Why Democracy and not Theocracy

[Athena]

This is a discussion that needs to be held with all religious groups. We know right now, some Muslims are insisting they do not need a constitution, because they have the Koran. Evidently Mohammed was a genius as he blended Christianity and Judaism with the Arab culture and created a religion, that for awhile, made territory of Islam, and Muslims the most progressive and successful of all civilizations. They were more scientific and advanced than Christians in Europe, who were unscientific and superstitious, and did reject everything not in the bible.

Unfortunately, the birth of new thought that can benefit humanity, becomes a stumbling stone to humanity when it is formalized into religious organizations that than operate to survive, and stop evolving with the addition of new thought, and incorporation of new ideas learned through commerce and trade with others.

Religions claim their holy books provide all the information we need to know, and that anything not in agreement with the holy book is false and dangerous. This fear of the unknown is common to humans, and is expressed in myth. The bible begins with telling us there is forbidden information. Zues objected to man having fire, because he feared with the technology of fire, man would learn all other technologies and than rival the Gods. This is in fact what happened. We are now technological smart, but unwise. However, we can correct this problem, because the real answer to our problems is a moral issue subjective to reason, not a religious issue, or unavoidable destiny, determined by a God.

Democracy addresses the moral issue. Democracy begins with the belief that reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and we are all capable of discovering the reason, and living by reason. That is studying nature and humanity, and then sharing what we learn and think, which stimulates more thinking, and evolves new thoughts, steadily increasing the consciousness of know truths. Democracy is an on going process of such discoverying truth and discussion and coming to a consensus on the best reasoning, governing ourselves based on reasoning and consent. We don't have a God who rewards or punishes us depending on if we please or displease him, but we do understand there are consequences to what we think, say and do.

Muckraker's post in the thread questioning if humans are animals, is perfect for introducing why democracy is superior to a theocracy.

[Athena]

This what Muckraker said that stimulated my thinking of the above expressed thought. We are individuals, and we are also a collective and so we are far superior to all other animals, because we are so much more than individuals.

Quote by: Muckraker One very valid question is: What would a human be like if it was born/raised under natural animal circumstances? We, as humans, take for granted that we are born into environments that are the culmination of all human knowledge and ingenuity up to that point. The discoveries and inventions of the greatest minds of our entire species, living and dead, are available to us to build off of and modify. The primary reason we were able to do this is because of our persistent mediums for communication, ie...clay tablets that tell future generations what is poisonous or emails between doctors talking about a patient's unusual allergic reaction. If we take away that collective body of recorded human experience then we suddenly become very similar to other animals. So the question remains, what would a human be like if it was "born" to a close non-human relative? It could learn basic survival from that relative, assuming the relative didn't kill it for being abnormal, but the human would be completely disconnected from its collective experience. Could any sort of "instinctual knowledge" be transferred from the close relative to the human about what to eat or not to eat? Would the human show any real signs of human ingenuity or human language? Would the human use objects in manners other than its non-human family?

[butterbut]

Democracy is superior to a theocracy in a certain sense but it is only the means to an end, universal freedom.

Everything that the Bible says is wrong it says it for a reason, for our own good. Therefore, a Christian King who followed Jesus' words "do unto others..." could acheive the same universal freedom and the society would be even better becuase the King would support the not so apparently good for us rules in the Bible despite opposition from the mob. God's reason is greater than our own reason.

Realistically this could never happen so democracy is our best bet. However, it is only the means to an end. There may come a day when a theocracy could acheive the same results.

[Alive]

Quote by: Athena Democracy addresses the moral issue. Democracy begins with the belief that reason, is the controlling force of the universe, and we are all capable of discovering the reason, and living by reason.

If democracy is indeed based on this premise, then it clearly fails: empirically, very few people live by reason, and even fewer vote by it. Hence the absurdity that is US politics today.

[The Bacon Guy]

Hence the absurdity in all politics today. Democracy puts power in a population of sheeple.

[HelioPrime]

If a democratic government bases its constitution off certain "liberties" or "moral ideals" then enforces them nationally hasn't it become a theocracy?

[Athena]

Quote by: HelioPrime If a democratic government bases its constitution off certain "liberties" or "moral ideals" then enforces them nationally hasn't it become a theocracy?

I would say the answer to your question is, no. A democracy does not claim divine authority. We are humans, and can only know of nature things. We do not believe supernatural beings talk to humans, giving them laws, or commandments, or make them pregnat, or otherwise possess their minds or bodies. What we can know is nature, but we can not know God, because we can not directly experience God, unless we hold all manifestation is God and then we call that nature. The important difference between democracy and theocracy is nature verses supernatural.

[Athena]

Quote by: Alive If democracy is indeed based on this premise, then it clearly fails: empirically, very few people live by reason, and even fewer vote by it. Hence the absurdity that is US politics today.

