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

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
#972789
JohnTheAtheist

Two words; Fuck you.

6/17/2009 12:24:32 PM
#972804


The Tsars of Russia were pious and cared for their people?

My man, the Tsars were a big part of why the Russian Revoulution ever happened.

6/17/2009 12:45:06 PM
#972875


Ever heard of the Hundred Years' War, moron? War, Pestilence, Famine and Death riding across France for more than a century because of a stupid succession conflict between two royal houses... Stil think that hereditary monarchy is a good idea?

6/17/2009 4:20:23 PM
#972892
Berny

I for one will never accept the rule of someone who claims to be ruler by the will of God.
I have yet to meet someone who claims to be doing the will of God who wasn't a complete asshole.

6/17/2009 6:13:52 PM
#972905
arcturus

Bloody Mary for president!!!!!!!!!

6/17/2009 6:40:15 PM
#973032
Nyssa of Aachen

Right, let's demolish this logically...
George the Third effectively did NOT rule for the latter part of his reign, due to his porphrya, a genetic condition, that caused him extreme pain, but his son, who later became George IV, after his father's death, acted as Regent in his stead...
The king I suspect you're referring to, is Charles I, who passionately believed in the "Divine Right of Kings", & absolute rule, & as a result of such, started the English Civil War, which ended with his trial & execution...

6/18/2009 12:02:32 AM
#973079
Xotan

Most, if not all, of the rulers mentioned have a very dark side to them. This is conveniently swept to one side to suit the needs of the argument. Of course it also means that the argument is being conducted by an ignorant fool and therefore beneath contempt.

6/18/2009 5:32:11 AM
#973139
ND

In other words he is all for democracy only as long as the guy he voted for gets in.

6/18/2009 9:05:36 AM
#973791
H'ethetheth

"...Aragorn..."

XD

6/19/2009 9:36:52 AM
#973819
Clown

You know what's the main problem with kings (and royalty for that matter)? One of their ancestors was once a common man who was strong or cunning enough to take the power. He probably had charisma and was loved by other commoners. His offspring's rule was either good or bad. But that's not the problem.
The main problem is the way you change kings, or rulers if you like. People like power. In monarchy, the thing that changes who has power is death, and more often than not. For a new king to succeede, you need to either kill the previous one or to banish him, which was perfectly normal in middle ages but is not normal now. Democracy changed that, and I personally always prefer less bloody option.

6/19/2009 11:00:48 AM
#1060126
Kieranfoy

I love the bit about him saying Constantine was a pius man, when he, in fact, used Christianity as a tool of unification.

Also, Plato? Sublime? A heathe who's screaming in hell?

What a post.

11/20/2009 6:37:11 AM
#1168319
Kevin Klawitter

also of Constantine and other pious Byzantine rulers, of Charlemagne and the Holy Roman Empire, and of the Tsars of Russia,

Four thousand men all dead in one day
They would not renouce their heathen ways
Thirty years of campaigning consumed
To subject those pagans to Christian role

(The Bloody Verdict of Verden)

Riveres flowing red with the flood of four thousand men that I did behead.

I shed blood of the Saxon men
I shed the blood of the Saxon men
I shed the blood of the Saxon men
I shed the blood of the Saxon men
I shed it at Verden
I shed the blood of the Saxon men
I shed the blood of 4000 Saxon men
I shed blood of Saxon men
I shed the blood of the Saxon men!

From the historical metal album "Charlemagne: By the Sword and the Cross", performed by Christopher Lee.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5HZOemIcys&playnext_from=TL&videos=8GtBD7MUPp8

6/15/2010 3:12:53 PM
#1168432
Moondog

Supreme executive power lies vested in a mandate from the masses, not in some farcical aquatic ceremony.

6/15/2010 6:54:08 PM
#1337808
Big One

I am French. We had Christian Monarchy in here.

It did not ended well.

And I think that's exactelly why your Founding Fathers insisted on the Chruch/State separation.

10/5/2011 5:00:16 AM
#1337884
Anon-e-moose

"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."

"how many of them were pious Christians"

"there is a danger of the King being a tyrant. Still, within a Christian perspective, democracy would be even worse"

"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"

Okay. Take it away, Al (emphasis added):



'America: a good idea that went out of hand.'

-Al Murray (Pub Landlord)

So you think that the alternate Earth scenario as posited in the anime series "Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion" (in which Britain lost against Napoleon, but they simply upped sticks & moved to America; where the colonists there lost the War of Independence, and - via Hitler being eliminated before he came to power, coupled with the Russian Revolution never coming to pass, the British Empire - or in this case, the Holy Britannian Empire, under it's absolute [and immortal, via the 'Code' given to him by 'V.V.'] ruler Emperor Charles zi Britannia - became the dominant, nay, only superpower) is such a good idea?:



...is that what you're saying, Aitor? Okay.

Hand over the keys to the White House, Capitol Building & Supreme Court; also 'The Football', the case-like device with the authentication & launch codes to the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, to our current Prime Minister David Cameron. While you're about it, scrap that Stars & Stripes, and replace it with the Union Flag. Also, get rid of all your currency, and replace it with Pounds & Pence, with the image of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. She is - as a devout Christian herself - Head of the Church of England (the basis of modern Protestant Christianity) and 'Defender of the Faith' after all.

Your call, pal.

10/5/2011 7:56:25 AM
1 2 3