Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Whyayeman]

I can remember studying Plato in the mid 2000s and thinking his critique of democracy was a bit much, i.e., that it leads to tyranny. I don't think it's over the top anymore, sadly. I'm not for a bunch of philosopher kings/queens, but he was not wrong. At least, the potential is there, as has been demonstrated in recent years.

Yes, there is always a possibility of tyranny and history demonstrates this over and over. That, i my view is a good reason to examine ways to strengthen democratic processes and nurture democracy's institutions.

Plato, whether right or wrong in this instance, regarded rule by citizens as the business of the free men of city of Athens, the men of substance rather than the hoi polloi, the masses. Our conception is rather different, though one poster seems rather keen to return to the rule of the monied and the leisured classes.

 

[Bradskii]

Yes, there is always a possibility of tyranny and history demonstrates this over and over. That, i my view is a good reason to examine ways to strengthen democratic processes and nurture democracy's institutions.

Plato, whether right or wrong in this instance, regarded rule by citizens as the business of the free men of city of Athens, the men of substance rather than the hoi polloi, the masses. Our conception is rather different, though one poster seems rather keen to return to the rule of the monied and the leisured classes.

I've pointed this out before, but one can post a quote and ask if someone accepts it or not and the person won't answer because they don't know if it was said, for example, by a Democrat or a Republican. And people will decide if a policy is acceptable simply by who proposes it. So let's avoid that...

...and we ask the people standing for election to nominate their top five policies and if there are two people standing then we just print the policies in random order without saying who supports them and people list them in order from 1 to 10. The weighted votes then decide who gets elected.

Would it work? No, not really. A bit too complicated. But if it did work then it would go some way to solve this problem of tribalism from which we suffer. And it would make people make a conscious decision on policies.

 

[stevevw]

When the policies proposed have no secular reason behind them. Only religious ones.

So the question is how do we tell that. many of the Christian values also have a secular meaning. Also if the measure is (not having a secular meaning) implies that the values replacing a theocracy becoming the new 'ocracy' replacing a Christian one. At what point do we know that the secular rule that replaces the Christian one becomes a 'ocracy' itself.

 

[stevevw]

I am not interested in defining theocracy.

Then how can anyone say there is a theocracy if we don't define what it is.

There is something in this. I am committed to democracy and want to see the system improved. Increasing diversity is one of the challenges to address. There is more to democracy than usefulness, however. Democracy is fair and offers expression to all groups.

But how can it be fair as well as offer expression to all groups. Being able to express different beliefs means all those beliefs have equal value. Yet its impossible to enact all those different beliefs at the same time. The State will inevitably have to take one position and therefore deny one or some of those beliefs.

I would say in the past they took the position of Christian values as opposed to Muslim, Jewish or any other value system and belief. Now thats all changed since we have rejected God.

But this leaves a void of belief that needs to be filled and to replace Christianity. The State cannot just reject Christianity and then become neutral. In fact by rejecting God they are more or less saying God is no longer required as the State now has its own set of ideas and beliefs.

The way to defeat ideas we don't like is through democratic means. It is clear that democratic processes have led to same-sex marriage and abortion rights in America (the examples offered above). They are opposed by a vociferous minority, not a majority.

First notice how society once held that abortion and SSM was wrong. This was a value judgement and belief. Notice how the mood has changed to supporting these issues around the same time as society has rejected God more fully. So it implies a change in values and belief. One value and belief replacing another. Its not a neutral one.

Second the majority rule doesn't necessarily equal the right and best thing. There are many examples of how the majority rule was wrong and led to harm.

Third there are many examples of how a minority belief and value underpinning policy or law has been implemented in the current system of decomocracy.

 

[stevevw]

When government officials lead religious activities as part of their official actions.

What does that mean. You don't have to explicitly show that there is a belief behind what you promote to be religious or to push one belief over another. Its not so obvious. I mean is being anti abortion only a Christian position. If the majority were against abortion how can we know its because of their religious belief. How can we know if the majority are pro abortion that it wasn't because of some ideological belief.

Remembering that ideological belief is also a form of religious belief in that it supports an idea that is not based in fact but is more to do with a belief about how things should be. For example Trans ideology is not based in science and yet underpins State policy and law. So if the State imposes such an ideology say within education then how is this not different to say Creationism being taught in schools. They are both ideological beliefs without scientific evidence.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What does that mean.

You don't know what it means for a government official to use their positions to propagate or enforce religion?

Let's take a simple example: teacher-led school prayer.

Does that help you understand what I am talking about when I give an example of theocracy? Is this hard to understand?

[None of the rest has to do with what is theocracy, so I shall ignore it.]

You don't have to explicitly show that there is a belief behind what you promote to be religious or to push one belief over another. Its not so obvious. I mean is being anti abortion only a Christian position. If the majority were against abortion how can we know its because of their religious belief. How can we know if the majority are pro abortion that it wasn't because of some ideological belief.

Remembering that ideological belief is also a form of religious belief in that it supports an idea that is not based in fact but is more to do with a belief about how things should be. For example Trans ideology is not based in science and yet underpins State policy and law. So if the State imposes such an ideology say within education then how is this not different to say Creationism being taught in schools. They are both ideological beliefs without scientific evidence.

 

[stevevw]

You don't know what it means for a government official to use their positions to propagate or enforce religion?

Let's take a simple example: teacher-led school prayer.

Does that help you understand what I am talking about when I give an example of theocracy? Is this hard to understand?

[None of the rest has to do with what is theocracy, so I shall ignore it.]

Ok but thats obvious. That went out a while back and anyone who tries that one are immediately shot down. The rest of what I was talking about is directly relevant to this. I was saying apart from the obvious like with pray or trying to push Creationism in public schools is there any other beliefs that can be pushed on schools that may be harder to recognise and yet still be beliefs just like the obvious Christian ones.

Are you saying that the publis school system is completely neutral in their teachings. I don't think they can. There has to be a philsophical and ideological reason behind what they choose to allow in education or not. Especially in subjects like humanities and legal studies where there is little science but also health to some degree as we have seen with ideology skewing the facts and reality.

 

[Bradskii]

So the question is how do we tell that.

If there is no reason other than a religious one. If someone proposes a law simply because it is written then it's a theocratic law. And invalid in a secular society. If there are good secular arguments for it as well as the theocratic ones then fine. Let's hear them and we'll make a decision.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ok but thats obvious. That went out a while back and anyone who tries that one are immediately shot down. The rest of what I was talking about is directly relevant to this. I was saying apart from the obvious like with pray or trying to push Creationism in public schools is there any other beliefs that can be pushed on schools that may be harder to recognise and yet still be beliefs just like the obvious Christian ones.

Are you saying that the publis school system is completely neutral in their teachings. I don't think they can. There has to be a philsophical and ideological reason behind what they choose to allow in education or not. Especially in subjects like humanities and legal studies where there is little science but also health to some degree as we have seen with ideology skewing the facts and reality.

I'm talking about enforcing or reinforcing religion by public officials. Not anything else. Of course there is more to theocracy, but those things are the start of it.

 

[stevevw]

If there is no reason other than a religious one. If someone proposes a law simply because it is written then it's a theocratic law. And invalid in a secular society. If there are good secular arguments for it as well as the theocratic ones then fine. Let's hear them and we'll make a decision.

Firs the problem I have with this is that it may be quite obvious that an idea is Christian or religious but its not so obvious if an idea that is non Christian or religious is still a belief and not something that has any factual basis. We already know this because some of the ideas proposed by the State have no factual or scientific basis.

I think the idea that a child needs a mother and father is more than just a Christian belief. It also has some factual basis like kids without fathers don't do well across a number of areas. Abortion to some extent is the same in that there is no factual evdience that a fetus is not a human life or a human life in the process of development.

Then there is at least some good evidence for say sex before marriage not being the best idea. So the Christian belief of abstinance or at least reducing sex before marriage is based on some evdience that it can minimize harms and even help promote healthy relationships. Ceratinly the idea that porn is just a natural part of society has harmful effects.

Then we could go into the progressive ideas like legalizing drugs where the evidence is not so clear and in fact results on the ground show its having negative effects for society like in Canada. But other Western nations are following this line of thinking and introducing similar policies.

In fact research has shown that belief and belonging to a church has better outcomes for mental, physical and financial helath. So at the very least the secular position on many of these issues has little evdience and can cause harm. So some of these secular ideas are not evedienced based but rather ideologically based.

 

[stevevw]

I'm talking about enforcing or reinforcing religion by public officials. Not anything else. Of course there is more to theocracy, but those things are the start of it.

Then theres little to talk about because religion is no longer allowed in public schools. In fact there is almost a hostility towards it.

But I thought we were talking about any belief or ideology that may influence policy and laws in education and other areas. Are you saying besides Christian or traditional religious beliefs there are no other ideas or beliefs we should be concerned about that may be pushed by the State and its agents onto secular society.