I don't think I agree with you. First of all, government is only one expression of democracy. I think it is very important to use democratic principles in all phases of lives, including the management of industry.

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental moral and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." Congress of Education for Democracy 1939

Characteristics of democracy:

1. Respect for the dignity and worth of individuals.
2. Open opportunity based on merit.
3. Economic and social justice.
4. The search for truth.
5. Freedom of speech. (meaning freedom to reason)
6. Universal education.
7. Rule by consensus.
8. Justice for all, trial by jury; arbitration of disputes; orderly legal processes; freedom from search and seizure; right to petition.
9. Freedom of religion.
10. Respect of private property.
11. The practice of fundamental social virtues.
12. The responsibility of the individual to particpate in the duties of democracy.

Rule by reason involves every aspect of our lives. If people are not reasoning then how are they making decisions?

[Athena]

What is really important is how we come to know what we know. What
Muckraker said about our consciousness being accumulated knowledge is all important to the concept of democracy.

With religion we are told a God or His angels speak only to a few people, and therefore only these few have the authority of God. These original few people can presumably transmit their authority by teaching another select few what they know of God. Protestantism disrupted this chain of exclusive authority, by saying anyone can read the bible and determine God's truth for self. This makes anyone an authroity of God's truth. However, these people have made their holy book the word of authority, and as is obvious in these forums, not everyone accepts holy books as God's word. Holy books are not the only source of God's truth.

Democracy is not theology, because it makes no claim to God's authority. Our democracy begins with a concept of "the laws of nature and nature's God". Meaning, to know God, we must study nature.

Our accumulated knowledge comes from many sources. We have written records, and also sciences that can exact information from many sources. Democracy depends on this accumulated source of information, rather than one holy book. And each one of us is important to this pool of information. Like Wikipedia, where we all can contribute our knowledge, and efforts are made to provide accurate information.

When we talk with each other, we not only learn from each other, but this learning can increase exponentially. Like the first living cell becoming the great variety of life that has been on earth. When your thought and my though come together, either of us can experience a new thought than has never been thought before. The more we know, the more can learn. Democracy is not religious authority telling people what is so. Democracy is all our minds coming together, learning and processing informatiaon like a super, super computer. Democracy is constantly evolving human consciousness.

[The Bacon Guy]

I don't know where these obscure definitions of democracy come from. Democracy is quite simply a system in which decisions are made by the majority.

I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't seen the majority supporting reason, justice, freedom or respect of private property recently. Faith in democracy requires faith in people; something I certainly don't have.

[Osborn F Enready]

Athena likes to make up definitions of democracy on the fly.

She also likes to call many nations democracies, that aren't.

[Athena]

Quote by: The Bacon Guy I don't know where these obscure definitions of democracy come from. Democracy is quite simply a system in which decisions are made by the majority. I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't seen the majority supporting reason, justice, freedom or respect of private property recently. Faith in democracy requires faith in people; something I certainly don't have.

Literacy in Greek and Roman classics would be helpful, and I keep hoping if I say this often enough, people might start reading the classics to see what they have to say. But it is not just a matter of reading the record of political thinking that brings us to democracy. Regaining the consciousness of the original democracy, includes understanding numbers and shapes as the ancients did, as symbols of principles available to teach us about the natural structure and processes of the universe and to give us a perspective on human nature. What I am talking about is wholistic.

It makes me want to puke when some bimbo on the Early Show, interveiwing Kincinch (a democractic presidential candidate) and his wife, and wastes this valuable time making an issue over his wife having a stud in her tongue. Our culture is so frivilous, and now so immature, we have turned democracy into something awful. Sure you don't see the character traits a democracy requires. We stopped educating for that in 1958. An educated mass is very important to a democracy, and that does not mean, preparing products for industry as we have been doing since 1958.

[Athena]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Athena likes to make up definitions of democracy on the fly. She also likes to call many nations democracies, that aren't.

Okay, Osborn, what are democratic principles?

I don't make things up. I read, and I quote from books I read.

The 1940's Democracy Series of text books for grade schools, are not my creation. The Congress on Education for Democracy is not my creation. John Dewey was one of the most influential in developing education for democracy, and the importance of his work was even more highly valued when Germany started wars, the US began using public education to mobilize the country for war against Germany. You might start googling some of things I bring up and discover how they match what you value.

Come to think of it, what do you think the soldiers who signed up for WWI and WWII and service in Iraq, thought they were defending? You have good values and I am blow away by your failure to connect those values to the ideology of democracy which began in ancient Athens, and your mindless destruction of the chance we can restrong the greatness of our country.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Athena We stopped educating for that in 1958. An educated mass is very important to a democracy

An educated mass is only important if you want the democratic decisions made to be reasonable ones. An unreasonable election is still democratic. The problem you describe isn't a lack of democracy; it's a populace of illogical sheeple.

