Would God Favor Democracy Or Liberty?

[prisonchaplain]

Some might even see this article as supportative of Libertarianism--an irony, since its "godmother" was a passionate humanist (Ayn Rand).

http://www.acton.org/publicat/books/duty/hmention2.html

The argument, in a nutshell, is that good morality and religion find their best soil, not in 'democracy,' but in liberty. Thoughts?

[Traveler]

It article seems to me to gloss over some very important definitions and then make some historical assumptions that I think are inaccurate. Three definitions that are glossed over are first liberty, second democracy and third majority tyranny.

Perhaps we should come to a conscious for a meaning of these terms. I will offer my opinion.

First concerning Liberty: I do not believe liberty means freedom to do or choose what you want. The problem is that what one individual wants may and often conflicts with what others want. I defined liberty as the just method to reach and enact law. In order for law to be within the bounds of liberty – two principles must be achieved. First principle of liberty and just law is to protect the innocent. The second principle is to punish the guilty. There cannot be liberty without these two principles.

The second is the concept of democracy. Once again I believe there are two principles of democracy. The first principle is the concept of majority rule. The second principle is equal access under the law to protection and punishment to all involved or all that are covered by the umbrella of democracy. This is a strong departure from the article that assumes that democracy is simply a majority – to which I disagree.

The third concept is that of majority tyranny. I have a problem with this concept because I do not believe it is really possible. I believe that tyranny is always the result of a minority imposing protections and punishment separately and unequally on different segments of the population. Or as stated in “Animal Farm” – all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

I am interested in a discussion of how liberty, justice and equality are justified under the concepts and doctrines of classical or traditional Christianity. Especially in light of grace, compassion and forgiveness as an attribute of G-d that offer access based singular requirements of divine acceptance – Which I also believe is a misunderstanding of G-d, his gospel and his will.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

First concerning Liberty: I do not believe liberty means freedom to do or choose what you want. The problem is that what one individual wants may and often conflicts with what others want. I defined liberty as the just method to reach and enact law. In order for law to be within the bounds of liberty – two principles must be achieved. First principle of liberty and just law is to protect the innocent. The second principle is to punish the guilty. There cannot be liberty without these two principles.

There is tension and harmony between the ideas of liberty and protection of the innocent. The article does not pretend to comprehensively address this tension, other than to argue that morality is strongest when our default position is to embrace liberty (vs. coercion).

The second is the concept of democracy. Once again I believe there are two principles of democracy. The first principle is the concept of majority rule. The second principle is equal access under the law to protection and punishment to all involved or all that are covered by the umbrella of democracy. This is a strong departure from the article that assumes that democracy is simply a majority – to which I disagree.

Democracy, at it's root is indeed majority rule. We do not live in a pure democracy, but in a democratic republic. "Equal access," generally comes through the courts, and is not a democratic concept. Your disagreement here makes the case for this article: that liberty is superior to democracy. Nazi Germany came into being through democratic elections, and the actions of the government were likely approved of at the time by a majority of the people.

The third concept is that of majority tyranny. I have a problem with this concept because I do not believe it is really possible. I believe that tyranny is always the result of a minority imposing protections and punishment separately and unequally on different segments of the population. Or as stated in “Animal Farm” – all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

See me comment about Nazi Germany. It may be a minority that imposes the tyranny (and some countries do indeed have small powerful governments that oppress the people--Myanmar comes to mind), but evil totalitarian governments quite often operate with majority consent.

I am interested in a discussion of how liberty, justice and equality are justified under the concepts and doctrines of classical or traditional Christianity. Especially in light of grace, compassion and forgiveness as an attribute of G-d that offer access based singular requirements of divine acceptance – Which I also believe is a misunderstanding of G-d, his gospel and his will.

The Traveler

Liberty: Jesus came to set the captives free.

Justice: I'm trying to recall the passage where we are taught that to religion (faith) is to care for widows and the poor.

Equality: Galations has the passage that declares that there is no more male nor female, Jew nor Greek, for we are one in Christ Jesus.

