Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 63159

Nowadays, we axiomatically accept democracy as the best form of government we can have. But is this true? What about a Christian monarchy?
Most people immediately react by pointing to King George III and the dangers of concentrating power in one man. True in part, but George III was one among many kings. Think of the kings described by Bede in his Ecclesiastical History and how many of them were pious Christians who cared for their people. Think also of Constantine and other pious Byzantine rulers, of Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire, and of the Tsars of Russia, some of whom are saints in the Russian Orthodox Church. Also, think about Tolkien's description of Aragorn as a healer of the people, not as the tyrant which some people nowadays associate with monarchy.
Of course, Christianity also says there is something called ancestral sin, which means there is a danger of the King being a tyrant. Still, within a Christian perspective, democracy would be even worse because then you have ancestral sin multiplied by the number of voters.
The other problem I have with the idea of power residing in the people is that it smacks of the Enlightenment's view of man. Sure, the Greeks had a form of direct democracy, and the Founding Fathers were influenced by them in part, but the Enlightenment also had a big impact on the foundation of this nation. What troubles me about the Enlightenment view of man is its immanentization, as Voegelin would say. In other words, there is no trascendence to the view of government. The Christian vision of the divine right of kingship reveals a hierarchical structure of the cosmos layered onto the civitas, where power comes from above, and the aim of government becomes other-worldly (salvation) rather than this-worldly (happiness). What I am trying to say is that the model of divine right of kingship conveys the idea that Divinity permeates all levels of life, whereas the Enlightenment idea of man tries to separate the Divinity into a little corner, if not entirely destroying it.
I am sorry if I just seem to ramble, but ideas just keep popping in my head about this topic. But I am interested to hear what people have to say about this. I do not think a Christian monarchy is practically feasible nowadays, but it cannot hurt to discuss theoretically the best form of government as the sublime Plato did in his Republic.

Aitor, Intercollegiate Studies Institute 65 Comments [6/16/2009 2:06:21 PM]
Fundie Index: 54
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
D Laurier.

what the?????
George the Third of England, was a fairly good king compared to most of his fellow monarchs of that period.
He only gets a bad name from Americans who demonized him as the symbol of everything they were against.

6/16/2009 2:18:36 PM



The divine right of kings? You actually believe that your God chose a select few bloodlines and gave them responsibility to rule everyone else? Doesn't it seem much more likely they just used people's piety to keep them from revolt?

Just because some kings didn't abuse their power is no reason to try and give someone absolute power over a country and hope they are a good Jesus follower who will make the world better.

6/16/2009 2:23:35 PM

WMDKitty

I didn't need to read further than the first two sentences. Christian Theocracy == BAD IDEA.

6/16/2009 2:23:57 PM

Paschal Wagner

Believe it or not, Lord Of The Rings is fiction.

6/16/2009 2:27:27 PM

Agnostic Antagonist

Believe whatever you want to believe, but don't expect me to kneel for anyone, real or imagined.

6/16/2009 2:32:05 PM

CailinBan

It HURT to read that!

Especially: "The other problem I have with the idea of power residing in the people is that it smacks of the Enlightenment's view of man." - Heck, that's what I LIKE about it!

6/16/2009 2:36:57 PM

Lucilius

Piety =/= competence. Nor does adulation from subsequent chroniclers prove goodness.

And I'm with Churchill on the relative merits of democracy: It's the worst possible form of government - except for all the others. We tried 100 varieties of monarchy and theocracy for the last five or six millennia, and abandoned then for FUCKING GOOD REASONS.

6/16/2009 2:37:16 PM

DevilsChaplain

"I do not think a Christian monarchy is practically feasible nowadays, but it cannot hurt to discuss theoretically the best form of government as the sublime Plato did in his Republic."

Philosopher King =/= Theocrat, you dipshit.

6/16/2009 2:54:49 PM

jadehawk

really? Constantine, the Russian Tsars, Charlemagne? THOSE are your arguments for wanting a monarchy?

massive history fail.

6/16/2009 2:55:06 PM



"Christian Theocracy == BAD IDEA."
You don't even need the "Christian" on there, nothing good ever comes of theocracy...

6/16/2009 2:55:14 PM

Canadiest

A "Christian monarchy" (Theocracy) would STILL BE RUN BY MEN. Worse, men who would rule only by what the interpret the Bible to say. It's been done, son, and it was bad.

