Malevolent vs. benevolent dispositions and conservative political ideology in the Trump era

[Hans Blaster]

n'k! ................... what sort of answer are you looking for, Hans? For me to answer your question, I need to know what your criteria are for defining and measuring some ambiguous idea called "governmental beneficence."

Good grief. For the record here is the sequence of posts:

I didn't go back far enough before clicking the reply button, so I will manually quote from post #37 by smeadly:

"If the government chooses to practice Christian benevolence because of human need, why wouldn’t it also enforce moral codes found in Old Testament law?"​

To which the reply was:

False premise. A government can be benevolent absent any Christianity.

A clear rejection of the prior claim and defining the question in relation to non-christian government.

And what collection of historical examples of this do you have in mind by which we who are Christian might reconsider?

You ask for historical examples, though somehow only what a "Christian" might consider.

This is going to depend on how benevolent you think the US government has been through history or most of the state governments.

And I suggested that given that the US government and the state governments (at least since some of them abandoned state churches in the early 19th century) are absent Christianity, that in looking for historical examples of non-Christian governments that you might potentially consider to be benevolent, there is a large collection for you to choose from.

I was only reminding you that could examine current and historical US and local governments for this non-Christian benevolence you are unsure if it exists. Now you are free to consider all US federal and national governments as malevolent or deficient because they are secular, but that is the question to you. I haven't asked for any particular definition of benevolent and clearly indicated for you to respond how you would use the word (or earlier posters in the reply chain) and simply reminding you that the US government and all state and local governments are not Christian.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You ask for historical examples, though somehow only what a "Christian" might consider.

No, I was asking for historical examples that a non-Christian very often considers to be actually examples today.

And I suggested that given that the US government and the state governments (at least since some of them abandoned state churches in the early 19th century) are absent Christianity, that in looking for historical examples of non-Christian governments that you might potentially consider to be benevolent, there is a large collection for you to choose from.

I was only reminding you that could examine current and historical US and local governments for this non-Christian benevolence you are unsure if it exists. Now you are free to consider all US federal and national governments as malevolent or deficient because they are secular, but that is the question to you. I haven't asked for any particular definition of benevolent and clearly indicated for you to respond how you would use the word (or earlier posters in the reply chain) and simply reminding you that the US government and all state and local governments are not Christian.

We have different personal praxes, Hans. Let's just leave it at that so we don't waste our mutual time talking passed each other. I thought we were talking about a completely different angle and nuance than the one you're apparently focusing on here. We just have very different interests in the world in which we live, you and I.

Have a great weekend!

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The people decide what's right or wrong and that's a bottom up system. They then vote for people who will run society the way they want.

Democracy, eh? Useless system. Well, until something better comes along (and that excludes theocracies).

But what have we now?

 

[Bradskii]

But what have we now?

Democracy. And there are so many problems with the various forms of it. It should equate to a meritocracy. We should vote for the best people for the job. The most knowledgeable. The most competent. The most trustworthy. The most mature. People who put country before self.

I think you can see where I'm going with this...

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Democracy. And there are so many problems with the various forms of it. It should equate to a meritocracy. We should vote for the best people for the job. The most knowledgeable. The most competent. The most trustworthy. The most mature. People who put country before self.

I think you can see where I'm going with this...

Yes, I just don’t know what we can call this. We still vote but the balance of power is diminished and the rule of law has become bogus.