What is Democracy minus God? here is my definition

Democracy is the blind choosing someone who is blind to lead people who are blind in the direction of a destination they can not see.


and once they arrive, they still won't see where it is they are.




just a thought. just some words.


your thoughts? I thank you in advance for your contributions.

[edit on 15-10-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

Democracy is the blind choosing someone who is blind to lead people who are blind in the direction of a destination they can not see.

True. That is where humans go wrong. They are more interested in an economic system than really getting to the root of issues and educating the next generation.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher
Democracy is the blind choosing someone who is blind to lead people who are blind in the direction of a destination they can not see.
[edit on 15-10-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]

I don't agree, most of a country's population are none to clever to be leading a country.
We choose a leader in the hope that they are more clever and more able than the ignorant (blind) to lead us to a better standard of living, so even the blind are not so blind as to knowing someone of greater interlect would do a better job.
We look for people who stand for something, people of conviction people with a vision for a better way, compassion,descernment,character etc
And once our leaders are in government all info is available to them, if they don't make sound decisions then they souhd be out, however for the most part you are right the people are not only blind but stupid also..

Unfortunantly i don't believe we have a better process yet.

The Problem with God is this:

HE told the Jews they were the Chosen People

HE told the Christians that Jesus was the Messiah

HE told the Muslims that Mohammad was the Last Prophet.

We do have a problem with God.


Kentucky Constitution
Section 5
Right of religious freedom.

No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; nor to any particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity; nor shall any person be compelled to attend any place of worship, to contribute to the erection or maintenance of any such place, or to the salary or support of any minister of religion; nor shall any man be compelled to send his child to any school to which he may be conscientiously opposed; and the civil rights, privileges or capacities of no person shall be taken away, or in anywise diminished or enlarged, on account of his belief or disbelief of any religious tenet, dogma or teaching. No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.
www.lrc.state.ky.us...

[edit on 11/5/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
HE told the Jews they were the Chosen People

No, He told Moses that they (Jews) were the chosen people.

Originally posted by donwhite
HE told the Christians that Jesus was the Messiah

No, Jesus told the Jews that he was the Messiah

Originally posted by donwhite
HE told the Muslims that Mohammad was the Last Prophet.

No, Muhammad told the Islams that he was the Last Prophet

Originally posted by donwhite

No preference shall ever be given by law to any religious sect, society or denomination; .... No human authority shall, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience.

Has this 'law' ever actually been practiced outside of Christianity and similarly related religions?
Vodouism has been deemed as satanic. Satanism has been deemed as 'a sin a against God'. People were hung in accusation of being witches, most notably in 1692, with the Salem Trials. Even Buddhism has been deemed a 'threat' for it's rise in America. The government did not intervene the press right away when Islam was generalised as terrorism.

Most of this can be traced back to Christianity. But hey...the law was made by christians, so what do you expect?

Nonsense. Deism and Democracy are not synonymous, never have been and there is no reason for them to be. Many a country that has been religiously devout has been a tyranny.

So I think what the OP is saying is without something like God as the recognised 'head of state' and godly values enforced as the law, then a country will fall into chaos? Perhaps, but I think it's probably a safer bet that a country should determine what its 'ideal state' should be and set that in concrete as its constitution, to be reviewed for modification by independent commission every 20 years perhaps.

posted by Shar_Chi

So I think what the OP is saying is without something like God as the recognized 'head of state' and godly values enforced as the law, then a country will fall into chaos? Perhaps, but I think it's probably a safer bet that a country should determine what its 'ideal state' should be and set that in concrete as its constitution, to be reviewed for modification by independent commission every 20 years perhaps. [Edited by Don W]

Since the Age of the Enlightenment, we’ve been there, done that. Why re-run what was not only unpleasant, but time consuming? I think in 1776, 8 of the 13 colonies had established churches, including Virginia. Anglican, to be sure, but the verison of the truth is less important that the “establishment” aspect. That required every citizen to pay for the upkeep of the churchmen. And the propagating of the faith. That violates the individuals right of conscience. That is why we want separation of church and state. it is an historical fact that religion and government have never mixed well.

The Founding Fathers bequeathed to us Freedom of Religion. The right to practice whatever makes us feel good, but even that has limits. We denied the Mormons their claim for polygamy, and we recently denied a Native American the right to smoke peyote in his religious services. It both cases the Supreme Court says no one can defend violating a generally applicable law on freedom of religion grounds. Man trumps God.

Today we cannot agree on whether the president claimed there were WMDs in Iraq; he says he did not, us anti-Bush types say he did. That was only 4 years ago. Some Americans love the Patriot Act, I hate the Patriot Act. How do you think we could agree on an “ideal state” and put that into writing? You are asking the impossible, and unnecessary, Mr Shar_Chi. That is why we prefer separation, IMO. Ideals are private, rules are public.




[edit on 11/6/2006 by donwhite]

If the wealthiest people on the planet knew that their very lives were in the hands of the masses then they would be more concerned about how well educated the masses are.

Until populations and cultures grow up and take responsiblity for being their own master they can continue to expect neglect and abuse from those they choose to call their leaders rather than to call them their servants.

Originally posted by donwhite
it is an historical fact that religion and government have never mixed well.

maybe. i thought tibet had a reasonably good thing going, until china took over of course.

Originally posted by donwhite
How do you think we could agree on an “ideal state” and put that into writing? You are asking the impossible, and unnecessary, Mr Shar_Chi. That is why we prefer separation, IMO. Ideals are private, rules are public.

The USA constitution was a reasonably good effort at putting the ideal state into practise, needed modernising now & then of course. However, I detest the whole manifest destiny thing and I'm not so sure about the savaging it has copped recently though.

I agree on separation of church and state if that reflects the spirit & will of the people.




[edit on 11/6/2006 by donwhite]

I agree with donwhite... we've been there done that. We don't need to go back to the dark ages. Although if you had a spiritual agnostic society that might be able to work... A casual curiousity way of looking at the whole God thing might be ok.

But you get people in power saying "This is the way it is because GOD said SO....." well then you know your society is in trouble. Just look at the mid east for a great example.

Originally posted by donwhite
The Problem with God is this:

HE told the Jews they were the Chosen People

HE told the Christians that Jesus was the Messiah

HE told the Muslims that Mohammad was the Last Prophet.

We do have a problem with God.

people depend more on their opinions rather than they do their truths.

if a god exists, surely a god would be everywhere, right?

look around and see god is ALL, believe it and say AHH
perhaps god is ALLAH

when you do the opposite of "aplause" you BOO
what do stupid people say? DUH
perhaps god is BOODAH

perhaps you know a positive WAY? short for yes is YA
perhaps god is YAWAY

just some thoughts. i mean, the book does say that god is "the word", right?

posted by Gear

Has this ‘law' ever actually been practiced outside of Christianity and similarly related religions? [Edited by Don W]

Well, if I understand the question, I’d say Christianity was as great an offender against the “right of conscience” as any other religion I’m aware of. Medieval Christendom did not willingly give up its claim to legitimately persecute people who held to other beliefs, which they labeled “heretics.” Death was the usual penalty. People took their religion seriously in those days, too seriously we’d say today.

Tolerance is purely from the Age of Enlightenment, a secular innovation. Voltaire. John Locke. Religionists are still intolerant even in 2006. Just listen to the “clash of cultures” rhetoric from our "born again" president. Or from the popular Pat Robertson. Intolerance must go with the territory. I suggest Trinitarianism is the root cause, because the Unitarians are quite tolerant. OBL “wins” his war every day this intolerance continues.

