Dark Alex's Really Long Post Thread.

[ER]

Here's a question to topspin lob across the net at you guys: is democracy truly compatible with Christianity?

[indianasmith]

That is a good one!
I'd say more so than with communism or authoritarian systems of government.

[Svengoolie 3]

You can't have Christianity in a democracy unless you housebreak it.

Western civillization housebroke Christianity, that's one of the things things that made it great for a while.  We had a time when Christianity reigned supreme over all and the bible was the law. We call that time the dark ages.

Gradually we housebroke christianity.  No,  you can't  stone an adulterer no matter what the bible says!  Yes,  you  have to suffer a witch to live,  despite what the bible says.   

That's the biggest and best difference between western and middle eastern cultures. In western culture civillization basically housebroke religion.   In middle eastern culture, religion crushed civillization.

[indianasmith]

Your vision of Christianity is so distorted by hatred and misinformation that you are perhaps the least qualified person on this forum to answer that question.

[ER]

"You can't have Christianity in a democracy unless you housebreak it."

Ignoring the deliberately offensive term chosen by a serially uninformed bigot, that statement is easily disproven, as usual, since democracy can flourish with or without religion, and with or without a guarantee of any sort of human rights. Do not confuse majority rule with a bill of rights, they are not necessarily present in democracy. A democracy could choose to have a religion at its heart so long as a majority desired that. A democracy could be a theocracy. I'm not certain you understand what democracy is.

"Western civillization housebroke Christianity,"

Another argument that fails to float when one considers Christianity has been the bedrock of western civilization for over 1,700 years.

"We had a time when Christianity reigned supreme over all and the bible was the law. We call that time the dark ages."

Actually the Dark Ages (bit of a Romantic, archaic term, frankly) were 500 AD-1000 AD and the Church was not as dominant then as you seem to think. Christianity was the ONLY light of knowledge burning in the West at the time and we owe much to it.

The High Middle Ages of 1000 AD-1350 AD were hardly dark at all and represented the greatest period of productivity and enlightenment in Europe between the fall of Rome and the Renaissance, and also saw the Church rise to prominence of authority (coincidence?).

The Late Middle Ages 1350 AD--1500 AD again witnessed Roman Catholic dominance in the West, moreso than in the "Dark Ages" as you claimed.

Also the Bible was not the law in a largely illiterate society, the Church was.

"Gradually we housebroke christianity.  No,  you can't  stone an adulterer no matter what the bible says!  Yes,  you  have to suffer a witch to live,  despite what the bible says."  

What does this have to do with democracy and religion? If a majority decided you could do those things, then you could do them in a pure democracy. You confuse US-style republicanism with democracy, and my question was never about a republic. You missed my question and instead pounced on yet another opportunity to surprise no one by unleashing a bigoted attack on the chosen religion of a majority of your fellow Americans.

I am still fascinated by the question I posed but your reply lends nothing toward answering it.

[Alex]

I can't see any reason why you can't have democracy and christianity, (or most other religions for that matter).

Democracy (in any of its forms, since I don't think any country would be termed a democracy) to me has a history that is no less blood-soaked than any other kind of government, be it imperialistic, theocratic, communist or whatever. Britain didn't build its empire by being nice to people, the USA didn't expand from sea to shining sea by asking the natives to move along, Hitler was elected. I could go on and on there, but I don't see democracy as being inherently 'good'. Countries like to define themselves as what (they see) by the good they feel they have done, rather than considering the damage regardless of the degree. Germany seems to be the only country I've seen with a real sense of guilt. Anyway, I digress.

As much as christianity supported monarchies (the divine right of kings), I wouldn't say it fits in especially well beside any particular type of government, but it is very capable of fitting in alongside them. As it spread across Europe it readily absorbed other cultures and beliefs into itself* to make it more palatable to those they were willing to convert (most famously on the date christmas is celebrated). I'd imagine if Europe at that time had been filled with democracies, the practices of that time would have been made part of the religion. As time has gone on, (as with any organisation) it has become less adaptable and more tradition-bound which is why (to my mind anyway), it has struggled to keep up with the times and on the big social issues of the day tends to be against change, rather than championing new causes (I find it interesting that Jesus is still referred to as The King of Kings). Democracies too, as time goes on seem to be more mired in red tape and increasing bureaucracy, becoming less concerned with doing things right than filling in the right forms and signing in the right places.

Maybe we just need revolutions every few generations to clear things out and shake them up?

Anyway, I don't see any reason why the church (I am making a difference here between christianity and its core beliefs here as compared the church first formed around them here) can't exist beside democracy, but equally, democracy is quite capable of existing on its own without it. I don't think it adds strength or weakens it (unless it is given political power. I would argue quite strongly that where it has had the political power it has abused it rather badly. Just have a look at the abuses it has committed in Ireland and other places. Being able to ignore the laws of the land and act as you like without censure definitely weakens the pillars of a democratic society. While I like the current pope, I do not think for example that the catholic church has the right to claim any moral authority over anyone due to its actions. It would have to do a lot to sort itself out first) inherently and either can co-exist or not.

I'd also totally disagree that religion destroyed civilisation in the middle east. For much of history, the middle east was the most advanced society in the world. The reasons why the middle east is the way it currently owes a lot to the outside world, be it the deprivation of the Khan depopulating the region or the lines drawn on a map to divide up the area by the west. Claiming religion crushed civilisation shows a real lack of knowledge and understanding.

If you are talking about a pure democracy, where everything is decided by everyone meeting in the marketplace** and voting on everything (honestly, that sounds like absolute chaos to me which would lead to lot of idiotic decisions), again I would say it would cause a problem as far as that it could put pressure on a group of people to vote a particular way on any issue and present effectively a large group of votes to advance its own agenda, thus weakening the practise of a pure democracy. In all fairness though I would point out though that any group of people would be capable of doing this (and quite likely would. It makes a certain amount of sense to act in the way that you think is going to benefit what you believe in. This does not have to be limited to religious bodies).

Anyway, this is the kind or debate that could just go on endlessly, each side putting up argument and counter-argument. Hell, I could spend hours just discussing this kind of thing quite happily but I'll stop here and sum up by saying yes christianity can exist beside/in a democracy, but churches not so much as they tend to seek to concentrate power in themselves.

*Which to me breaks the 'Thou shall not steal' commandment.

** Or perhaps in the modern day, vote on the internet?

[ER]

My thought was Jesus didn't establish a democratic order to live on behind him, but empowered overseeing disciples, a very exclusive/excluding authority structure, really, and Christianity has rarely been run as a democracy, it's been a hierarchy of bishops or in pre-Gregorian Ireland mitered abbots, metropolitan authorities in the East, patriarchs, even some Protestant churches are run by elders who aren't elected, they're appointed by the elders when a vacancy arises. I guess my  question was asked as the reverse of what I was thinking, since my contemplation was less about whether democracy is compatible with Christianity, but is Christianity compatible with democracy?

[Alex]

I still think Christianity yes, both ways around. As a concept it is fine. Actual religious organisations no. I have no doubt that if the Popes for example thought they could have overthrown all the monarchs of the time and been the absolute rulers of Western Europe that they would have grabbed the chance with both hands. You have had some of them who wouldn't have went with this, but as an organisation, the church has been as power hungry as any other sociental group.

[Svengoolie 3]

Wow,  some people here are just so far under the point they canct see it whizzing by far above their heads.

They bible says that a lot of peolle are to be murdered simply for being who they are. The bible does call for the murder of non heterosexuals. Leviticus 20:13.

The bible also calls for "witches",  adulterers,  etc,  to be put to death.

In countries dominated by religion,  like Saudi Arabia,  such peolle are routinely out to death publicly.

In western culture we have placed liberty higher than Christianity,  so we do not  allow peolle to murder others of different views even if "the bible says! " Christianity can be allowed to exist in a democracy but it must be below the law,  not  above it.

Also Christianity is largely incompatible with democracy.  Christianity is about an absolute dictator that the peolle must bow to or be condemned to endless torture.  There isn't a trace of democracy in chrsitianty.  It's  the ultimate dictatorship where even thoughts can get you  condemned to endless torture.

[ER]

Wow,  some people here are just so far under the point they canct see it whizzing by far above their heads.

They bible says that a lot of peolle are to be murdered simply for being who they are. The bible does call for the murder of non heterosexuals. Leviticus 20:13.

The bible also calls for "witches",  adulterers,  etc,  to be put to death.

In countries dominated by religion,  like Saudi Arabia,  such peolle are routinely out to death publicly.

In western culture we have placed liberty higher than Christianity,  so we do not  allow peolle to murder others of different views even if "the bible says! " Christianity can be allowed to exist in a democracy but it must be below the law,  not  above it.

