Critiquing Democracy

[poonther]

Hey Dale, just out of curiosity, what's your degree in?

You make a point that our government is religious in a sense, for sure, but having government run by the church would only make it worse IMHO. And who's religion would it be anyway?

For every monarchy that you say succeeded in liberties to their citizens, I'm sure you could name ten that failed in that area especially in the 3rd world of present and past.

And on the French revolution, remember what Dickens' said "It was the best of times, it was the worse of times."

Kinda sounds like here to me???

[Dale]

History.

And "Who's religion would it be ?" is precisely the point. Why ypur religion (or worldview) ? Why not mine ? Fortunately, we don't have to decide in a democracy. The side with the most power wins.

Of course I'll grant that there were bad monarchs. Just remember that the context of this discussion is that democracy is bad.

But I guess I want to inquire as to whether there is anything in religiously-informed governance which is uniquely oppressive. Sure, we like to point to Islamic fanaticism. Point taken. But don't forget that 150 million died in the last century under political systems which were avowedly atheistic.

And was Dickens referring specifically to the French Revolution ?

[poonther]

History.

And "Who's religion would it be ?" is precisely the point. Why ypur religion (or worldview) ? Why not mine ? Fortunately, we don't have to decide in a democracy. The side with the most power wins.

Of course I'll grant that there were bad monarchs. Just remember that the context of this discussion is that democracy is bad.

But I guess I want to inquire as to whether there is anything in religiously-informed governance which is uniquely oppressive. Sure, we like to point to Islamic fanaticism. Point taken. But don't forget that 150 million died in the last century under political systems which were avowedly atheistic.

And was Dickens referring specifically to the French Revolution ?

I believe Dickens was referring to the FR or the time period right on the cusp of it b/c it's the opening line from "A Tale of Two Cities" which basically is set in/about the FR.

A Christian religious state maybe (notice I say may) more oppressive than a secular one to those that are Jewish, Agnostic, Hindu, other religions, gay, woman wanting a right choose and many more. I still believe the separation between church and state is a correct one.

And is it the side w/the most power that wins or the side w/the most money? Or is that the same thing?

An undergrad. degree in history....are you going on from there? From where is your degree? Just curious about you since all us Tally folks know a lot about each other and you are new to the scene since you are in Orlando (right?)

[Dale]

Yes, I'm in Orlando, by way of Gainesville. But college was a long time ago, and I've passed through (and out of) the ministry since. I'm just visiting the Tally board since you guys seem to enjoy freer reign here.

And yes, I can see where, say, a fundamentalist Christian government would seem more oppresive to a homosexual who wanted to get married, or a woman who wanted to abort her unborn child. But on the other hand I'm sure the fundies would feel tyrannized (well, they do) under a secularist government.

And maybe Dickens had in mind the stirrings of animalistic rebellion amidst France's time of relative prosperity.

Interesting how the French happily received the tyrant Napolean after the revolution. It's almost as if they were ready to be saved from themselves.

[Dale]

Perhaps the principle problem with 'power to the people' is, well, the people:

http://www.galactic-guide.com/articles/2S3.html

[poonther]

Yes, I'm in Orlando, by way of Gainesville. But college was a long time ago, and I've passed through (and out of) the ministry since. I'm just visiting the Tally board since you guys seem to enjoy freer reign here.

And yes, I can see where, say, a fundamentalist Christian government would seem more oppressive to a homosexual who wanted to get married, or a woman who wanted to abort her unborn child. But on the other hand I'm sure the fundies would feel tyrannized (well, they do) under a secularist government.

And maybe Dickens had in mind the stirrings of animalistic rebellion amidst France's time of relative prosperity.

Interesting how the French happily received the tyrant Napolean after the revolution. It's almost as if they were ready to be saved from themselves.

Thanks for that brief bio Dale. In the words of Tangina in the movie Poltergeist...."All Are Welcome" to the Tally boards.

A fundamentalist Christian gov. would be oppressive to gays in more ways than marriage. They can't even pass property to each other or have visitation rights in hospitals and the Fundies would probably never let them even have that. Under a secularist gov. what rights would be denied Fundies? I don't see it as being the same type of oppression that other groups would have to suffer under a Fundie type of gov. More of just an inconvenience to the Fundies.

Maybe that is part of what Dickens had in mind w/his quote, but I do believe part of it was about the FR. And Lords know why they received Napoleon so easily after the revolution except to scapegoat the answer and just say "They are the French."

[Dale]

Tangina. Now there's an image I thought I'd purged from my mind.

And it might be instructive for you to watch, say. Trinity Broadcasting Network for a day. Or maybe just an episode of Pat Robertson's 700 Club to learn why fundamentalist Christians feel tyrannized.

And tempting as it is to speak poorly about the French, I'd just say that the French were exhausted with democracy at the time.

[Go Gators]

Tangina. Now there's an image I thought I'd purged from my mind.

And it might be instructive for you to watch, say. Trinity Broadcasting Network for a day. Or maybe just an episode of Pat Robertson's 700 Club to learn why fundamentalist Christians feel tyrannized.

And tempting as it is to speak poorly about the French, I'd just say that the French were exhausted with democracy at the time.

