Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Autocracy in efficiency and effectiveness serves the more convergent community better than democracy. Similarly, in the more divergent community, democracy serves better.
Fathers are natural autocrats. Tribal chiefs or elders as autocrats serve well extended families who remain biologically close enough as evidenced by the respect and care each has for the other.
Only when the values of the community diverge does democracy become favored.
Catholicism, for example, is a 2000 year old surviving autocracy of a billion members based on common beleifs, most importantly charity toward all. You may rightly argue that in history the authority of the hierarchy has ebbed and flowed but the Pope still decides when members quarrel over matters regaring faith and morals. It's nice to have an umpire at home plate.
The poster you are responding to is correct in saying a Father is a natural autocrat. Do people see why? Some tribal chiefs may be autocratic, and they also may not be depending on where they're coming from and moving towards, and also depending upon the particular issue they are dealing with. But for people to delegate power to a single "chief" to make policy for everyone else in a tribe would qualify as a full autocracy. So long as one person holds absolute power, that is the very definition of an autocrat.Tribal chiefs are not autocrats. The idea they are autocrats goes against how tribal bands actually function.
Catholicism, for example, is a 2000 year old surviving autocracy of a billion members based on common beleifs, most importantly charity toward all. You may rightly argue that in history the authority of the hierarchy has ebbed and flowed but the Pope still decides when members quarrel over matters regaring faith and morals. It's nice to have an umpire at home plate.
That might be true for anyone who is religious. But as long as the belief is not just based on 'it is written' then there's no problem. If there's a reasonable secular answer to 'why is it written' then we can include as many religious beliefs into government decisions as you like. The secular and the religious will just happen to agree.I think its impossible to seperate State and religious belief...
I think that's a difference without a difference. Unless you are saying that you would vote for a candidate who would best respresent their constituents even though you disagreed with them. Surely we vote for policies that we think are the right ones, whether we benefit or not.You state that you vote according to certain policies a candidate is supporting, while I would say that I vote for candidates who I think will set policy according to what will best represent their constituents.
While democracies can be left or right wing it is difficult to imagine a leftist autocracy. It is a contradiction in terms. There are dictatorships dressed up in left-wing clothing. North Korea and Syria are examples. They remain dictatorships.... both have their pros and cons from the objective point of view.
Lord Acton’s maxim would apply.The poster you are responding to is correct in saying a Father is a natural autocrat. Do people see why? Some tribal chiefs may be autocratic, and they also may not be depending on where they're coming from and moving towards, and also depending upon the particular issue they are dealing with. But for people to delegate power to a single "chief" to make policy for everyone else in a tribe would qualify as a full autocracy. So long as one person holds absolute power, that is the very definition of an autocrat.
From what I can tell, I don't think most people understand how to apply the concept of a left/right dichotomy such as Democracy/Autocracy in their reasoning. If the delegation of power is moving towards centralizing power then it is moving towards autocracy. If the delegation of power is moving towards decentralization, then it is moving towards democracy. In a left/right dichotomy, the absolutes are not supposed to be recognized as ever fully achievable nor even desirable in a secular construct of governance, because they both have their pros and cons from the objective point of view.
I agree. I can see why some may not and I think it's the terminology. Democracy in it's basic sense means that everyone decides on all matters. And autocracy means that one person is making the decisions. Neither is a great system. But they are generally combined to some extent, as you say. The president is elected by democratic means but he or she often makes decisions as an individual. By definition an autocratic process.If the delegation of power is moving towards centralizing power then it is moving towards autocracy. If the delegation of power is moving towards decentralization, then it is moving towards democracy. In a left/right dichotomy, the absolutes are not supposed to be recognized as ever fully achievable nor even desirable in a secular construct of governance, because they both have their pros and cons from the objective point of view.
There was a time 100- 150 years ago when you would have been right. A time when the moral values of the state were aligned with those of Christianity. Fortunately, things have changed and the simplistic view that 'X is wrong because God or the Bible says so' is increasingly difficult to justify. The problem Steve is that the world is maturing a little in its morality while the Church clings to a vacuous, childlike morality based on, often unjustified, rules. Many 'sins' are only sinful because they are defined that way - they lack intrinsic harm,So though it may not be called Christian, Protestant, or any paticular religious denomination today there is still a State religion in some ways at play influencing policy and laws. I think its impossible to seperate State and religious belief and that is why the early settlers though professing seperation still held onto Christian belief or at least for some belief such as Deism as their guideing moral basis.
I think this is a simplified assumption of what Christianity is. That something is wrong without any meaning. For Christians X is not just wrong because its Gods law but is a common sense and even natural way to be. Most of what God says is wrong is also known and agreed upon by secular society.There was a time 100- 150 years ago when you would have been right. A time when the moral values of the state were aligned with those of Christianity. Fortunately, things have changed and the simplistic view that 'X is wrong because God or the Bible says so' is increasingly difficult to justify.
I disagree. As above sin can be likened to how we treat others and how we treat others is pretty much something we all know morally and intrinsic.The problem Steve is that the world is maturing a little in its morality while the Church clings to a vacuous, childlike morality based on, often unjustified, rules. Many 'sins' are only sinful because they are defined that way - they lack intrinsic harm,
Forbidding something because it causes harm according to who. That implies some objective that we can use to determine what causes harm and what harm is. If you want to claim that forbidding same sex marriage causes harm then your appealing to some objective. How do we know that this objective measure is correct.There are of course rules we share in common - rules which are generally shared by all religions and secular societies. As @Bradskii pointed out earlier 'Thou shalt not kill' can be easily justified as a rule preventing harm. Forbidding same sex marriage, because the Bible says so, actually causes harm.
The problem is that with any moral system someone has to know best. There has to be some objective measure. Christians and the Bible say that the father is God who knows best. That knowing is found in Christ. But what the world or secular State makes as the 'father knows best' coulede be anything, a human made version trying to mimick God. None the less a god all the same.One of the reasons Christianity is shrinking in the Western world is its abject failure to come to terms with its 'Father knows best' view of moral behaviour.
OB
Actually I think its true for everyone. If the State cannot seperate itself from belief, from adopting some moral norms for society then no matter whether religious or non religious as some political ideology then the same applies to everyone.That might be true for anyone who is religious.
Good in theory but unreal in practice. What is written is often based on belief and morality. Look how words, language and narratives are now deemed as authorative even to the point of creating what is real and causing people to be cancelled. The written word is holy according to the Postmodernist belief.But as long as the belief is not just based on 'it is written' then there's no problem.
Yes but in that disagreement it is implied that one is right and the other wrong. So no matter which side you want to take secular or religion we cannot avoid the fact that whoever happens to be in power to apply their belief and morality they will apply it as though it is objective over the other. So anything the secularists claim about religion has to be applied to themselves.If there's a reasonable secular answer to 'why is it written' then we can include as many religious beliefs into government decisions as you like. The secular and the religious will just happen to agree.
When you consider that even the State can become the moral law giver in its own way by taking a moral position which usually goes hand in hand with secular ideological beliefs and how they enforce that onto society it sort of represents the same ideas as the law to 'have no other gods but Me'.So 'Thou shall not kill' is fine'. But 'Thou shall have no other gods but Me' is not.
But I am not just talking about the traditional forms of belief. Governments can engage in other forms of applying their secular ideological beliefs that bear the same hallmarks as traditional religion. When traditional forms are dying out the void will not remain empty but will be replaced by other forms of belief. There is no such thing as the empty and neutral void of belief and morality as we are by nature believers and moralists.This seems obvious. I cannot think of any ruling body that was without some kind of philosophical framework. Certainly the British Constitution requires that prayers are said a the beginning of every session. They are said to an almost empty House every day.
Hum character. I am not sure that comes into it that much nowadays. Its usually a choice between two or three bad choices of character.But - so what? The business of government is coloured by other considerations. When electors choose their representatives their religious belief is not generally taken into consideration (let's not discuss Northern Ireland!); rather their party allegiance and some assessment of character and demeanour. And a good many vote according to whim.
I thought this is what we were discussing and this is related. I thought some were disputing that representative government is fairer and better at doing the job. That its actually not representative government but rather a representation of a specific ideology of the minority.Could we get back to the conduct of affairs in a democracy? How representative government can be more representative, fairer, and maybe just better at doing its job?
I'm not implying anything. I'm stating a fact. If there are to be laws then they must be based on secular reasons. If they aren't then they are either not reasonable or they are based only on religious beliefs or religious edicts.Yes but in that disagreement it is implied that one is right and the other wrong. So no matter which side you want to take secular or religion we cannot avoid the fact that whoever happens to be in power to apply their belief and morality they will apply it as though it is objective over the other. So anything the secularists claim about religion has to be applied to themselves.
But the collective sovereignty of the people gains its authority from the DoI. Without it there wiould be no sovereignty of the people. They go hand in hand. The natural God given Rights to Life and Liberty is what makes humans sovereign.You invoke the language of the DoI, a document without legal standing. The Constitution of the United States does not invoke any deity to give it standing, but rather the collective sovereignty of the people.
Not really when you consider that ethics fall into the domain of the transcendent. Whatever ethical system you choose it cannot be justified by secular beliefs as well.Ethical considerations most certainly can be seperated from supernatural beliefs and religions (traditional or otherwise).