Religious rule has always violated personal freedoms and always will because it's the nature of the system, religion was created tio control people.

6/16/2009 2:57:06 PM

Night Jaguar

Aitor,

Building a bridge to the 17th century (while on the internet).

6/16/2009 3:06:28 PM

Doug

It's been done, save yourself the effort and read Filmer's Patriarcha.

6/16/2009 3:09:52 PM

Dr. Novakaine

First off, WALL O'TEXT'D

Secondly, the last thing I would ever want in this world is to be lorded over by an insane dude who cared only about some magical being in the sky and decided that anyone who didn't think exactly like he did shouldbe put to death. A Christian Monarchy? If that ever happened here, I would be out of the country in less than a heartbeat.

6/16/2009 3:10:16 PM

tracer

"Most people immediately react by pointing to King George III and the dangers of concentrating power in one man. True in part, but George III was one among many kings."


What was so awful about George III?

Lemme guess ... you learned history from the "Rockin' and a rollin, splishin' and a splashin'" episode of Schoolhouse Rock, right?

6/16/2009 3:28:08 PM

GodotIsWaiting4U

I say we set up Plato's philosopher monarchy, but have it be DEVOID of religion. Think Imperium of Man before the Emperor got his shit fucked up, when he was setting up a logical atheist utopia.

This Christian monarchy idea COULD work, but it keeps making me think of the Imperium AFTER the Emperor got his shit fucked up.

HERESY GROWS FROM IDLENESS

6/16/2009 3:30:47 PM



Also, think about Tolkien's description of Aragorn as a healer of the people, not as the tyrant which some people nowadays associate with monarchy.

I was going along, reading your nonsense, thinking you were just a run of the mill idiot and then I got to this and bam...laugh out loud hilarity.

6/16/2009 3:31:17 PM

BobsOldSocks

IOW, you wont be happy until you can grovel on your knees to not only a giant space daddy but also a murderous despot with absolute power of life and death (Oh, wait...)

If you knew anything at all about history and kingship you would be all too well aware that there is no such thing as a just and merciful king. Each and every monarch has been a tyrant, in ways both monstrously brutal and childishly petty but tyrant they remain.

And even if there were - a just and merciful king - all it takes is one person within the royal hierarchy with sufficient power and influence to wreak bloody havoc.

Now, stop acting out your submissive fantasies in public. Have some dignity, man!

6/16/2009 3:37:44 PM

El Zorro

Not fundie, just an idealized view on monarchy.

6/16/2009 3:46:11 PM

Old Viking

Christian monarchy has been tried. Many times. Worst disaster to ever befall mankind.

6/16/2009 4:12:35 PM

Canadia

He's pretty objective about the whole thing, even if he is amazingly wrong, not really fundie.

6/16/2009 4:46:02 PM

Grigadil

Just watch out for the fucking Papists. They'll commit genocide in a heartbeat.

6/16/2009 4:54:46 PM

Marc

Nowadays, we axiomatically accept democracy as the best form of government we can have. But is this true?

In the classical sense, no. A direct democracy for a large group of people is rather impractical.

What about a Christian monarchy?

There are two problems with your proposal as a whole.

1) Christianity was developed as a personal relationship between man and god. It was designed to give people a way of dealing directly with god and living a pure life. It was never intended to be a religion to run a state with. This is why Christian nations need to turn to the Old Testament for ways of making laws.

2) A theocracy is never a good idea. In addition to at best marginalizing those people who aren't of the state religion (and at worse, jailing/torturing/killing non-members), it begs the question: What's a Christian? There are so many different denominations in Christianity, each saying the other is not a True Christian. Each of them have biblical or traditional support for their viewpoints. Are you willing to take the chance that your version of Christianity isn't the right version, according to the rulers? If it is, would you be willing to convert? Or would you be willing to endure the aforementioned marginalization?

6/16/2009 5:06:27 PM

Siberia

... Charlemagne? Constantine?
This dude actually invoked the name of TOLKIEN?
*you're critical hit with 4000 points of stupid. You die.*

6/16/2009 5:19:54 PM

Ken

But then the good rulers ended up with children who were spoiled brats. They didn't choose the wisest child or the most pious child to rule: the oldest son got to rule. Divine right is a crappy system. Plus there was all that inbreeding, threats from Rome, and endless wars.

6/16/2009 5:23:46 PM
1 2 3