 

[Bradskii]

Firs the problem I have with this is that it may be quite obvious that an idea is Christian or religious but its not so obvious if an idea that is non Christian or religious is still a belief and not something that has any factual basis.

If there is no factual basis for an argument then it's not worth considering. C'mon, Steve. This isn't rocket surgery...

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then theres little to talk about because religion is no longer allowed in public schools. In fact there is almost a hostility towards it.

You asked what theocracy might look like and I gave an example. If your country has expunged religion from the publicly funded schools, then good for them.

But I thought we were talking about any belief or ideology that may influence policy and laws in education and other areas. Are you saying besides Christian or traditional religious beliefs there are no other ideas or beliefs we should be concerned about that may be pushed by the State and its agents onto secular society.

Traditional religions beliefs aren't the province of government. If they were, it might be a theocracy.

 

[stevevw]

If there is no factual basis for an argument then it's not worth considering. C'mon, Steve. This isn't rocket surgery...

If its not rocket science and so obvious then why do some government positions on these issues have little to evdience and even evidence that they do harm. How is it that the State can ban Christian ideas and not others that are more or less the same thing in that they push an ideological position rather than anything factual yet still are the basis for State enforced policy and laws.

 

[stevevw]

You asked what theocracy might look like and I gave an example. If your country has expunged religion from the publicly funded schools, then good for them.

I thought the same has happened in the US. Are they allowed to teach creationism or that sex before marriage is not good or that a mother and father is the best setup for kids.

Traditional religions beliefs aren't the province of government. If they were, it might be a theocracy.

I wasn't talking about traditional religious belief. I was asking if there were any other beliefs or ideas that the State allows to be taught in schools besides religious beliefs. Or is the State and public education completely neutral on all these issues.

 

[Bradskii]

If its not rocket science and so obvious then why do some government positions on these issues have little to evdience and even evidence that they do harm. How is it that the State can ban Christian ideas and not others that are more or less the same thing in that they push an ideological position rather than anything factual yet still are the basis for State enforced policy and laws.

There's a difference between a position that has no facts to back it up and a position with which you disagree.

Incidentally, your mention of creationism kinda proves the point. It can't be taught because it's purely a religious belief. So those that wanted to push it realised that in a secular society they needed evidence and not belief. Hence ID. They understood what was needed. Only trouble was that the evidence has to be persuasive. And theirs is risibly inept.

 

[Whyayeman]

First notice how society once held that abortion and SSM was wrong. This was a value judgement and belief. Notice how the mood has changed to supporting these issues around the same time as society has rejected God more fully. So it implies a change in values and belief. One value and belief replacing another. Its not a neutral one.

Yes, society's values change over time. And these changes are reflected in the law. This, I think, is a good thing. These changes to the law do not impinge on the beliefs or the customs of those who disagree with such changes. Abortion and same sex marriage are available, not compulsory.

Society has not rejected God. That is absurd. Christian churches and traditions are everywhere. It is true that many people - an ever-increasing number - have rejected religion. I think this is a natural consequence of broader education. Christians' intolerance has no doubt encouraged the trend. Abortion and same sex marriage are cases in point. Only a vociferous minority (mostly evangelical Christians and Roman Catholics) oppose what the majority have accepted.

Perhaps certain Christian groups are dismayed that their hold over society has weakened through the development of secular ideas and tolerance of non-Christian ethics.

 

[o_mlly]

What??!!? Deficits don't take away anyone's vote. Get a grip.

? Without your vote in agreement, I borrow money and tell the lender that you'll pay back the loan. Seems pretty obvious that that scheme took away your vote in the matter.

Children, lacking critical thinking skills, will often knee-jerk an emotional response when told to take their medicine, eg., “That’s disgusting, that’s horrible, I don’t want to live in a place that makes people take medicine”. But when asked how else to manage their life-threatening infection, their response is “crickets”. Seems I’ve run into that mentality from some in this thread.

 

[o_mlly]

There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made. ...

We are deciding how they get elected.

Which is it, the former broad OP or the revised narrow one?

 

[Whyayeman]

Which is it, the former broad OP or the revised narrow one?

I thought we were discussing democracy. The OP gives us a text to discuss - Churchill's famous remark about democracy's inherent weakness still being the best system. Somehow, as so often, Bible-based Christian theological considerations have been dragged in as if all government was somehow in thrall to Old Testament morality.

The thread was always about democratic process. Others have tried to move it towards the gripes they have about modern life. There is a moral basis to the business of the state; just not specifically the morality of the Bible.