Government is one aspect of democracy. Being well educated is another aspect of democracy. — Athena

I'd have to disagree. Democracy, as a form of government, is solely for the administration of it purpose. While a well educated electorate probably makes for a "better" democracy, i don't know that I'd call it a necessary component. Additionally, I would not equate education/educated with search for truth.

I will repeat the US is a republic — Athena

Semantics...we are a democratic republic. Republican in our philosophy of states rights and inalienable individual rights within a federal system. Democratic in our ability to elect our representatives (which I understand has evolved over time) and grant that it is a spectrum and we have been more to one side or the other from time to time.

But, if democracy is a spectrum (degrees of enfranchisement) I do not see where you have shown Christianity rejects it outright. Surely, there was (and still is) debate on the appropriate extent of enfranchisement...but you seem to suggest that these individuals pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in pursuit of an endeavor whose ends they found entirely abhorrent. Further, you assert their abhorrence of any degree of enfranchisement was BECAUSE OF their Christian beliefs. Even Adams' argument for limited enfranchisement is based on his reading of historic democracies and views of individual independence of will, not something whispered to him by God. Your argument is the correlation - causation fallacy.

They saw themselves as fit to rule, but not the other guy. — Athena

Point? Republicans think Democrats are not fit to rule and vice versa. Libertarians think both are unfit. Socialists want the capitalists thrown out on their ear. One faction disagreeing with another and working to see there own philosophy advanced (at the expense of another) is not antithetical to democracy...it is democracy (so long as it is done through some system of election and political action).

Democracy is about human excellence, not about sinners who need to be saved.

What makes you think that? It doesn't appear to be about either. It is about the rights of individuals to have a say in the administration of their political world. In other words, it it not about human excellence or salvation...it is about human freedom; freedom which may just as well lead to all sorts of not excellent outcomes as the reverse.

Then came the problem of earth not being the center of the universe. And evolution...That is precisely why Christianity is not compatible with democracy. If there ever was a defining conflict that is it. — Athena

So now, one's views on cosmological and historical science assertions renders them incompatible with a political system...with holding that some amount of enfranchisement should exist on matters important to the public? The two are not necessarily connected and smacks of an anti-democratic opinion. It comes across as one must agree with you (at least on the things you deem important) or they are not fit for democracy...their views are incompatible. Again, that is democracy. You have your views and attempt to convince as much of the electorate as you can to agree with you. Another holds the opposite view and does the same. So long as both of you are willing to work within a system of some amount of enfranchisement neither of you appear to hold views incompatible with democracy.

Ultimately, though, you failed to show what in Christianity is incompatible with the notion that some amount of the citizenry should be enfranchised to have a say in the administration of their political system. .

Granted, the task is difficult until an adequate definition of "Christianity" is agreed upon. But that alone would be an entire thread in itself...and likely lead to nowhere.

The Athenian law against blasphemy originated with Solon. — frank

I am not sure of your point? Solon was before the democracy and later Socrates was told to kill himself with hemlock for questioning the gods. But Socrates did question them and so did those practicing the art of medicine. Philosophy, as you know, is a love of knowledge but the process of what would develop as scientific thinking, thousands of years later, was just beginning and not everyone would have pursued knowledge. Religion was just as important to the Athenians as it is to people today. Athens had its good times and bad times, such is life. In bad times people tend to turn to their gods and fear those who might offend them.

Solon was before the democracy — Athena

He helped establish the Athenian democracy. He was obviously a religious person.

I'd have to disagree. Democracy, as a form of government, is solely for the administration of it purpose. While a well educated electorate probably makes for a "better" democracy, i don't know that I'd call it a necessary component. Additionally, I would not equate education/educated with search for truth. — Aussie

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

Thomas Jefferson — Jefferson

If we can not agree democracy is an ideology, a complex concept, and like religion, only if the ideology is known can it be manifested, then it may be pointless for us to continue this discussion. Democracy has everything to do with overcoming the problems of ignorance, EVERYTHING! There are so many wonderful quotes about government and ignorance. Here is the link...
https://www.brainyquote.com/topics/ignorance-quotes

"government, is solely for the administration of it purpose" :gasp:

Education for technology is not about overcoming ignorance. It is about thinking of the young as products to prepare for industry. Oregon had a governor who thought saying that was a good way to convince taxpayers to spend more on education. I was horrified! Technology has always been the education for slaves. Liberal education is for free men. The Statue of Liberty holds a book because our liberty is dependent on literacy. I am wondering is the problem we have here is because we stopped teaching the history that is essential to understanding our liberty? Sincerely, I am thinking something has gone seriously wrong with education for technology and I feel overwhelmed by this. Democracy is rule by the people. not authority over them and they better be educated!

