Shehrazad
aka 'Untouchables'
Full Member
Karma: +1/-33
Posts: 196
|
 |
« on: December 20, 2007, 01:06:22 AM » |
|
Do you think that Christianism authority is compatible with democracy ideology?
We know that any democracy may get bad results inside society if it would pushed to the the extrem corner? so we noted PPP (popular prostitutes party) in canada or the new paedophile party in Holland wich may hits christian ideology!
I personaly know that most muslim scholars doesn't reject democracy on the whole and accept the mechanism with some limits : limits that can scarify a conservative society.
Shehrazad
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.”- Jean de la Bruyère
\\\"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world\\\".
Nelson Mandela
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2007, 07:41:08 PM » |
|
Democracy is all about differet points of view. Obviously Xianism has been able to morph into a religion that can operate withhin a Democracy. Most people are luke-warm about religion and only extremists threaten the system, though they open the door for moderates to lean towards more extreme views.
Democracy is a system that needs constant vigilance against any system that undermines basic human rights and freedoms. Most religions threaten society in their pure form but most religions are watered down for public consumption.
We must fight extremism, irrationality and bigotry to ward off greater evils: Oppression, fanaticism, religionism and all violence in the name of crazy, subjective beliefs. This includes the Judeo-Xian-Islamo-Mormon form of religion, as well as the other forms if they ever show themsleves to be as dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152
|
|
« Reply #2 on: December 20, 2007, 08:51:38 PM » |
|
Democracy is all about differet points of view. Obviously Xianism has been able to morph into a religion that can operate withhin a Democracy. Most people are luke-warm about religion and only extremists threaten the system, though they open the door for moderates to lean towards more extreme views.
Democracy is a system that needs constant vigilance against any system that undermines basic human rights and freedoms. Most religions threaten society in their pure form but most religions are watered down for public consumption.
We must fight extremism, irrationality and bigotry to ward off greater evils: Oppression, fanaticism, religionism and all violence in the name of crazy, subjective beliefs. This includes the Judeo-Xian-Islamo-Mormon form of religion, as well as the other forms if they ever show themsleves to be as dangerous.
Does fight them mean silence them? If so, how does that square with democracy? OswaldTheOsprey |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Urbi et Orbi
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #3 on: December 20, 2007, 09:25:08 PM » |
|
Democracy is all about differet points of view. Obviously Xianism has been able to morph into a religion that can operate withhin a Democracy. Most people are luke-warm about religion and only extremists threaten the system, though they open the door for moderates to lean towards more extreme views.
Democracy is a system that needs constant vigilance against any system that undermines basic human rights and freedoms. Most religions threaten society in their pure form but most religions are watered down for public consumption.
We must fight extremism, irrationality and bigotry to ward off greater evils: Oppression, fanaticism, religionism and all violence in the name of crazy, subjective beliefs. This includes the Judeo-Xian-Islamo-Mormon form of religion, as well as the other forms if they ever show themsleves to be as dangerous.
Does fight them mean silence them? If so, how does that square with democracy? OswaldTheOsprey It means that you allow them to speak and then you use Reason to rebut their claims. In a Democracy any group is allowed to speak, but you are also allowed to make your case on which people will vote. A country can only go in one direction, there is only one path that anything can go. Democracy is you and some friends on a road trip and you reach a fork in the road. You each have a voice, but eventually you have to choose. The one with the most persuasive voice may win, or the one with the most Reason, or "feeling" or strength of personality. The point is that at least, with what we are talking about, the voice of Reason is there to combat the friend who says, "We should go this way because I prayed about it and you should take it on Faith". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
OswaldTheOsprey
High Society
Hero Member
Karma: +100/-123
Posts: 9,152
|
|
« Reply #4 on: December 21, 2007, 05:11:20 AM » |
|
Democracy is all about differet points of view. Obviously Xianism has been able to morph into a religion that can operate withhin a Democracy. Most people are luke-warm about religion and only extremists threaten the system, though they open the door for moderates to lean towards more extreme views.
Democracy is a system that needs constant vigilance against any system that undermines basic human rights and freedoms. Most religions threaten society in their pure form but most religions are watered down for public consumption.