I don't think these are the examples or discussion you're seeking though. I'm not sure where you're going--so you may need to do more navigation here.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

First concerning Liberty: I do not believe liberty means freedom to do or choose what you want. The problem is that what one individual wants may and often conflicts with what others want. I defined liberty as the just method to reach and enact law. In order for law to be within the bounds of liberty – two principles must be achieved. First principle of liberty and just law is to protect the innocent. The second principle is to punish the guilty. There cannot be liberty without these two principles.

There is tension and harmony between the ideas of liberty and protection of the innocent. The article does not pretend to comprehensively address this tension, other than to argue that morality is strongest when our default position is to embrace liberty (vs. coercion).

When I served as a missionary my mission president once told me: "There is no pressure when the resistance is gone." Jesus said: "My peace I give unto you." Liberty is not an individual thing in that no one can take liberty from someone else for any effort to do so will only end in their loss of liberty. I do not believe a person is making a "liberating" choice if they allow the innocent to go unprotected or the guilty to go unpunished. What many do not seem to understand is the difficulty in understanding what is innocence and what is the guilty.

QUOTE

The second is the concept of democracy. Once again I believe there are two principles of democracy. The first principle is the concept of majority rule. The second principle is equal access under the law to protection and punishment to all involved or all that are covered by the umbrella of democracy. This is a strong departure from the article that assumes that democracy is simply a majority – to which I disagree.

Democracy, at it's root is indeed majority rule. We do not live in a pure democracy, but in a democratic republic. "Equal access," generally comes through the courts, and is not a democratic concept. Your disagreement here makes the case for this article: that liberty is superior to democracy. Nazi Germany came into being through democratic elections, and the actions of the government were likely approved of at the time by a majority of the people.

Equal access does not come through the courts - when there is equal access it comes from a democratic people. Democracy is not just about voting - is is a process of the people in control. Nazi Germany came into being through the illusion of democracy. The very fact that the majority of the people did not approve on the Nazi but did not stop the Nazis is prof that the process sprang from something other than democracy. In other words what they chose was not what they got - that is not democracy.

QUOTE

The third concept is that of majority tyranny. I have a problem with this concept because I do not believe it is really possible. I believe that tyranny is always the result of a minority imposing protections and punishment separately and unequally on different segments of the population. Or as stated in “Animal Farm” – all animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others.

See me comment about Nazi Germany. It may be a minority that imposes the tyranny (and some countries do indeed have small powerful governments that oppress the people--Myanmar comes to mind), but evil totalitarian governments quite often operate with majority consent.

Perhaps the problem here is the ill use of the term "Tyranny". The definition implies that the power is with the few - not the many. Tyranny implies secrets, betrayals and a enslaved people which is the opposite of democratic people.

Liberty: Jesus came to set the captives free.

Justice: I'm trying to recall the passage where we are taught that to religion (faith) is to care for widows and the poor.

Equality: Galations has the passage that declares that there is no more male nor female, Jew nor Greek, for we are one in Christ Jesus.

I don't think these are the examples or discussion you're seeking though. I'm not sure where you're going--so you may need to do more navigation here.

1. Jesus did not come to set us free but to teach us how to free ourselves. (my understanding of John 8:31)

2.I agree with you input to justice - my question concerns if G-d is just and if so does he require that those that believe in him believe in his justice? What is the justice of G-d??? - many talk about his forgiveness and grace but they leave out his justice. Let me ask this another way - Does G-d's justice appoint blessings to those that do nothing to "earn" them? Or must justice be earned?

3. About Equality - G-d asks us to think in terms of equality but does he ask of us what he is unwilling to submit to of himself. Does G-d exclude himself when it comes to thinking and teaching of equality?

BTW - I am not attempting to set a trap for you - I think you know me better than that. I am trying to determine your personal beliefs concerning - liberty, justice, morals and how your religion influences your understanding.

The Traveler

[prisonchaplain]

When I served as a missionary my mission president once told me: "There is no pressure when the resistance is gone." Jesus said: "My peace I give unto you." Liberty is not an individual thing in that no one can take liberty from someone else for any effort to do so will only end in their loss of liberty. I do not believe a person is making a "liberating" choice if they allow the innocent to go unprotected or the guilty to go unpunished. What many do not seem to understand is the difficulty in understanding what is innocence and what is the guilty.

I do not understand where you are going with this. Perhaps it would help to offer a context for the gist of this article.

Duty and Responsibility

The Dangers Posed to Liberty by Democratic Governance

“Moral defects lead to the loss of liberty. So we may say that it flourishes jointly with conscience. Decay of the one brings about decay of the other. Democracy undermines conscience by making men prefer what others think best to what they think best themselves. So it demoralizes like excess authority. It relieves men from the sense of responsibility and the duty of effort.”

– Lord Acton

The purpose of the essay was to comment on the quote. The key theme of the contest, as the title suggests, was to show that government does better to focus on allowing its citizens the greatest degree of liberty possible (i.e. the least amount of coercive regulation possible), rather than simply trying to please the most people possible.

You seem to be wanting to discuss something entirely different, and I'm not quite sure where you're going.

Equal access does not come through the courts - when there is equal access it comes from a democratic people. Democracy is not just about voting - is is a process of the people in control. Nazi Germany came into being through the illusion of democracy. The very fact that the majority of the people did not approve on the Nazi but did not stop the Nazis is prof that the process sprang from something other than democracy. In other words what they chose was not what they got - that is not democracy.

You seem to quibble with definitions, but I have no idea if you're critiqueing the main point or not: that government does best when it controls least--and in such environments morality will actually flourish more readily.

1. Jesus did not come to set us free but to teach us how to free ourselves. (my understanding of John 8:31)

What is the impact of this difference you see, in terms of how aggressively governments should seek to control the lives of its citizens?

2.I agree with you input to justice - my question concerns if G-d is just and if so does he require that those that believe in him believe in his justice? What is the justice of G-d??? - many talk about his forgiveness and grace but they leave out his justice. Let me ask this another way - Does G-d's justice appoint blessings to those that do nothing to "earn" them? Or must justice be earned?

I thought that by justice you meant government must redress wrongs (dishonest business, etc.). If so, justice would not "appoint blessings," but rather right wrongs. So, I do not understand what you mean by earning justice.

3. About Equality - G-d asks us to think in terms of equality but does he ask of us what he is unwilling to submit to of himself. Does G-d exclude himself when it comes to thinking and teaching of equality?

Creators put themselves into their creations all the time. Yet, these creations are not clones, nor are they copies. To suggest that the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of God as absolute Creator of the human species is somehow injust, because we can never become what he is--such would be unprecedented. Creation is thankful for its being brought into being--not jealous that it is not what the Creator is.

BTW - I am not attempting to set a trap for you - I think you know me better than that. I am trying to determine your personal beliefs concerning - liberty, justice, morals and how your religion influences your understanding.

The Traveler

You seem to be trying to get somewhere, and I sensed we are on completely different highways.

[Ray]

Give me liberty, or give me death!

Democracy is like a toy, to be played with.

[prisonchaplain]

Give me liberty, or give me death!

Democracy is like a toy, to be played with.

Letting Ray play with democracy might be a little like letting Kim Jong Il (the 'Dear Leader' of North Korea) play with nukes.

[Traveler]

There are 3 excellent books that have influenced my thinking on the subject of Law, justice, morals and the evolution of political thinking.

The first book is a short and a 1 day read titled "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat. This nifty little book deals with justice and what is just law and what is abuse of law. I first read this book over 30 years ago and have never found a better reference for dealing with politics. The book was recommended to me by a friend in Law school (studying US constitutional law) that was required reading for him.

The Second book is a big read “Generations” by Neil Howe & William Strauss. This book deals with the evolution of government (politics) through eras (generations) that cycle because of different values that are stressed in different generations.

The final book is titled “Values and Teaching” by Louis E. Raths. This is a most interesting book and deals with how children develop and clarify values and morals. It is a rather interesting book that deals with what can be called the “back lash” effect which occurs when a proctor of values places themselves outside, exempt or above of the moral landscape of the student – like the parent that says, “I’m the parent, I make the rules and you must do as I say or I will punish you; only if you do as I say I will reward you.”

The more advanced point is that life is an experience of learning eternal values and morals. By definition if a person is limited in what they can learn and achieve that is a “damned soul”. The scripture John 8:32 talks about freedom. But other than G-d – who is really free? My thought is that G-d loves us and intends to make us free; not on a level of that which is created but on a divine, eternal level – as only he is free.

Whenever there has been an effort to free people throughout the history of man there has been civil war to accomplish liberty of the people. It would seem that those that covet power cannot believe that the power of liberty should be given to all. Even in heaven there was civil war over the eternal liberty of man. As long as the power to govern rest on one or a few there is no liberty for all. Only if G-d is willing to make us as equal can there be liberty in eternity. If G-d intends to make us free – there must be equality. If he is the exception then Jesus lied when he said truth would make us free – ether that of Jesus did not really mean what I understand concerning liberty and freedom “on earth as it is in heaven”.

The Traveler

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

Give me liberty, or give me death!

Democracy is like a toy, to be played with.

Letting Ray play with democracy might be a little like letting Kim Jong Il (the 'Dear Leader' of North Korea) play with nukes.

It might be, but then again, I might also play nice. :)

[prisonchaplain]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Give me liberty, or give me death!

Democracy is like a toy, to be played with.

Letting Ray play with democracy might be a little like letting Kim Jong Il (the 'Dear Leader' of North Korea) play with nukes.

It might be, but then again, I might also play nice. :)

Even if you did "this time"--you'd always be a loose canon, hermano.

[Guest Monica]

God's plan for government has always been a theocracy.

Rev 19:16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

God's plan for government has always been a theocracy.

Rev 19:16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

[Ray]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

Give me liberty, or give me death!

Democracy is like a toy, to be played with.

Letting Ray play with democracy might be a little like letting Kim Jong Il (the 'Dear Leader' of North Korea) play with nukes.

It might be, but then again, I might also play nice. :)

Even if you did "this time"--you'd always be a loose canon, hermano.

If you're saying I could always choose how to act, at any time, yes, indeed, prisonchaplain, you're right.

God's plan for government has always been a theocracy.

Rev 19:16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

God's plan for government has always been a theocracy.

Rev 19:16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

It's not just His plan, it's the way He works all the time.

We're only here now to see where we're going. :)

[Traveler]

God's plan for government has always been a theocracy.

Rev 19:16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

God's plan for government has always been a theocracy.

Rev 19:16On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

I think this is talking about a "King" and "Kingdom" not theocracy. The problem with kings overseeing a kingdom on earth is that righteous kings are few and far between. Even in a democratic republic - how many good representives can we find?

The Traveler

[Ray]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

Theocracy is not only God’s plan for governing His kingdom, but how God governs His kingdom all the time.

And btw, here are some definitions of theocracy, pretty much in agreement with mine, you can find at dictionary.com

A form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities (or more properly, those with the priesthood).

A system of government by priests <strike>claiming</strike> who have a divine commission.

A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. (as in the Church)

A political unit governed by a deity (or by officials <strike>thought to be</strike> who are actually divinely guided)

The belief in government by divine guidance (or the knowledge that God’s government is)

A nation or state (or kingdom) in which the clergy (OIOW, those with the priesthood) exercise political power and in which religious law is <strike>dominant over</strike> superior to civil law... OIOW, the laws of God are better than Man's laws... Man's laws are not as perfect as God's laws

A word first used by Josephus to denote that the Jews were under the direct government of God himself. The nation was in all things subject to the will of their invisible King. All the people were the servants of Jehovah, who ruled over their public and private affairs, communicating to them his will through the medium of the prophets. They were the subjects of a heavenly, <strike>not of</strike> as well as an earthly, king. They were Jehovah's own subjects, ruled directly by Him. (comp. 1 Sam. 8:6-9).

And btw, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is now governed by theocracy, and it always will be, forever... even if it is called by another name later.