I have chosen to mainly just watch on this thread, b/c everyone is talking in a civil tone and making great points (not that I would change that if I chimed in haha ) Even though I will have to disagree with Poonther's assessment of Southern Baptists

Ok, back to reading...

[poonther]

Tangina. Now there's an image I thought I'd purged from my mind.

And it might be instructive for you to watch, say. Trinity Broadcasting Network for a day. Or maybe just an episode of Pat Robertson's 700 Club to learn why fundamentalist Christians feel tyrannized.

And tempting as it is to speak poorly about the French, I'd just say that the French were exhausted with democracy at the time.

You know we are "dating" ourselves by referring to Poltergeist. I'm sure the young TJ has no idea who or what we are talking about.

I have watched those shows more often that I care to admit, I love dark comedy. (j/k, j/k relax j/k) But sincerely I have watched them.

And GG, disagree w/my opinions all you want man b/c you know what they say about opinions........

[Dale]

Taurean -

You see ? We're not killing each other.

[Go Gators]

And GG, disagree w/my opinions all you want man b/c you know what they say about opinions........

Easy now...I was kidding, and I made sure to slap a "joking" face on the end like you requested in other posts haha

[poonther]

Easy now...I was kidding, and I made sure to slap a "joking" face on the end like you requested in other posts haha

An old man like me does appreciate those smiley faces.

I was talkin' about my opinions there GG being like a**holes, not yours.

[Dale]

I raised this subject on a right-leaning forum a few months ago and incited the pitchfork-weilding mob.

[poonther]

And that my friend maybe the true beauty of Tally.

[Florida]

Taurean -

You see ? We're not killing each other.

I do see this! It is quite wonderful. I've actually not even had a chance to read this thread! It grew too fast for me. Already at nearly 40 posts!

[Florida]

Even though I will have to disagree with Poonther's assessment of Southern Baptists

" What'd he say about Southern Baptists?! " Who'se aggitating my dots!? You aggitating my dots Poonther!?"

[Monticello-1827]

" What'd he say about Southern Baptists?! " Who'se aggitating my dots!? You aggitating my dots Poonther!?"

i thought you're not supossed to aggitate the dots... anyone have some chocolate cake?

this has been a very interesting thread. in regards to the above, i do not have a problem with democracy. in my view it is by far preferred to the alternatives (theocracy, monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy etc.). my problem lies with the voting system in the USA. the first past the post method for choosing representation leaves those who do not have the dominant view unrepresented in the legislative body. other voting systems around the world, especially in a parliamentarian system have adressed it. some allow for a multiple number of representatives to come out of a district (each person has one vote), some allow for multipe number of representatives to come out of a district (each person has multiple votes) and others will apply the percentage gain and reflect the same in the legislative body.

additionally, i think that the USA, with an all or nothing approach to politics leads to very dirty campaigning/elections and then does not facilitate cooperation in the legislative body which leads to more problems in the form of partisianship.

in closing, i voted today and imposed my will on the public as a whole. yay democracy!

[poonther]

" What'd he say about Southern Baptists?! " Who'se aggitating my dots!? You aggitating my dots Poonther!?"

Is Bethel a member of the Southern Baptist Association? I thought they were independent?

Hey I endured Southern Baptist Bible School one week a year for about ten years. I chose to attend this VBC not for religious reasons, but b/c they'd come up to your house and pick you up on their big blue bus. I thought that was cool as it got back then. I bet jpl02 our resident "bus guru" would have done the same.

P.S. What happened to your new avaitar/pix there TJ?

[Florida]

Bethel isn't Southern Baptist, I just saw that Nextel commercial around the time I was reading that thread and felt compelled to throw in a little something about the dots.

You don't like my Avatar Poonther!?!?

[Dale]

i thought you're not supossed to aggitate the dots... anyone have some chocolate cake?

this has been a very interesting thread. in regards to the above, i do not have a problem with democracy. in my view it is by far preferred to the alternatives (theocracy, monarchy, dictatorship, oligarchy etc.). my problem lies with the voting system in the USA. the first past the post method for choosing representation leaves those who do not have the dominant view unrepresented in the legislative body. other voting systems around the world, especially in a parliamentarian system have adressed it. some allow for a multiple number of representatives to come out of a district (each person has one vote), some allow for multipe number of representatives to come out of a district (each person has multiple votes) and others will apply the percentage gain and reflect the same in the legislative body.

additionally, i think that the USA, with an all or nothing approach to politics leads to very dirty campaigning/elections and then does not facilitate cooperation in the legislative body which leads to more problems in the form of partisianship.

in closing, i voted today and imposed my will on the public as a whole. yay democracy!

True enough on your point about the unseemly nature of campaigning. But let's be honest. We expect those politicians we vest our hopes in (and isn't that a bit unseemly ?) to pander to our sensabilities. In a sense, we get the kind of government we ask for.

And that brings out another unsavory aspect of democracy: it cannot by nature produce leaders. Rather, of nessecity it produces panderers. Wasn't it the late Paul Tsongas who referred to Bill Clinton as 'Pander Bear' ? Well, maybe Tsongas was just upset that his particular brand of pandering wasn't garnering the same results as was Clinton's pandering. Anyway, maybe you see the point.