Semantics...we are a democratic republic. Republican in our philosophy of states rights and inalienable individual rights within a federal system. Democratic in our ability to elect our representatives (which I understand has evolved over time) and grant that it is a spectrum and we have been more to one side or the other from time to time. — Aussie

Not at all just semantics. A Republic because of fear of the ignorant. When the US constitution was written it did not have a bill of rights. But educated people fought for the bill of rights. There was not mass education, in the north some religious colonies such as the Quakers had the necessary education and it had nothing to do with vocational training. Throughout the colonies extremely few had any literacy that is essential to democracy.

I opened my argument with a quote from Jefferson because he was one of the few who had the required literacy and he devoted his life to manifesting public education. Economically Jefference was wrong, but ideologically he was right and he fought the Federalist to defend our democracy. Jefferson fought our liberty and this was not limited to states' rights. We used to stand for liberty and justice, but that is not evident in your argument.

But, if democracy is a spectrum (degrees of enfranchisement) I do not see where you have shown Christianity rejects it outright. — Aussie

:gasp: You speak of authority over the people, (degrees of enfranchisement) and do not see how Christianity is opposed to liberty and democracy? The Bible is clearly about a kingdom and that is not a democracy, but supported the autocratic church and kings with its hierarchy of authority.

The Bible tells was we were created by a God out of mud and because the man and woman ate of the fruit of knowledge, that God cursed them and would not allow them to eat from the tree of life. None of that is compatible with democracy. If you think differently, please explain how you think that is compatible with our liberty and democracy?

.but you seem to suggest that these individuals pledged their "lives, fortunes, and sacred honor" in pursuit of an endeavor whose ends they found entirely abhorrent. — Aussie

:worry: Yes there are secular reasons to favor authority over the people. We have government to protect us from each other. But that isrule by reason, not rule of human authority over the people. It is Christianity that gets us Trump and that understanding of authority is extremely frightening! Can you paraphrase what I have said? Rule by reason and a consensus on the best reasoning, not rule by someone like Trump. It is Christianity that gets us a ruler like Trump.

Further, you assert their abhorrence of any degree of enfranchisement was BECAUSE OF their Christian beliefs — Aussie

Oh yes, we agree on that. Except for those literate in Greek and Roman classics, it was the Bible that set their point of view. We might clarify some of them lusted for wealth and power as much as Trump does and that may not be Christian, but if you can get people to believe God whispers in your ear, and you, and they, know the will of God, then you have real power over the people. Bill Graham was the right-hand man for several Presidents, convincing the people it is God's will we send our young to war. Stuff like that gets presidents re-elected. It also made the Civil War extremely uncivil as both sides thought God was on their side, and war is the way the Bible tells us to behave. We must give our lives when that is what God wills us to do. I do not believe God willed us to fight in Vietnam, nor any war since then and those wars are what determined me to argue against Christianity.

Point? Republicans think Democrats are not fit to rule and vice versa. Libertarians think both are unfit. Socialists want the capitalists thrown out on their ear. One faction disagreeing with another and working to see there own philosophy advanced (at the expense of another) is not antithetical to democracy...it is democracy (so long as it is done through some system of election and political action). — Aussie

I have no problem with that as long people leave God out of it. But the Bible tells us God will give us leaders and Christians believe that and that thinking gets us some really terrible leaders!

I said "Democracy is about human excellence, not about sinners who need to be saved."

You said,

What makes you think that? It doesn't appear to be about either. It is about the rights of individuals to have a say in the administration of their political world. In other words, it it not about human excellence or salvation...it is about human freedom; freedom which may just as well lead to all sorts of not excellent outcomes as the reverse. — Aussie

Please, this is a philosophy forum. Do you know any Greek or Roman philosophers? Basic to that point of view is all plants and animals have their purpose. Fish are made to swim. Birds are made to fly. Horses are made to run. Humans are made to think. This obviously is not compatible with the Biblical story of Adam and Eve and the forbidden fruit and the command to obey God or Allah and His chosen leaders and the notion we should honor God by being good slaves.

So now, one's views on cosmological and historical science assertions renders them incompatible with a political system... — Aussie

Yes. Vital to democracy is truth. The purpose of humans is to think. And right now some of us believe science is vitally important, and some of us do not. The social, economic, and political ramifications of this are great. What is anti-democratic about insisting it is important to know truth and to think? Ignorance is extremely dangerous. Right now ignorance has thrown our nation into an economic crisis, and there is evidence we are destroying our planet. Let's see if we can reason through the importance of education and knowing truth? Knowing truth is about having good lives and avoiding bad consequences. This does not mean I take a club and beat away ignorant people, but it does mean I say, again and again, a liberal education is vital to our democracy. Rule by reason, not rule by having more power than you do.