Democracy is neither the problem nor the solution to unreasonable decisions; it's simply the vehicle. From my experience of people, it will never be a vehicle for reason.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: butterbut Democracy is superior to a theocracy in a certain sense but it is only the means to an end, universal freedom. Everything that the Bible says is wrong it says it for a reason, for our own good. Therefore, a Christian King who followed Jesus' words "do unto others..." could acheive the same universal freedom and the society would be even better becuase the King would support the not so apparently good for us rules in the Bible despite opposition from the mob. God's reason is greater than our own reason. Realistically this could never happen so democracy is our best bet. However, it is only the means to an end. There may come a day when a theocracy could acheive the same results.

Is democracy, where it's the citizens that rule directly and are subject to mere whim, really superior to a form of government that is ruled by a concrete set of principles?

Of course, a real theocracy is one in which God actually rules. What most people wrongly call "theocracy" is really an ecclesiocracy or rule by the Church (or mosque or synagogue, etc.).

Since humans cannot be trusted to rule others, it's best to have neither democracy nor what most people are calling theocracy. A very minimal government with limited powers that facilitate people taking responsibility for themselves is probably best.

[Osborn F Enready]

Athena, my point is you fail constantly to ADDRESS the significant relevant point which makes, or I should say "made" American Representative Democracy unique. The checks and balances.

True democracy HAS NO CHECKS AND BALANCES, which is why I fault all of this "unspecified" praise of democracy.

True democracy is two wolf and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

Who would like that, unless they were the wolves, and NOT the sheep?

In reality, we all play the role of sheep or wolf in politics, and the way politics affect our lives.

The beauty of Americas designed system of government, is that it empowered the sheep (the minority), as opposed to the wolves(the majority), and it had clearly defined lines on which NEITHER could tread upon, or over.

Those lines have been blurred, through political apathy and collective ignorance of politics.

[HelioPrime]

How did the founders intend our nation to empower the minority?

Fundamentalists who protest over Iraq death funerals are in a minority so how does the government empower them?

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Helio Fundamentalists who protest over Iraq death funerals are in a minority so how does the government empower them?

A lot of people are so offended by this that they would want to stop them from protesting. The First Amendment prevents these people from doing so.

[Century 25]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Athena, my point is you fail constantly to ADDRESS the significant relevant point which makes, or I should say "made" American Representative Democracy unique. The checks and balances. True democracy HAS NO CHECKS AND BALANCES, which is why I fault all of this "unspecified" praise of democracy. True democracy is two wolf and a sheep deciding what is for dinner. Who would like that, unless they were the wolves, and NOT the sheep? In reality, we all play the role of sheep or wolf in politics, and the way politics affect our lives. The beauty of Americas designed system of government, is that it empowered the sheep (the minority), as opposed to the wolves(the majority), and it had clearly defined lines on which NEITHER could tread upon, or over. Those lines have been blurred, through political apathy and collective ignorance of politics.

Item:

"True democracy HAS NO CHECKS AND BALANCES, which is why I fault all of this "unspecified" praise of democracy."

Utter nonsense. True democracy is entirely comprised of checks & balances, via the popular vote.. the people's choice. As it is in our country, we have a plutocracy, masquerading as a "democratic Republic" - eek.. what a sick trick...!! TJ (Thomas Jefferson) was a brilliant man.. and wanted a true Democracy. Alas.. here we sit only 231 years later.. in a decomposing carcass of a "democratic Republic".. slowly but surely circling the drain..


Item:

"True democracy is two wolf and a sheep deciding what is for dinner."

Gag me with a foolscap of the "Declaration of Independence".. What you are describing is our present dilemma.. and "we.. the people" are.. the supper... :rolleyes: The truth is.. we the people, have no power. It is all in the hands of the few.. the extreme wealth & power rests with the few. It isn't apathy.. it is that we, the people, are powerless to change what needs to be changed.

[Osborn F Enready]

Helio said: How did the founders intend our nation to empower the minority?

By recognizing their right to free speech (political or otherwise), their right to petition for redress of government, their right to free press, their right to gather, their right to be secure from unjust search and seizure, their right to due process, etc.

Now obviously, blacks were not free at this time, nor were women considered equals, but both issues were "common" for the times, and reversed using the strength of the objective logic behind the bill of rights.

Helio said: Fundamentalists who protest over Iraq death funerals are in a minority so how does the government empower them?

They have a right to free speech, but as someone else noted in another thread, not a right to a "captive audience". They have the same rights as any other American, and the fact that you have seen them, shows how much the minority is empowered.