Christian faith is demonstrated by the fact it explains modernity with all its complexity, that is, it fits a very complicated lock. Its truth is even more obvious now than In ages of faith, where problems were simpler.

I feel the same about this. Five hundred years since the Reformation began, we have the ability to look back at the changes, at their roots, and at what the results have been. We have had so much time to see what evil comes from the rejection of these Christian principles, and there has been so much time for various forms of evil to emerge, that the issues involved become extremely black and white. The evil of modern thought is proven by the numerous genocides that have been its consequence. Social Darwinism, as a theory, is radically opposed to Christian principles in the way it views humanity. It was one of the major forces that got people involved in the imperialism that led to the oppression and slaughter of millions of people worldwide. Communism’s premises are strongly anti-Christian, and it too has led to the slaughter of millions. Democracies have been responsible for the slaughter of millions in abortions. I am just uncertain whether to blame freedom of religion alone or democracy as well for this. It’s clear to me that freedom of religion creates this holocaust. I don’t know if the idea of democracy too is fundamentally tied to this atrocity.

But the amount of time since the Reformation that we’ve had is vast, and it enables us to see much of the result of the breakdown of the Christian era was. I believe that if the original Reformers had been able to look forward in time and see what the results of their actions have been, they would probably have stopped “reforming” and would have become Catholic again.

The amount of time since the end of the Christian era makes it very easy for us to look back and see how one thing led to another, and what the roots of it all are. It’s easy to do that. The fact that so very, very many people now are deceived is to me due to the fact that they grow up in a culture that accepts the deception.

I too, because I also see the connection between democracy and paganism and the post-Christian era, have a theoretical suspicion of democracy in the normative sense (as being good in itself).

However as Russell Kirk (brilliant man) once said, politics is the passion of the quarter educated. What he meant is, politics can’t be approached as politics- you can’t try to change the political by political means. Politics is merely superstructure (i.e., depends upon) the philosophical and “cosmic” worldview of the people comprising that society.

It was because Christ ruled in people’s hearts that Christendom existed. It is quite literally true rule, as Lief pointed out in his interpretation of Revelation. Political rule is epiphenomena.

Yes, very good points, IMO.

mackone:

The morality to be legislated and signed into Law is a morality that is considered, even by people who hate God’s morality, to be set in stone. Once the democratic consensus put this morality in place they would not ever have to Legislate again!!! Don’t you see!!! you see that don’t you???

And the interpretation of God’s Law would probably be decided to a large extent in religious courts, so that too would be out of the government’s hands.

But issues such as public policy still would involve human rulers. Naturally the democratic government would be expected to behave in accord with the laws of its country, but sometimes the matter of application involves a number of alternatives. For instance, let’s say a government has to work to resolve a dispute over territorial boundaries between its country and another country. It could have one king decide the final negotiations, or it could have a democracy determine those issues. A religious law doesn’t explicitly say what the geographical land boundary should be.

Laws about how to regulate traffic, also, don’t that much involve morality. It’s more a matter of practicality, what would work best.

So government still would have all kinds of technical issues to resolve like that.

We certainly would be able to peal away some layers of bureaucracy around the judicial branch of government, if freedom of religion was removed and the Vatican interpreted God’s Law rather than secular courts. That doesn’t seem to me like it would remove the issue of democracy vs. monarchy, though.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

mackone:

This word says it all. Self-determining.
Self determination is not only in defiance of God-determining, if you’ll let me make up a word for this one quick minute, self-determination of each and every person fails practically as well.

I could agree with you, except that monarchy doesn’t seem to offer something a whole lot better. Self-determining in this context doesn’t seem to replace God-determining but king-determining, except when self-determination is allowed to include religious law. Self-determination is placed above God-determination in religious freedom, for religion and ethics clearly belong to God. So freedom of self in that case becomes “freedom” from God. Therefore I oppose religious freedom. “Disperse, ye rebels!”

But self-determination where it doesn’t involve either the judiciary or those aspects of national policy that clearly relate to ethical issues, seems to me to be somewhat morally neutral. There can be a variety of different moral things to do, in these cases, because technical issues aren’t always moral ones. These non-moral issues could be the province of a monarch or the province of a democracy.

I don’t see how self-determination is any worse than monarch-determination when the government is legislating on non-moral issues.

mackone:

So you see Democracy fails in Practice as a self determining people fails, like this. Conflict. In practice there are going to be differences amongst the democracy, the people, and those conflicts are sure to be over matters of life and death. So the people, the democracy as the populace of the nation is in conflict 100% of the time and the conflict fully interferes even with the ability to govern. Not only that the conflict is so extreme that it occupies all of their time and they have no time available to govern adequately. Basically, they are too busy doing something else, and that would b conflicting!

I know that the conflict costs a lot of time, money and energy. How do you prove, though, that the conflict cost prevents the government from governing adequately?

 

[WSD]

First off it is impossable to establish a State were religion does not matter and have it be anything but athiestic. There is an excellent book called THE GIFT OF THE JEWS that discusses the diffrence between Pagen views of humanity’s place in the universe and the Hebrew’s view. Baiscly that under the Pagen view of the world, people were like the grain of the field, the fruit trees, tied to a position they were born into. Only able to effect the world, if they were born to it. The Jewish view was that God gives us the ability to be good or evil. What we become is not predetermined. It depends on God’s calling and our response to that call.
If the individual must be free to choice good from evil, then so must the body of people, the nation, the state, or the community be free to chose. This can not be unless they are free to elect our leaders and express our will for our community’s future.
It is not that religion will not matter, but that a specific faith does not matter
Peace