Even Buddhism has been deemed a 'threat' in America. The government did not [correct] the press right away when Islam was generalized as terrorism. Most of this can be traced back to Christianity. But hey . . the laws were made by Christians, so what do you expect?
[Edited by Don W]

You are right, but only partly right. Mainstream Protestantism has "gone tolerant.” Fundamentalist Protestants OTOH, are adverse to tolerance. To them, it is anathema! IMO, younger Catholics are likewise very comfortable with tolerance. In that regard they are a generation or two ahead of the Roman hierarchy. I assume you know V2 was never “ecumenical” in the real meaning of the word? V2 urged the return - especially of the Eastern rites - to the “Latin Church” and the acceptance of the primacy of the Roman papacy. Nothing ecumenical about that. JP2 quashed any ecumenical misunderstanding in 2000 in a papal bull in which he re-affirmed that salvation was only available through the RCC. The Bull was most likely written by Cardinal Ratzinger.


[edit on 11/7/2006 by donwhite]

democracy minus god?

isn't that simply not theocracy?

why don't we have one of those?

they've worked out spendidly for others...
bad example


democracy minus god is democracy
democracy plus god is pointless

Democracy minus the concept of a higher power is Democracy.
Once you remove the fictional character known as god you move closer towards a free thinking society. A free thinking society equals freedom.

Bottom line is this: all the major religions supposedly teach morality, honesty, compassion and tolerance. Politics, and thus politicians are required, by the very nature of the positions they hold, to lie, cheat steal and act in a most dishonest and immoral way in order to stay in power.

Politics draws the corrupt like moths to a flame. It's a lot easier to act this way if you are the one making the laws and imposing them on everyone else, whilst hiding your own actions behind veils of secrecy to the point that, even if wrongdoers are discovered, they are protected by the rest of the powerful elite in order to protect the system from scandal.

So, taking all that into account, it's a mockery seeing our leaders attending photo ops at the local church on a sunday morning then back to business as usual away from the public eye

a great example of a democracy minus god
ancient athens

plenty of incredible thinkers came out of that environment because their thoughts weren't inhibited by the restraints religion puts on philosophy and science

I will say god and government don't mix. The only rules GOVERNMENT should make are those that protect your basic freedoms from being taken away by others. After that, government should butt the hell out of daily life.

If some one tries to kill you, they should step in an do something. If some one tries to take your private property they should step in. If some one wants to practice an action you think is MORALLY unacceptable, but it does not harm you in any physical way, and it does not physically take anything away from you, then your beat.

You can be offended all you want. At the end of the day, thats life, get some thinker skin and deal with the fact you can only control your own decisions, not everyone elses. You can control YOUR ideals, but not mine.

I will chime in on this one: In any country, any society there are three laws that all people follow, a written law, a spoken law and an unspoken law. Where the written law, is that of man and politics, the unspoken in the realm of the religious, the spoken is a combination of both. The founding fathers wisely seperated church and state, because you can not use theological arguments to govern anyone. To do such, then you have a case where if your views differ from the leaders, you could be convicted of crimes against the state. No God has no place in the actuall running of the country, but does in helping those leaders determine the correct actions and morality to govern wisely.

Originally posted by Esoteric Teacher

Originally posted by donwhite
The Problem with God is this:

HE told the Jews they were the Chosen People

HE told the Christians that Jesus was the Messiah

HE told the Muslims that Mohammad was the Last Prophet.

We do have a problem with God.

people depend more on their opinions rather than they do their truths.

if a god exists, surely a god would be everywhere, right?

look around and see god is ALL, believe it and say AHH
perhaps god is ALLAH

when you do the opposite of "aplause" you BOO
what do stupid people say? DUH
perhaps god is BOODAH

perhaps you know a positive WAY? short for yes is YA
perhaps god is YAWAY

just some thoughts. i mean, the book does say that god is "the word", right?

What does this have anything to do with the original post?

Not only that, but they are not even stringed together. Your just saying sentences, taking one word out of the sentence, combining it with another and making the word for God in multiple religions, spelled wrong (Buddha, Yahweh).

Anyways,
For me, Democracy - God = Awesome. Politicians would not be taking views just so the can win the catholic vote or the protestant vote, etc. Also, they would be making choices based on what is fair for the people, not what they believe. Also, 99 percent of all theocracy's fail. I say this because I like Tibet.