We must fight extremism, irrationality and bigotry to ward off greater evils: Oppression, fanaticism, religionism and all violence in the name of crazy, subjective beliefs. This includes the Judeo-Xian-Islamo-Mormon form of religion, as well as the other forms if they ever show themsleves to be as dangerous.
Does fight them mean silence them? If so, how does that square with democracy? OswaldTheOsprey It means that you allow them to speak and then you use Reason to rebut their claims. In a Democracy any group is allowed to speak, but you are also allowed to make your case on which people will vote. A country can only go in one direction, there is only one path that anything can go. Democracy is you and some friends on a road trip and you reach a fork in the road. You each have a voice, but eventually you have to choose. The one with the most persuasive voice may win, or the one with the most Reason, or "feeling" or strength of personality. The point is that at least, with what we are talking about, the voice of Reason is there to combat the friend who says, "We should go this way because I prayed about it and you should take it on Faith". Sounds good, but a bit idealistic. It rarely works that way in majority rule. One reason that I do not like democracy. OswaldTheOsprey |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Urbi et Orbi
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #5 on: December 21, 2007, 06:50:00 AM » |
|
Do you think that Christianism authority is compatible with democracy ideology? Absolutely. One of the primary tenants of Biblical Christianity is the concept that God made man in his image with certain characteristics including free will, a moral compass and the sense of accountability and responsibility. These are the fundamentals of democracy. We know that any democracy may get bad results inside society if it would pushed to the the extrem corner? so we noted PPP (popular prostitutes party) in canada or the new paedophile party in Holland wich may hits christian ideology! Indeed, freedom of choice without the constraints of accountability and responsibility that are part and parcel of free will can and does lead to bad results. I personaly know that most muslim scholars doesn't reject democracy on the whole and accept the mechanism with some limits : limits that can scarify a conservative society.
Shehrazad
Yes Islam is contradictory to many fundamental concepts of the Bible and this is one of them. Islam sees the solution to evil is denial of free choice. Christianity teaches that each individual has the ability and freedom to choose God and be part of his Kingdom or to reject God and be apart from his Kingdom. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shehrazad
aka 'Untouchables'
Full Member
Karma: +1/-33
Posts: 196
|
|
« Reply #6 on: December 21, 2007, 12:58:35 PM » |
|
Reasoned Faith
-----------------
Absolutely. One of the primary tenants of Biblical Christianity is the concept that God made man in his image with certain characteristics including free will, a moral compass and the sense of accountability and responsibility. These are the fundamentals of democracy.
------------------
Hi Reasoned Faith, I think there are some confusions: no religion will object human choice in his daily habits, economy policy, foreign policy except those which may hit moral status!
In this case We have seen Bush limiting or banning cloning research and refused to finance the FDA because of his self-religious background- therefore many viewers can estimate this act as anti-democratic behavior!
Same thing concerning the objection of Vatican to any contraceptive tools; thing that still even misunderstood in muslim society who didn't see alike.
So we should determine the limits of democracy to explain any compatibility between democracy and theocracy?! another main qst here: is political election of atheists acceptable in christianism?
-----------------------
Yes Islam is contradictory to many fundamental concepts of the Bible and this is one of them. Islam sees the solution to evil is denial of free choice. Christianity teaches that each individual has the ability and freedom to choose God and be part of his Kingdom or to reject God and be apart from his Kingdom.
--------------------------
I think you should correct your datas, slogan of crusades was "christianisation or death"!, but in islamic tradition it's well-known that a forced faith is unacceptable- so you may note that many churches and synagogues survived under islamic empire; but no Mosque existed under christian rules...
It may re-ask the question of the christian tolerance toward the other monotheists like democracy assume it!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.”- Jean de la Bruyère
\\\"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world\\\".
Nelson Mandela
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #7 on: December 21, 2007, 07:08:28 PM » |
|
Reasoned Faith
-----------------
Absolutely. One of the primary tenants of Biblical Christianity is the concept that God made man in his image with certain characteristics including free will, a moral compass and the sense of accountability and responsibility. These are the fundamentals of democracy.
------------------
Hi Reasoned Faith, I think there are some confusions: no religion will object human choice in his daily habits, economy policy, foreign policy except those which may hit moral status!
In this case We have seen Bush limiting or banning cloning research and refused to finance the FDA because of his self-religious background- therefore many viewers can estimate this act as anti-democratic behavior! Perhaps those who fail to understand the role of the executive branch in a representative republic. If the majority objects to executive policy in a true democracy such as America, the legislature can, by majority, override the president's directives. The fact that they don't is strong indication the majority is sided with the president. Same thing concerning the objection of Vatican to any contraceptive tools; thing that still even misunderstood in muslim society who didn't see alike. Leaders in a church are entitled to state their objections but followers need not heed it and may if they wish leave the church in favor of one that keeps closer to Biblical doctrine. More exercise of free will. So we should determine the limits of democracy to explain any compatibility between democracy and theocracy?! another main qst here: is political election of atheists acceptable in christianism? I would not vote for an atheist or agnostic or a Muslim for that matter. Others might. That is their prerogative. -----------------------
Yes Islam is contradictory to many fundamental concepts of the Bible and this is one of them. Islam sees the solution to evil is denial of free choice. Christianity teaches that each individual has the ability and freedom to choose God and be part of his Kingdom or to reject God and be apart from his Kingdom.
--------------------------
I think you should correct your datas, slogan of crusades was "christianisation or death"!, The crusaders would be wrong on that particular point unless they meant that they choose Christianity or death for themselves. but in islamic tradition it's well-known that a forced faith is unacceptable- so you may note that many churches and synagogues survived under islamic empire; but no Mosque existed under christian rules... One can find exceptions wherever one chooses on all sides of this issue. Islam is far from pure as the driven snow. A Christian or Jew in a Muslim country is in no way free to do as one pleases including say promoting their belief. Freedom of choice is not a tenant promoted in the Quran but submission to the will of God (as prescribed by Islam theologians) is. Meanwhile I do not defend what the Roman Catholic Church did during the Crusades and inquisitions. They were wrong. What they did was contradictory to biblical doctrine. It may re-ask the question of the christian tolerance toward the other monotheists like democracy assume it! Democracies do not require acceptance (within the limits of common law) of ideas that are considered by some to be in some ways misguided. They do require all citizens free speech, and free practice of other religions. A Muslim or Jew or atheist is free to practice the religion of their choice and I am free to respectfully object and discuss perhaps their confusion. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shehrazad
aka 'Untouchables'
Full Member
Karma: +1/-33
Posts: 196
|
|
« Reply #8 on: December 22, 2007, 03:06:20 AM » |
|
Perhaps those who fail to understand the role of the executive branch in a representative republic. If the majority objects to executive policy in a true democracy such as America, the legislature can, by majority, override the president's directives. The fact that they don't is strong indication the majority is sided with the president.
No I think it was his self-decision!, the majority were not consulted here!- in other example I can relate the case of J. Ashkcroft (a neo-cons) who in his part tried to abolish sex industry years ago in the States, but he failed: maybe because he faced a strong opposition from liberals atheists or jews!- This is the case with a secular regim like America- but what's if the Bible was the directive or a basis of legislation ie what would be the position if the states adopted a christian theocratic regim? Leaders in a church are entitled to state their objections but followers need not heed it and may if they wish leave the church in favor of one that keeps closer to Biblical doctrine. More exercise of free will.
In that case we can't call them christians or followers of church authority; they are ousiders! Again to clarify the point, Democracy means the "total authority of people" but christian theocracy means the Bible authority (at least for protestants)! how can we put together the two concepts? Anyway Country like US is a secular state not a christian country, so the legislation didn't object the election of atheist or non-christian president. One can find exceptions wherever one chooses on all sides of this issue. Islam is far from pure as the driven snow. A Christian or Jew in a Muslim country is in no way free to do as one pleases including say promoting their belief. Freedom of choice is not a tenant promoted in the Quran but submission to the will of God (as prescribed by Islam theologians) is. Meanwhile I do not defend what the Roman Catholic Church did during the Crusades and inquisitions. They were wrong. What they did was contradictory to biblical doctrine.
It's the same way concerning a christianism, it requires a submission of the will of God (Bible for protestants and pope for catholics), If we would take an exemple of theocratic state like Iran, you can note that jews or christians are represented in parliament; "Jews in Iran Describe a Life of Freedom Despite Anti-Israel Actions by Tehran" http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.htmlSo we can assume that Iran regim has quite managed its authority drive to be compatible with some democratic or tolerant rules. Now what would be the position of christian theocratic state toward the others if a secular country like US will adopt the Bible as driven basis in the constitution. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 22, 2007, 03:09:16 AM by Shehrazad »
|
Logged
|
“The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.”- Jean de la Bruyère
\\\"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world\\\".
Nelson Mandela
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #9 on: December 22, 2007, 06:15:02 AM » |
|
Perhaps those who fail to understand the role of the executive branch in a representative republic. If the majority objects to executive policy in a true democracy such as America, the legislature can, by majority, override the president's directives. The fact that they don't is strong indication the majority is sided with the president.
No I think it was his self-decision!, the majority were not consulted here!- The executive branch (the president) sets policy. If the majority objects to the policy, the representatives change the law to override executive policy. In this case the legislature attempted and failed to override because they lacked popular support. This is the case with a secular regim like America- but what's if the Bible was the directive or a basis of legislation ie what would be the position if the states adopted a christian theocratic regim? I'm not sure it is any use to speculate on this point. Again to clarify the point, Democracy means the "total authority of people" but christian theocracy means the Bible authority (at least for protestants)! how can we put together the two concepts? I don't think you can. With the OT covenant fulfilled, the New Testament Bible was not intended to and does not provide sufficient guidance to govern a society in Christ's model of Christians free of Jewish law. Christ and the apostles provided guidance for individuals and principles from which to base a government but without the covenant, it lacks a blueprint. One can find exceptions wherever one chooses on all sides of this issue. Islam is far from pure as the driven snow. A Christian or Jew in a Muslim country is in no way free to do as one pleases including say promoting their belief. Freedom of choice is not a tenant promoted in the Quran but submission to the will of God (as prescribed by Islam theologians) is. Meanwhile I do not defend what the Roman Catholic Church did during the Crusades and inquisitions. They were wrong. What they did was contradictory to biblical doctrine.
It's the same way concerning a christianism, it requires a submission of the will of God (Bible for protestants and pope for catholics), You misunderstand Christianity if you think that it requires submission to the will of God. Christianity grants choice to the individual and invites the individual to choose the gift of salvation and a restored relationship with God in love (not in submission). If we would take an exemple of theocratic state like Iran, you can note that jews or christians are represented in parliament; "Jews in Iran Describe a Life of Freedom Despite Anti-Israel Actions by Tehran" http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/1998/02/03/intl/intl.3.htmlSo we can assume that Iran regim has quite managed its authority drive to be compatible with some democratic or tolerant rules. I don't assume that at all. It is a farce. It is meaningless. They are puppets with no influence. Now what would be the position of christian theocratic state toward the others if a secular country like US will adopt the Bible as driven basis in the constitution.
The basis for the US constitution was Christian principles, the US was a strongly Christian nation for many years, but has drifted from its roots (some for the better and some not). I have no speculation about what a Christian theocracy would look like today. I do find your defense of Islamic theocracies quite unconvincing. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #10 on: December 22, 2007, 06:48:40 AM » |
|
America was founded on Humanist prinicples that came out of the Enlightenment/Age of Reason. If they were Xian principles, then they were heavily editted by the Age. That is, the Constitution, and the whole idea of forming the country was for and by Secular reasons and methods. Of course, you try to pull in as many people for your cause as possible, so it would be obvious that they would use Xian terms and language to sway people (just as today). But to claim this is what a Xian nation looks like is naive.
America was and is a Secular Nation, populated in general by people who claim to be Xian. It is not a Xian Nation.
America was and is a Secular Nation, managed in general by white men. It is not a White Nation.
Read the Federalist Papers and you'll see God mentioned 3 or 4 times in the context of "God God I swear we will be victorious" or some such reference, not "we form this nation for God (or Jesus)".
One has to remember, Xianity has changed a lot since its beginning and throught the ages. The main catalyst of the American Revolution was based in the Spirit of the Age, which was Reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
Shehrazad
aka 'Untouchables'
Full Member
Karma: +1/-33
Posts: 196
|
|
« Reply #11 on: December 22, 2007, 01:29:36 PM » |
|
I'm not sure it is any use to speculate on this point.
Ok but this is the main title!, reader may assume that not only atheists but even christian like you are phobic from any christian theocratic regim! Do you agree that church stay spared from any authority in political and civil life. I don't think you can. With the OT covenant fulfilled, the New Testament Bible was not intended to and does not provide sufficient guidance to govern a society in Christ's model of Christians free of Jewish law.
Christ said that he didn't come to abolish the ancient law, he is here to achieve it and ease some laws! Christianism can govern society in moral and civil status (mariage rules, banning perversion, treating atheism, dealing with minorities, war rules...) Christianity grants choice to the individual and invites the individual to choose the gift of salvation and a restored relationship with God in love
it"s exactly the same thing in Islam, Kuran is full of "love of God" too, if they don't choose the way of salvation they would shoulder their destiny at the end! The created has to submit to the creator will; I will not love God while I kill innocents or make adulteries- there is no conflict between the two concepts. don't assume that at all. It is a farce. It is meaningless. They are puppets with no influence.
Why? the christian monitor science is a famous magazine- more recently the govt has created a cultural center for jews. he basis for the US constitution was Christian principles, the US was a strongly Christian nation for many years, but has drifted from its roots (some for the better and some not). I have no speculation about what a Christian theocracy would look like today. Ok, can you find any rule against abortion for instance? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.”- Jean de la Bruyère
\\\"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world\\\".
Nelson Mandela
|
|
|
|
daedalus 2.0
|
|
« Reply #12 on: December 22, 2007, 02:25:49 PM » |
|
The Bible doesn't discuss abortion. Out of curiosity, does the Kuran?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
\\\\"SUCK IT, JESUS!\\\\" Kathy Griffin
\"Hitler burns Anne Frank for a day, and it\'s Evil.
God burns Anne Frank for eternity, and it\'s Just.\"Anon
|
|
|
Shehrazad
aka 'Untouchables'
Full Member
Karma: +1/-33
Posts: 196
|
|
« Reply #13 on: December 23, 2007, 01:08:11 AM » |
|
I think The bible doesn't treat abortion clearly; but quite all churches are firmly against this act.
Muslims authorize abortion only if the foetus will make the mom's health at risk.
in order to stay in this subject of democracy and Bible, there are some christian groups who call the authority to forbid abortion without results!; some groups are ranked as terrorist groups by the FBI like "The Army of God" who use violence and bombs against clinics and doctors to stop this "slaughter"!
another example that religious authority is completely spared from citizen life.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
“The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.”- Jean de la Bruyère
\\\"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world\\\".
Nelson Mandela
|
|
|
|
Reasoned Faith
|
|
« Reply #14 on: December 23, 2007, 06:39:51 AM » |
|
I'm not sure it is any use to speculate on this point.
Ok but this is the main title!, reader may assume that not only atheists but even christian like you are phobic from any christian theocratic regim! Do you agree that church stay spared from any authority in political and civil life. I didn't see Christian Theocracy as the main title. I also don't see how the reader should conclude that someone who does not know and does not care to speculate as being in fear of something. The Bible does not provide a basis for a Church based and run government. In the past, The Roman Catholic Church seems to be a good example of why we should be skeptical and every Islamic theocracy that now exists or has ever existed demonstrates the potential difficulties even better. Christ said that he didn't come to abolish the ancient law, No, as I said he fulfilled the covenant promise and ushered in a new relationship for all who believe and accept the gift of salvation. Christianism can govern society in moral and civil status (mariage rules, banning perversion, treating atheism, dealing with minorities, war rules...) Indeed, as I said, democracy in America was founded on Christian principles. However it seems folly to have the Church run government, because that is not the roll of the Church, it is a distraction at best. Christianity grants choice to the individual and invites the individual to choose the gift of salvation and a restored relationship with God in love
it"s exactly the same thing in Islam, Kuran is full of "love of God" too, if they don't choose the way of salvation they would shoulder their destiny at the end! "Love of God" is not the same as "Love God". Islam is founded on and stresses submission to God's will. Why else does one always hear "God willing" and "God is great"? Ok, can you find any rule against abortion for instance? Why do you persist with this? Is it your claim that Islamic theocracies are a superior form of government over a democracy, because it seems like you want to compare it to something (Christian Theocracies) that don't exist. The problem with theocracies is that they are dependent on near perfect decisions by those in charge but man is flawed and so these kinds of people are few and far between. Democracies provide for checks and balances to mitigate this problem. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