So when a State say imposes certain policies and laws based on ideological and philosophocal beliefs that is not religious.No, there isn't a "state religion" in the US.
If we consider that religion is really just a set of ideological and philosophocal beliefs about how we should behave and how the world should be ordered and then imposing that on society its near impossible to not use religion when functioning in government.It's really not that hard. Just don't use religion when functioning in government. Keep it in your personal life where it belongs.
That can be true. But if someone wants to put forward any policy then I want good reasons for doing so. An ideological belief is based on a system of ideas. Which will require some facts. They don't appear in a vacuum. We need those facts so that we can make a decision as to whether the person suggesting the policy is correct or not.But I am not just talking about the traditional forms of belief. Governments can engage in other forms of applying their secular ideological beliefs that bear the same hallmarks as traditional religion.
If it was just that then you'd have a rather weak point. But it isn't. So you have no point at all.If we consider that religion is really just a set of ideological and philosophocal beliefs about how we should behave and how the world should be ordered...
The assumption is that secular reasons are reasonable and not based only on beliefs. I am questioning what people claim to be secular reasons are not some neutral reason but motivated be an ideological belief. Just like religion except without the trappings of religion.I'm not implying anything. I'm stating a fact. If there are to be laws then they must be based on secular reasons. If they aren't then they are either not reasonable or they are based only on religious beliefs or religious edicts.
That seems to imply that the secular law is the ultimate objective measure of what is morally right. This is exactly the same idea as saying "I have no problem with a secular edict which correlates with a religious law. In other words I have no problem with any edict so long as it agrees with the subjective or relative edict a person or society deems right. That's doing exactly what people claim traditional religion does.I have no problem with a religious edict which correlates with a secular law, as in 'thou shalt not kill.'
But we did that with secular laws that closed businesses during Covid. Though some were justified many were not. Or maybe where secular States closes down or cancel certain practcies, organisations and people because they don't conform to the regulations and policies set out by the State. Isn't that the same thing, a body or entity that declares objective rule over others in imposing a certain belief and ideology.But if you want businesses to close on a Sunday then a biblical commandment that says keep the Sabbath holy isn't good enough. If someone wants to take the Lord's name in vain or make a graven image then we do not want laws against that.
I don't think there is too much unlegislated morality nowadays. The State and its agents have encroached on just about everything now even how we bring up our kids and what we do in our private lives.Exactly the same applies to morality. What we often consider to be immoral is not necessarily legislated against. And for good reason, as one person's moral outlook can be completely at odds with another's.
But if according to the secular idea that morality is subjective then how can you say its facts basede. Wouldn't it ultimately come down to one opinion or belief against another. None would or could be verified by facts. So really what is being professed as correct or right by secularists ideas about how we shouled behave and order society are really about a belief and not fact. Just like they accuse traditional religion of doing.That can be true. But if someone wants to put forward any policy then I want good reasons for doing so. An ideological belief is based on a system of ideas. Which will require some facts. They don't appear in a vacuum. We need those facts so that we can make a decision as to whether the person suggesting the policy is correct or not.
I'm stating the obvious here, surely.
That is the general form of skepticism that reasons as Pro decentralizing of power. The Con is that when power is too decentralized it will become the cluster thing where nothing actually gets done.Lord Acton’s maxim would apply.
That's because the semantics of terms show that the direction someone is coming from and heading towards will qualify the terms. So, when the people in a democratic construct of governance elect and subsequently entrust representatives with power, there is a degree of movement towards autocracy since power is being centralized somewhat and in some degree by the people. When you add term limits, it creates redundancy.While democracies can be left or right wing it is difficult to imagine a leftist autocracy. It is a contradiction in terms.
Yes, this is true. Look at the same semantics here. It would be a contradiction in reasoning to assert that there are democracies masquerading as autocracies. But it's clear that there are autocracies that masquerade as a Democracy. This doesn't make all autocrats liars, but it does show that those who want to take power away from the people, will tend to rely on propaganda.There are dictatorships dressed up in left-wing clothing. North Korea and Syria are examples. They remain dictatorships.
That would be difficult, at least for me, since I'm not a historian. I think it's safe to say that Democracy itself is based on a general skepticism of those who hold power that subjectively would apply the same for any elected officials as it does for an autocrat. For example, objectively a good autocrat would be a good and wise king who wielded his power fairly and truly cared about his people, but in the subjective skepticism of the people it's quite possible that he would be disliked equally by all just because he was fair. Same goes for an elected official.I should be interested to see an argument in defence of any autocrats - current or past.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?