and by that I mean a free, democractic and secular society that is not religious...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 09:15AM by anybody.

No. Democracy is an inferior political philosophy. It allows whoever the majority is to disadvantage minorities. I think a republic (ours has become corrupted) helps keep the majority in check. Democracy does not promote equality. I believe all humans are created as equals.

A benevolent monarchy or dictatorship would ok, except the monarch or dictator eventually die and the successor is unlikely to be as benevolent.

Ever heard of a dude by the name of Brigham Young? Hitler? Nazi’s were all about Democracy. Hmmm. Let’s think about this. The Democratic majority believed it was ok to kill homosexuals, Gypsies, religious leaders (not personally religious), Jews, trade unionists, communists and the physically or mentally inferior. Democracy means death to those less ‘equal.’

The French Revolution was not the same as the American.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 10:07AM by incognitotoday.

incognitotoday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No. Democracy is an inferior political philosophy.
> It allows whoever the majority is to disadvantage
> minorities. I think a republic (ours has become
> corrupted) helps keep the majority in check.

It's funny how many Americans think the US is a "pure democracy."
It isn't, of course. By design. To prevent a "tyranny of the majority."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

It's also funny how many people seem to think that democracy and republic are mutually exclusive. As in someone writing (with a tone that implies they are squeezing the crayon way too hard) "the US is NOT a democracy, it is a republic".

Actually, it is both. Democratic republic, or republican democracy, take you pick. All those ballot initiatives that you vote on, those are examples of direct democracy. All the candidates you vote for make it a democratic republic (as opposed to, say, a hereditary republic).

"Democracy versus republic" is a proverbial false dichotomy. The US is both a democracy and a republic.

Yep, well said :)

incognitotoday Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ever heard of a dude by the name of Brigham Young?
> Hitler? Nazi’s were all about Democracy. Hmmm.
> Let’s think about this. The Democratic majority
> believed it was ok to kill homosexuals, Gypsies,
> religious leaders (not personally religious),
> Jews, trade unionists, communists and the
> physically or mentally inferior. Democracy means
> death to those less ‘equal.’

What democratic majority? The Nazis never won a majority in the German parliament. The liked elections as long as they were winning more seats, but when they stalled, they came to power through very very undemocratic ways.

Democracy is not about killing your opponents, to put it mildly.

is a child born blind equal to a child born with AIDS or one missing arms and legs? Use your god given brain and think for a change

Yes, I do - but then I would ;-)

Tom in Paris

. . . saying, "Let them eat French toast." I love French toast.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 10:23AM by steve benson.

steve benson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . saying, "Let them eat French toast." I love
> French toast.

French fries, yumm. Salt and grease, two of the basic food groups.

It's more complicated than you think, just to produce a yummy feeling. This is high-level science. Volunteer yourself as a test subject.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07373937.2012.663845

They just need you to eat, all the while dictating the experience of your tongue and olfactory glands. All hail the potato!

This confuses me. Marie was told, "The people have no bread." How could they make French toast without slices of bread?

The French are very inventive! :)

What Marie-Antoinette actually said was "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche"...

Brioche is like bread, but usually yellow, slightly fluffy and sweet because it contains egg and sugar in addition to the sacrosanct ingredients of French bread (flour, yeast, water and salt).

Many French people eat it for breakfast (with jam...). In the UK, it is usually translated as "Let them eat cake" (which brioche is very close to).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brioche

Tom in Paris

... Folks, this story is apocryphal.

First of all, it came up years before the French revolution, and was rehashed afterwards.
Second, it wasn't originally attributed to Marie-Antoinette but to "great princess", not necessarily a French one.
And third, it was told to point out how unaware the royals were of the living conditions of the common people.

Why are the people protesting so much? Don't they have it good?
- No, they have no bread to eat.
Well, can't they just eat croissants then? Or brioche? Or sugarloaf?

I have a quibble with the claim that a representative government protects us against "tyranny of the majority", and that pure democracy would result in such tyranny.

A republic doesn't protect against tyranny of the majority. Legislatures can and often do pass laws that trample on minority rights. It is a Constitution, along with courts with authority to enforce rights protected by the Constitution, that places a check on tyranny of the majority.

So I guess I need one more adjective to what I wrote up-thread. The US is a constitutional democratic republic. None of those terms are mutually exclusive.

Democracy is the worst political system except for all the others.

HA! This is funny and I'm going to use it! It will be so much better when the machines take over our government.

I believe the ideal French Fry can be found at McDonald's, right out of the fryer, salted, served piping hot.

Fries have existed since the 1600s. Belgium didn't exist until 200 years later. Calling French fries "Belgian" is like calling Peter the Great a citizen of the USSR, or Saint Nicholas a Turk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Nicholas

PS I'm a Belgian by birth.

They are only "French" fries because that's where Americans first encountered them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 05:52PM by anybody.

They are really freedom fries, not french fries.

Yes. But the ideas expressed therein are passed or at least are passing.

At the heart of the Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen is the concept of the citizen, a citizen of a nation state.

We, citizens of nation states, are been baited away from the concepts of citizen and nation state to accept the corporatist concepts of consumer and transnationalism. Implicit to this is the idea that your rights and liberty are only as large as your purchasing power.

Today we live in (or if you are more optimistic, we are heading towards) a system Sheldon Wolin called “Inverted Totalitarianism”:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Human

Excellent!

Why not? The French Revolution worked out so well ...

Yes, I am in favor of the guillotine for everyone with a title, repression of religion, going to war, the revolution turning on its own, imprisoning a 10 year old in filthy solitude until he died simply because he was royal,also imprisoning his sister in slighty better conditions, falsely accusing the Queen and her SIL of child molestation and on and on.Sure, they started out with good ideas, but it didnt exaxtly work out well.Google Robespierre, Reign of Terror and Napoleonic Wars.

The American revolution worked out better because it was actually a war of independence. We didnt have the desire or ability to destroy Britain and its governemnt and seek revenge on their aristocracy. We wanted them to give us independence and leave. Big difference.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 07:11PM by bona dea.

Still believe? That presumes one ever did!

Are you still beating your wife?

I am opposed to wife beating.

The ideals of the French Revolution were great. Their implementation was, however, problematic.

I'm with Burke in thinking the Revolution was a disaster. There's a philosopher named Barrington Moore who wrote about the problems of revolution in general. Both are great thinkers, though Burke was better.

I'm with those who favor Republican or Constitutional Democracy. One of the great tragedies of history is that such governments are fragile; they depend on the commitment of citizenries to murky, complex, compromising politics. Often the people of democracies rise up against their governments and gleefully hand over power to dictators. They celebrate the demise of their democratic and republican institutions; they celebrate the death of their own civil liberties.

Initial Statement: I'm a rank amateur when it comes to governance, mostly because I am basically, ungovernable. But I have thoughts on the issue! Shallow, mundane, almost pop-culture in depth and breadth, are my thoughts on government and governance.

As an American by birth and inclination, I became aware at some point, probably junior year in high school, that certain steps took place beginning around 1772, that resulted in me having to take a class regarding these steps and the results.

I don't remember much, mostly due to lust and masturbation, but one thing I remember heartily approving of was that Citizenship in these great United States had to be earned. One might be born a citizen, but one could not participate in the governing process unless one was a CITIZEN. At that time, this meant being male, not a slave and owning property. (Although if 3/5's of a man somehow got title to property, one supposes he could vote, if the master gave him the time to go to the poll...)

Things changed anent voting rights, and if you're interested, you can review the history of the vote in America here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States

Next ingredient: Social Welfare. Improperly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, this meme is said to be a correct view of the current situation, “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

If there is no truth to this, I'd like it explained to me. If there is some truth to it, no further explanations are needed.

Almost There: I would like the right to vote to be earned. Yes, a certain amount of capricious outcome would result, but at least the masses would know who to blame. And it makes some sense to me that the unwashed, lazy, greedy masses would hold some sway with the elitist voters. I don't think there are enough elitist to police the masses...


Finally: I am a fan of Plato's Republic. I might have made it to Philosopher-King but for my love of whoopie cushions. But for sure that inclination would have been acceptable in a position among the Guardians. I would be a right honorable Guardian.

Postscript: Artificial Intelligence!

“When the people find they can vote themselves
money, that will herald the end of the republic.”


Or "when the people find they can use the vote to borrow money ib someone else's account, that will herald the end of the republic." That happened in the 1980s, when two things occurred. First, the people began electing governments from both parties that favored a combination of lower taxes and higher spending, which had the remarkable and perhaps predictable effect of expanding the national debt. Second, financial deregulation and innovation rendered it much easier for households to borrow against their assets and future earnings (real or imagined).

If you look at any major economy, you'll see a massive increase in public and private debt from the early 1980s through the present. This represents an equally massive transfer of wealth to the older people and from our children and grandchildren.

A sophisticated view of democracy and egalitarianism, with due consideration of individual achievement and compensation, must be fair across generations. And the "greatest" generation, has robbed its progeny blind. We have saddled our descendants with immense debt.

That is by no means the worst stain on the history of the United States, but it is in the running for second.

"Well, Doctor, what have you given us--a republic, or a monarchy?" (Unknown lady, upon the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, 1787)

"A Republic, if you can keep it." (Attributed to Dr. Benjamin Frankly, famous "dead white man."


"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams, another "dead white man.")

I prefer that Franklin and Adams be viewed, as they would have wanted, as great "people." Their gender and race are irrelevant to the monumental things they achieved.

Then maybe you should call yourself Lot's Person.

The word "person" has the masculine word "son" in it. We should call him/her/it, "Lot's Human," which...has the word...oh, never mind!

The U.S. has morphed from a Constitutional Republic to a Democratic Republic and is headed toward becoming a Democratic Socialist State. The president prior to "The Rump" is a Democratic Socialist.


Oh, and when the government and corporations merge, isn't that a facet of Fascism?



By the way GWB signed away our rights under Habeas Corpous back in 2006.


Seems the founding fathers would consider the acts of many of the presidents of the 20th century and 21st rather tyrannical.

Way to go Caffiend! :-)

caffiend Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and
> religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the
> government of any other." (John Adams, another
> "dead white man.")


https://ffrf.org/hlr/HobbyLobby.html

(click on that quote on the left) :)

The "Freedom From Religion Foundation" is a bunch of jacobean ideologues who detest religion in general, and Christianity in particular. Their findings are on a par with the Jesus project. I know you're on the opposite side of the trench lines on this, Hie, but look at the post-revolution differences between us (1776), France (1789) and Russia (1917).

I contend, good Sir, that you are attacking the pillars that hold up this very beneficent House.

The Founding Fathers drew upon multiple sources as they combined their wisdom to break away from Great Britain, and then establish a constitutional republic. Foremost among these were the Classical thinkers (Roman especially), the Enlightenment, English Common Law and British Parliamentarianism.

And: Christianity.

I use the term in a generic, almost nominal sense, free of credal and denominational definitions and limitations. Catholics, conservative and liberal Protestants, Quakers, and Unitarians were all involved, and they were very cognizant of the bloodshed that religious wars had caused, or allowed (as Anybody loves to remind us!) Whereas they rightly avoided any ecclesiastical identity or afficiliation, studies have shown that the Bible accounted for over 50% of citations in the Founders' letters, papers, and publications. And these men were well versed in letters and law from the ancients to their present!

Like it or not, Christianity is a major factor in our political and cultural lineage. The New Atheists (FFRF, et al) go overboard in saying they intended a "secular state," (baby & bathwater fallacy) just as certain religionists are incorrect in saying that the US is a "Christian nation." It is derived from, almost dependent upon, Christianity--Moses is still in the center of the pediment on the US Supreme Court--, as are Seneca, the Magna Carta, John Locke, and the Plymouth Compact.

And, considering how imbued the Founders (even Franklin & Jefferson the Deists) were with Scripture, I hold that Christianity is an especially profound and defining element in where we come from and who we are.

France and Russia turned against religion (corrupt, admittedly, as they were) in their revolutions. We do so at our peril.

I agree with a lot of this. The US fits squarely in the Christian tradition. This need not be a religious statement; it could also be a Weberian observation.

Where I disagree is in your definition of the options ahead. It is not a binary choice between religious tradition on the one hand and revolution (France, Russia) on the other.

There is a third way, a middle way, as exemplified by almost all of modern Europe. I would describe Scandinavia, the Franco-centric countries, and the Germano-centric countries as both Christian and atheist. Christian in that their values ultimately stem from that religion (Jewish-Greek-Roman-Germanic) and as atheist (in the sense that very few people consider themselves religious. One could say the same of Japan and South Korea: countries whose values stem from religions that inform contemporary values even if they are no longer taken seriously as systems of thought.

So the options are traditional 1) religion, 2) political and ideological revolution, and 3) everything in between. Not very constraining, really.

Correction.

The final paragraph should read:

The options are 1) traditional religion, 2) political and ideological revolution, and 3) everything in between. Not very constraining, really.

First, Mrs. Lot, I always appreciate your pinch of salt (and sometimes pepper) to the discussions.

For simplicity's sake, I'd leave the East Asian democracies out of this. They're anomalous in that they were engineered by the West, which in turn was derived from the various historic trends and elements I touched on in my long post, above. The rest of Asia is very tragic, especially for those countries which substituted Marxist/atheism as their Western ideals, instead of Christianity.

With all respect, I think you misread the northern European/Scandinavian situation. They have become highly secularized: cathedrals are mainly museums, and churches are closing, while mosques and madrasses are growing. As the binding power of comomon culture and religion erode, other ideologies fill the vacuum, notably atheism (euphemistically called "secularism") and Islam (permitted under the euphemism "multiculturalism"). The "everything in between" is vacated, leaving the extremes on the edges fight it out, much as we see in America, where the political discourse is dominated by radical "pro-this" trying to out shout (and beat up) "anti-that."

Two exceptions in Europe are Hugary and Poland, which have protected their traditions and religions more--and their borders.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2018 08:53PM by caffiend.

Your post proves my point.

The Scandinavians and most of Western Europe have found a third path between revolution and Christian-informed government. You argued that the option was between revolution and traditional religion. As you state, the Western Europeans fit neither pattern.

As for whether they are Christian or not, I don't consider that an important point. They will give you both answers depending on how you frame the question. If you ask whether they are Christians in a religious sense, they would answer no. If you ask if their cultural traditions stem from Christianity, they will answer yes. If you don't find this paradoxical fact satisfying, we can drop it from the discussion.

The point remains that there are all sorts of sustainable positions between traditional societies and leftist revolutions.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> The Scandinavians and most of Western Europe have
> found a third path between revolution and
> Christian-informed government.

The problem, Ms. Lot, is that as Islamic immigration increases, settles in, and does not assimilate into the "Christian-informed" society, the moderate-socialist center of gravity is tipped. Already there are significant no-go zones in Sweeden and France. Germany had to set up women's safe zones for New Years Eve, and Norway is nicknamed "Rape Capital of Europe." As these are not reported in the NY Slymes, I don't expect you to accept these developments.
>
> As for whether they are Christian or not, I don't
> consider that an important point. They will give
> you both answers depending on how you frame the
> question. If you ask whether they are Christians
> in a religious sense, they would answer no. If
> you ask if their cultural traditions stem from
> Christianity, they will answer yes. If you don't
> find this paradoxical fact satisfying, we can drop
> it from the discussion.
>
I agree, and also want to acknowledge I appreciate your clear & concise points.

> The point remains that there are all sorts of
> sustainable positions between traditional
> societies and leftist revolutions.

As things are NOW, this is correct. But my take on the demographic and cultural trends remains pessimistic. The bonds of common culture, language, religion, and political traditions which have defined the First World and brought it (and much of the world) to unprecedented prosperity are being attacked by global elites and tragically misguided (pseudo) intellectuals.

I don't regularly read the NYT.

I presume you know that the Scandinavian stories you just presented have been denied by the Scandinavian countries--but what would they know? Again, when you present source for your opinions, it's generally pretty easy to discredit them. So until you proffer evidence, I'll stick with what I read in the European press (and I generally read right-of-center publications from there).

I additionally have difficulty with the problem of "no go zones" in parts of Western Europe in relation to Hungary and Poland since those countries are now entirely "no go zones" for the political opposition, gays, and certain minorities. Again, there are places that monitor this stuff--the Economist, for instance, or Freedom House. Poland and Hungary have fallen dramatically on the various freedom indices, so it is pretty humorous that you would argue that they are superior to places like Sweden where even in the worst case scenarios the dangerous are quite limited.

Finally, with regard to your prognostication that immigration is going to tear apart the countries of Western Europe and particularly Scandinavia, I would make two points. One is again that if the solution to the problem is to surrender everyone's civil rights as has happened in Hungary and Poland, the cure is obviously worse than the disease.

Second, you are changing your argument. You went from claiming that Christian values are essential to a healthy country (the US, Europe) to now arguing that the danger is Moslem adulteration of community values and harmony. That is a stronger argument. But it does not have much to do with Christianity. In short, the adulteration problem would apply to secular humanistic countries like Scandinavia regardless of whether their cultural history is Christian or Shinto. Your fear is immigration, apparently, and not the diminution of religion--which are different things.

A major problem between us is news sources. Of course the established governments will deny the reality of no-go zones--admission of such would be an admission that their immigration policy is dangerous to their citizens, just as Chicago police will not admit there are places they will not patrol. But there are just too many reports of them.

Maybe I should don my tinfoil hat, but there is a lot that is not being reported: the grooming of middle-school girls by Islamic men (UK), widespread FGM, no-go zones, the tacit allowance of sharia law in British public housing councils/estates, high rape incidents in Norway, knife attacks that lacked a fatality, domestic violence in Moslem households because the women are kept indoors. I could go on and on, but these things are just not reported because of the progressive's inexplicable tolerance of Islam.

You may dismiss the sites as Islamophobic, but check out JihadWatch and "thereligionofpeace," which uses a drudge-like system of headlines and links to the original sources. Then there's Pam Geller's site. A death fatwa has been pronounced on Geller, but she won't shut up, brave woman, even after Islamists attempted an assassination in Texas. All the sites are easily located with a search.

I'm not changing the subject by including immigration in the discussion. Nature, and culture, abhors a vacuum, and as Western Civilization commits ethnic and cultural suicide, other things will fill it.

Last word on Poland and Hungary: It's the European Community/globalists/progressive elites which are condemning them, groups that favor mass immigration across borderless continents. People like George Soros, who is being investigated by Hungary, by the way.

It's late in the East, so let me conclude with my favorite Bismark quote: "The public should never know what is put into their laws and sausages."

I would add two additional historical points, not as important as what I just said about the stability and humanity of secular states.

Point the first. Japan had a functional democracy in the Taisho Period. It broke down due largely to the depression and the deflationary forces that destroyed Weimar Germany. Both Germany and Japan are cases where the West stepped in after the Second World War and restored, rather than imposed, democracy.

Point the second. You applaud Hungary and Poland for remaining true to their historical values. I find that amusing. Both were stable democracies but have in recent years moved far to the right, complete with state violence and repression of minorities. I don't think you want to describe those as healthy and enviable states. They are the worst examples in Europe unless you include Turkey, which is slightly worse.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Japan had a functional democracy
> in the Taisho Period. It broke down due largely
> to the depression and the deflationary forces that
> destroyed Weimar Germany. Both Germany and Japan
> are cases where the West stepped in after the
> Second World War and restored, rather than
> imposed, democracy.

The Taisho period is new to me, so I did a bit of fast research. I gather there was also a major earthquake, which coincided with large-scale labor unrest, social disruption, and xenophobic attacks on minorities. As often happens, forces (military and industrialists) took advantage of the on-going crisis and clamped down on personal and cultural liberties. Hirohito, acting as regent, augmented his personal power, too. On balance, Ms. Salt, I don't think the democratic experience in post-WWI Japan was either long or substantial. Otherwise, I defer to your great knowledge on the subject.

Weimar is too big and complicated to get into here.
>
> You applaud Hungary and Poland
> for remaining true to their historical values. I
> find that amusing.

(You're so polite when you disagree!)

Both were stable democracies (and still are!)
> but have in recent years moved far to the right,
> complete with state violence and repression of
> minorities.

This depends upon what you consider "state violence" and "repression." Some people think the death penalty or arresting illegal aliens is "state violence." They are nations which have taken decisive action to protect their nation and culture. Decisive action is, well, decisive. Don't forget, Lincoln went to war, initiated the draft, and suspended habeas corpus--very decisive action, and was hated and reviled for it.

Biography and history are written by the winners, not the whiners.

Democracy in Japan and Germany started about the same time. After the Meiji Restoration in Japan, gradually developing to a reasonable franchise and party system by about 1910 or 1915. The system worked quite well until the shocks of the depression though the earthquake (and a rice shortage) were important challenges.

In Germany democracy dates to the 1870s, when Bismarck moved the country in that direction and also established the first Welfare State. WWI did significant damage, but the Weimar period was pretty good despite some disastrous interludes, the most significant of which was the hyper-inflation of 1924. The country stabilized considerably for the rest of the decade until the deflation of 1931 wrecked havoc. People think inflation killed German democracy: that is incorrect: it was deflation.

On Hungary and Poland, I don't necessarily consider treatment of immigrants a key issue (though it is a significant one). What matters in the present context is the governments' gradual deprivation of the people's civil and political rights. Those states may be stable, as you say, but they are not democracies--at least not like they used to be. Again, my views are not minority: alarm at developments in those countries is widespread on the left and the right in Europe and frankly in the States as well.

As for my being "polite" in my disagreements, I think that is the first time I have been accused of that on this site. I will, however, take the compliment and run before you come to your senses.

Why hasn't anyone named them?


Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

Those are good ideals, but it didnt work out very well. They got The Reign of Terror for starts.

Yep.
"Accept our liberty, fraternity, and equality or we'll kill you!" isn't such a grand idea.

First of all, Hie, let's scratch "fraternity." So sexist!
Equality is a wonderful ideal, but bear in mind that some (human) animals are more equal than others.
That leaves liberty, which is fine, as long as you agree with us and our masked, bat-wielding minions, so intent upon demonstrating how "love trumps hate!"

I will repeat what I said in reply to something by vigilant in a now-closed exchange.

"All are equal but some are more equal than others" is from Orwell's Animal Farm. Orwell did not mean that as a positive normative statement. It was a statement of ironic horror, an indication of what Stalin did to Russia.

I'm not sure you want to take that sentence at face value.

Ideals, yes. Outcome, not so much. They eventually worked through it.

After numerous changes of government, the Reign or Terror, the Napoleonic Wars and the dictatorship/empire of Napoleon. On top of this, most of the aristocracy and clergy went into exile-that is if they survived the Terror

Moses never saw that promised land.

I do