Also Christianity is largely incompatible with democracy.  Christianity is about an absolute dictator that the peolle must bow to or be condemned to endless torture.  There isn't a trace of democracy in chrsitianty.  It's  the ultimate dictatorship where even thoughts can get you  condemned to endless torture.

Thank you, Sven.

[Alex]

Wow, some people are so clueless and miss the point so much they are way out in front in a field all of their own and they are the only ones who cannot see it.

You've mentioned a couple of times you have a gun. If you handle it like you handle your posts then you must limp a lot from shooting yourself in the foot.

Ok, let us start taking your argument to pieces.

Democracies have had the death penalty for non-heterosexuals. Your argument on this one is thus rendered invalid.
Democracies have had the death penalty for witches (even non-christian ones). Your argument on this one is thus rendered invalid.
Democracies have had the death penalty for adultery. Your argument on this one is thus rendered invalid.

Just as an example, the UK at one point had 200 crimes rated as worthy of the death penalty, including the heinous offense of cutting down a tree or impersonating a Chelsea pensioner. Your point on the other things that the bible calls for the death penalty for is also rendered invalid.

You seem to be holding democracy up as something virtuous and ideal. It is far from this. As mentioned previously it has a long, blood-soaked history and is no more peaceful than any other type of government. People have voted for terrible leaders and cheered at the declaration of war with all the freedoms they could wish for.

Do we really rate liberty that highly? I'd say that is a fallacy. In the past few decades, we've accepted a big drop in our private liberties in the name of extra security, and I'd say we aren't all that secure. Just because attendance at church has dropped does not automatically correlate to this meaning people have chosen liberty over religion. It just means church attendances have trended downwards. Drawing a big conclusion like that on its cause really has no basis in the scientific method and thus I am going to dismiss your argument there too.

I do agree that christianity must be below the law and subject to it, but democracies have other institutions that are not religious and also act above the law.

Finally, can you tell me where in the bible it says you cannot live in a democracy? I mean the institution is older than the bible, so if it was prohibited I am sure there will be a mention of it in there. If there is a mention of it, then you finally have a point (I haven't looked for one, so there may or may not be a reference to it). If not you are just doing your usual 12th-grade level arguments that are so regularly dismissed and rightly mocked.

Someone who has stated so many times about all the people he would like to kill and who he hates, really doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to calling out anyone or anything else for wanting to kill people they disagree with. Ever read 'Animal Farm'? If not you should, because at the end when the animals can't see the difference between the pigs and the farmers is as parallel you should give some thought to.

[Alex]

So a nurse has been arrested for impregnating a woman in a persistent vegetative coma from DNA evidence. If he is guilty I'd like to say cut his balls off. Mind you today's incontrovertible evidence is tomorrows "really, we convicted people on no more than this?". Take fingerprints for example. Something that was once held up as infallible turns out to be no more than a best guess and not always accurate. I wonder if they will ever review every conviction made purely on such evidence.

One day will we find DNA evidence similarly flawed. Hopefully not.

Got a scriptless rehearsal tonight. Running through the play twice. Trouble is that Kristi not being involved has really killed my interest in the whole thing. Still, I've agreed to do this one play and I'll stick with it. Watching a documentary on WW1 tanks just now to while away the minutes until I have to leave. Got some stuff I actually want to do wargaming wise and get some figures ready for gaming. I don't often want to paint, so when I do I like to take full advantage of it.

[Pacman000]

The early church did choose a governing member by lot: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts+1%3A15-26&version=NKJV

Which is similar to the Athenian Democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Selection_by_lot

[Svengoolie 3]

Democracies evolve.  Democracies don't  pretend to be perfect.  Democracies have a process where the people  can change he law and government

Religion doesn't. Religion claims to be perfect and infallible.

In religion,  every time the majority decides to do something different than what the god wants,  BOOM!  Plague,  war,  famine,  etc,  until the populace is beaten back into submission.

In democracy when people  decide the old ways are no longer right,  they can vote to chaos ce them and not have the power in charge smash them down with disaster or war.


That's the difference between Christianity and democracy.

[Pacman000]

Man gravity is soooo anti-democratic.

Every time I want to fly without a balloon, blimp, airplane, or helicopter, BAM! I just fall right back to Earth.

Stupid laws of reality thinking they're infallible.