On Democracy and the Secular State

[Hastrman]

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.

Oh, of course–Democracy and Republic, Hebrew words.

The Jews had a revolt, led by Absalom, against David, now called David the Proud, after Amnon raped Tamar, exiled most of his clan, and set up a Republic in Jerusalem with Absalom as one of its first consuls. I must have forgotten that.

Except, of course, that the Jewish government was absolute theocracy, or a near-absolute monarchy.

And the people who revolted against their king were the Romans, who overthrew Tarquin the Proud after his son raped Lucretia; they exiled his clan and established the republic with Lucretia’s brother Lucius Junius Brutus as one of its first consuls.

We owe the Jews our freedom from sin. Our political freedom, however, we get from Rome. Yes it’s not as big a deal, but just because it’s a lesser gift doesn’t mean we should forget who to thank.

 

[mschrank]

Personally, I think the best setup I’ve seen so far was Feudalism as practiced in certain parts of Western Europe. The most important thing, I think, is not abstract rights but status. In our society, you need money to have status even though you might have the same rights as Donald Trump, on paper.

Even the lowliest peasant under a feudal system had practical power because he had land. The lord could not simply replace him with someone else. It’s funny, you watch modern documentaries on feudalism and they talk about how peasants were “bound” to their lands, ha ha ha, “bound”- like in the same way gravity binds us to the ground?

But now, we’re free, to work as wage slaves for large companies where we can be fired in the blink of an eye, and we spend our whole lifetimes making payments on property we can’t even erect lawn ornaments on without having the neighborhood association on our cases.

“Freedom’s just another word for, nothing left to lose…”

 

[WSD]

The Romans’ revolt and “Republic” was a republic of the elite and the wealthy. The main struggles was of those who were of lower class against those who were upper class. No principal of equality is found in any Roman or Greek Constitutional documents. However, if you check an American one you will find on; “that all men are created equal and they are endowd by their creator with certian inanlienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursute of happyness”. Democracy at the Greek City -State level was restricted to a heredity class and was manditory. People had no real choice in directling their own life. The Jewish faith, as well as Christianity, say we have a choice in our lives, Good or Evil. With out an authority higher that the state how do you justify giving such power to the people?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

… Secular to me, seems not to mean “atheistic” but kind of like an idealized arena where religion simply does not matter…

Personally, I think it is a mistake to characterize secular humanism as not being a religion.

I believe it is a religion. I believe there is a danger of this religion gaining dominance over other older religions. That seems to fly in the face of Separation of Church and State Doctrine.

But that I guess is the subject of another thread.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

mschrank:

… Even the lowliest peasant under a feudal system had practical power because he had land. The lord could not simply replace him with someone else. It’s funny, you watch modern documentaries on feudalism and they talk about how peasants were “bound” to their lands, ha ha ha, “bound”- like in the same way gravity binds us to the ground?

Yep. One of the principal causes of the Reformation was that the lords did not have enough money to keep up with the rising cost of weapons and of defence. Many advances had been made in these areas in prior centuries.

The money had to come from somewhere. Martin Luther and his princely chums decided that it had to come from the peasants. Hence we saw the German Peasant’s Massacre which saw 100 000 of the poor – who had by the way gone to Luther for help and had obtained some reassurance from same – put to the sword and to the burning of their scalps while still alive.

Oddly treacherous and bloodthirsty, if you ask me.

Folks who had hitherto been peasants became les miserables, hoping for no claim to respect, place, or even means in the New Society. The seeds of Communism and of National Socialism were thus born.

mschrank:

But now, we’re free, to work as wage slaves for large companies where we can be fired in the blink of an eye, and we spend our whole lifetimes making payments on property we can’t even erect lawn ornaments on without having the neighborhood association on our cases.

Tell it m! In our neighbourhood we are forbidden from displaying religion symbols. Well, except for those symbols representing the religion of Secular Humanism.

mschrank:

“Freedom’s just another word for, nothing left to lose…”

Unfortunately it has become goodspeak for nothing. “It’s all good” covers a variety of evils.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Even the lowliest peasant under a feudal system had practical power because he had land. The lord could not simply replace him with someone else. It’s funny, you watch modern documentaries on feudalism and they talk about how peasants were “bound” to their lands, ha ha ha, “bound”- like in the same way gravity binds us to the ground?

Just out of curiosity, do you have any sources or evidence showing to what degree the peasants were able to use this power? And to what degree they felt content with their condition?

I guess that the absence of any big revolts prior to the High Medieval Ages would be an indication of this, but I’m curious as to what else there might be.

 

[mschrank]

I don’t have any sources at hand, it’s been a while since college when I studied land ownership in Europe before the black death. However, I will say that land itself was not considered a commodity back then, in the same way as it is today.

The term is “alienable” is relevant, land was not an “alienable” good in the middle ages like a potato or a table. The concept of ownership was very different, and was more of a right to the profits of that land due to aristocratic title, rather than direct control over the land as the means of production (what modern “ownership” means).

Kinda like, you “own” your cat, but you do not have the right to chop it in a thousand pieces for kicks. It was a more limited concept of ownership. I think you could pretty easily look it up in google or wikipedia.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Okay; thanks .

 

[rwoehmke]

Personally, I think it is a mistake to characterize secular humanism as not being a religion. I believe it is a religion. I believe there is a danger of this religion gaining dominance over other older religions. That seems to fly in the face of Separation of Church and State Doctrine.

But that I guess is the subject of another thread.

The original intent olf the Constitution was not separation of Church and State, but dis-establishment where no one denomination was chosen as the State Church. As some may recall most individual states well into the early 1800’s had an established Denomination. This gradually changed and by about 1850 separation of Church and State became the password among the dominant non-Catholic denominations, which did not understand that as a separation of the State from the influence of Christian Religion. It was a great fear of many non-Catholics that the large influx of catholics into the U.S. would result in a large voting block, led by the Pope, which would make Roman Catholicism the State Religion.

Over time this tacit assumption that the Christian Religion would continue to influence the Politics of the U.S. government has not been working out and Separation of Church and State has come to be Separation of Religion and State. Thus the howl of the Christian Right that we were and should continue to be a Christian Nation. The dislike and fear of their ancestors for the growing Catholic population has led them to a place where they did not intend to go. Catholics never did exceed about a quarter of the population of the U.S. so their fears were unfounded.

As fewer political leaders and scientists subscribe to secular values we can expect that the influence of Christian ethos on government will continue to decline and euthanasia, abortion, the use of embryonic stem cells, therapeutic cloning, etc. will become accepted practice. Hitler and his Nazi government were the early forerunners of where we appear to be headed; a secular, utilitarian state. Politics and Science have no conscience, only individual politicians and scientists can make a difference.

 

[ficino]

Secular to me, seems not to mean “atheistic” but kind of like an idealized arena where religion simply does not matter.

I tend to think of “secular” in this context as meaning non-denominational. Thus we could have a society based on a secular (no preferred denomination) spirituality.

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?

Perhaps in an ideal democracy, debate and differing points of view help establish the true meaning of scriptures or innate moral principles. Any single person is liable to interpret these truths with error. Collectively, different errors cancel each other out,. producing a better interpretation.

ficino