So long as both of you are willing to work within a system of some amount of enfranchisement neither of you appear to hold views incompatible with democracy. — Aussie

Wow, Cicero- it will be what it is and if we don't get it right, bad stuff will happen. Democracy is about figuring things out. It is an ideology. It is a way of life that depends on knowing truth.

Ultimately, though, you failed to show what in Christianity is incompatible with the notion that some amount of the citizenry should be enfranchised to have a say in the administration of their political system. .

Granted, the task is difficult until an adequate definition of "Christianity" is agreed upon. But that alone would be an entire thread in itself...and likely lead to nowhere. — Aussie

Really? Let us pretend we know nothing of science. However, we study the Bible every day. How does a good Christian deal with a pandemic, without science? Which would you want to give up, science or the Biblical myths?

Democracy is silly. And America is a Republic, not a democracy. Though, that too, is silly.

It's not semantics. There are very serious differences between Republic and democracy. Plato vs Aristotle.

The obvious one is that a Republic is not a democracy, but an Oligarchy. It's ran by the "philosopher kings" not by the people.

Democracy is silly. — h060tu

Some people think it's a goal. A goal is usually a state beyond what you presently have or are.

People who place democracy as a high value may be those who suffer for lack of being heard.

What is it that lovers of totalitarianism need? Order?

Thoughts? @Frank Apisa

frank
4.8k
Democracy is silly.
— h060tu

Some people think it's a goal. A goal is usually a state beyond what you presently have or are.

People who place democracy as a high value may be those who suffer for lack of being heard.

What is it that livers of totalitarianism need? Order?

Thoughts? Frank Apisa — frank

As opposed to totalitarian rule...I MUCH prefer a democratic society.

My problem with "democracy"...is that the freer a people are, the more likely they seem to want even MORE freedom. Ultimately people in a nation like the United States, for instance, tend toward libertarianism...and ultimately to anarchy. They end up claiming they want no more government than absolutely needed, but instead strive for no government (particularly for themselves.)

It is my opinion that society cannot function and flourish in anarchy...so I suspect that "democracy" will ultimately lead to destruction.

How to reconcile this: Beats the shit out of me.

Perhaps humanity is doomed. Maybe we humans are the "ultimate virus" infecting planet Earth...as is suggested in so many sci-fi books and movies.

Only time will tell.

It is my opinion that society cannot function and flourish in anarchy...so I suspect that "democracy" will ultimately lead to destruction. — Frank Apisa

People succeed in reducing their taxes until the government is financially insolvent. There's one reason the US can get away with that, right?

What happens when or if we lose that status?

Not really sure what you are asking me there, Frank.

Would you do some re-working.

In a democracy there's nothing to stop the people from reducing their taxes below what's needed to run the state.

It's a weakness of democracy that isny present in oligarchies or dictatorships.

frank
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa In a democracy there's nothing to stop the people from reducing their taxes below what's needed to run the state.

It's a weakness of democracy that isny present in oligarchies or dictatorships. — frank

BINGO!

And since earliest time...TAXES have been a bugaboo for people.

I once wrote an essay that took aim at many people with whom I was in substantial agreement, except for...the "taxes" thing.

It addressed the notion of "social liberal/fiscal conservative."

My essay reduced to: So, by that you mean that you want all the things that SHOULD BE provided by (or a function of) government...but you don't want to contribute to paying for them.

Taxes are a necessity...and (a lot of people still with me will leave me here) are now too low...not too high. Yes, the rich should be paying a shit-load more than they are...but in general, taxes in America are way too low...not too high.

I think the last tax cut was a mistake. It mainly helped the rich and there was no need for it.

Water under the bridge now though, huh?

What is it that lovers of totalitarianism need? Order? — frank

There is a massive difference between totalitarianism, and the belief that the average person has the capacity to govern a country.

I don't believe in order, I believe in competence. Do you think a janitor can run a country? Or a sports player? Or a Hollyweird actor? I don't think so. I'm in favor of a benevolent dictatorship, of the oligarchic, autocratic, authoritarian sort. Not the incompetent oligarchic pseudo-democracy we have now. Put the most reasonable, upstanding, informed and meritocratic people in charge. Not the most garbage people, which is basically how it works currently. Creepy uncle Joe, Killery, Make Israel Great Again Trump, Obomber, Good ole' boy George Bush. Whatever.

I'm in favor of a benevolent dictatorship, of the oligarchic, autocratic, authoritarian sort — h060tu

You want a benevolent dictatorship, not a malignant one. :up: