Political Quiz

[prometheus]

Pianistimo, I find it really dangerous that you apply your religion to politics. In my country a lot of right wing politicions lash out against all kinds of Islam for this reason. They claim Islam is a political Islam and is therefore incompatible with the western way of life; democracy, christianity, judaism, humanism and the enlightenment.

My critisism always was that those people just don't know any better since I can't really deny that those people want a theocracy. But shouldn't you know better?

All the muslim terrorists also have this view, the only good government is a government of god. These are the ideas of the terrorists of 9/11, those in Madrid and those in London. Also those of the terrorist cell that was dismanteled in Holland after one of them mudered a famous person, one that worked with Arjan Hirsi Ali. Actually, she claims that a pure Islam is an extremist Islam that is at odds with the western ideals. Your form of christianity seems to be very similar. Sure, you don't use violence but that what you say is the same; a theocracy. I am sure you won't like any of the historical theocracies, the Papal states, the Taliban, the Caliph, Kingdom of Heavenly Peace in China and maybe also the Egyptian Pharaoh's.

[pianistimo]

you make a point - actually in defence of voltaire.  he was not in favor of the 'divine right of kings.'  of course, america was founded on this principal, too, and did not accept the king of england as having any divine rights to taxation of americans.  but, our legal system is based (in part) on the idea of 'inalienable rights.'  who gave us these?  i think God.

all other forms of government really do seek to establish rulership based on various kinds of 'worthiness.'  some hereditary rulership (as with sunnis and many other religion/polical system - based on past rulers genetic/hereditary assumption of rule).  there are also the strong.  that's based on who wins the most in wars in battle and gets the most respect (and thus following of people).

and, then there's democracy - which asserts that all people have an equal right to become president/ruler if they want to and show political talents (not based on religion at all).  even, if i personally agree with a presidents religious views it doesn't make me able to control my countries views.  i have never attempted to vote religiously because i believe that the bible kings were established (deut. 17: ?) because the israelites saw other countries with kings and gave up the idea of having God as their ruler for a human ruler.

we did base our legal system on the idea of checks and balances.  that idea is similar to the ideas of voltaire except that voltaire was actually in favor of a benevolent monarchy (surprisingly).  anyway, all i was trying to say is that history is history and it shows a pattern of rulership that used to be (hereditary kings that sometimes combined religion and rulership together), kings that came to power by might, and now democracy - in which we choose our own rulers and they don't have any 'divine rights' that we can see (except that maybe God allows them to become rulers). 

i pray for the president and for just and good decisions for my country.  and, yet, i don't always agree with every decision.  i don't think that religion plays as big a part of american politics as you think.  yes, we allow people freedom of religion - but we do not tolerate religious fanatacism where people burn flags, riot and burn cars, sometimes torture and burn people, etc.  - this is not to say that it can't happen in our country - but thank God it hasn't happened yet.  religious toleration is what my point was.  using prayer as counter to violence is a more peaceful form of religious freedom (and some call fanaticism) than terrorism. 

[lisztisforkids]

Pianistimo, I just wanted to say I think you are really cute.

[prometheus]

I didn't really read what you wrote abou Voltare.

You want to place God in charge. How does one do this? People use a council of clerics, or a head of church, things like that. Which means those people decide, though they claim to be inspired directly by God.

Those people will be just as much inspired as the usual voter in a democracy. So there is no difference in that respect.

The point of democracy is that the state is a tool of the people, nothing more. The state does not rule, it serves. We know power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we put people in charge through democracy, most democracies are representative democracies, which I don't like.
Why does this work? Because the moment the politicans get corrupted we can just throw them out. In a council this does not work. And if the people keep voting on these corrupt people then they are themselves to blame.

You must understand the history of statecraft. It has always been about passifying the people, the ignorant angry mob, 'the great beast that must be tamed' according to Alexander Hamilton.
This has lead to suffering and war. All these atrocities in history haven't been mistakes; they have been conscious decisions of corrupt people in place of great power. So democracy can prevent these to some extent. People do not want war, ever. War always needs to be forced on people.

So democracy isn't about giving everyone equal rights to abuse power and launch the state into suffering and war, as you put it.

I am not sure how you envision your theology with God as a ruler. It seems you do not want a king that claims to channel God. It seems you want a democracy without a head of state. That is what I want also.

As for the US and a christian president, the US has played no role in anything I said before. I don't live in the US and the whole topic of theocracy has nothing to do with the US because the US has never been one, obviously. But I have been told that it is very important, maybe essential, for a US presidential candidate to be a while male christian. Of course things are changing a bit. People in the US seem to be ready for a female or even black president. But a jewish or muslim president? Or an atheist president? It seems to be a very important issue to be an outspoken christian. Don't tell me religion isn't important in the US because it is. I mean, would you vote for atheist?

Actually, I voted for a christian once. And I have only been able to vote twice. Actually, I didn't know if he was a christian or not, I just found out later. And it is not that important. Of course I frowned on it. But I check the parlement quite closely and that person did not disappoint me in representing me. We don't have a direct election for head of state, we are a monarcy, and the head of government almost always turns out to be the leader of the party that won the election, the prime minister.

Kings that call themselves gods or that are also the head of the church, that is just considered a monarchy. In theology people get power based on their knowledge of and realtionship with God. We all know how a pope gets selected. In Iran they have a very powerful councel of elders. They supersive a puppet-government that is actually voted into power.


So please tell me how you want to make God the ruler of a state.

[pianistimo]

first of all, please remind me what country you live in.  for some reason i was thinking it was germany and i thought that they did have elections for the leaders there.  but, being that i truly am somewhat ignorant (or very ignorant) of how other countries view government and how they operate - i need to be filled in on it.  please don't judge me for this - it's just something i haven't read about as much.  also, you almost need to live in a country to fully understand how it operates in reality - because sometimes what the 'law' is is sort of different than what actually happens (in all countries).

i feel like a leaf on a river - when it comes to witnessing all different presidents of usa since 8 years of age (when i became cognizant of government and it's effect on people).  i vaguely remember when kennedy was shot.  the quietness of johnson.  the embarrassment of nixon.  the somewhat fumbleness of ford.  the charity of jimmy carter.  the icon of ronald reagan.  the iron fist of george bush sr. the almost too easy-goingness of clinton.  and now, a similar tight hand on foreign policy by george bush jr. to his father.  all these presidents gave me a taste of what power was to them.  what made them 'tick.'  i can't say that i 'idolize' any of them.  they all have or had strengths and weaknesses that were completely human and fallible.  non could be completely fair to all people at all times.

God, on the other hand, in my understanding, created us all to have different 'talents.'  i do think some people are created with an ability to reason better than others - and thus rule better than some.  what i respect the most in a leader is the ability to have good advisors and listen to them.    as you say -most times absolute power corrupts.  in the usa we have checks and balances, but right now - is a strange time.  we know we can be spied on (much as other countries have spied on their own citizens ie. china, russia, korea...), we know that certain things are not according to the geneva conventions (guantanamo), we know that war was declared and will not be considered successful until we establish 'democracy' or a 'stable government?' when it seems that we cannot force this and it is eluding us much like vietnam and korea in iraq.  we cannot 'vote' for a discontinuation of the war - and so the presidency holds a lot of power right now.

i don't know what exactly would happen if we pulled out right now. or, if God would bless our efforts either way.  I think we have to have a complete return to God for Him to be directly involved in our affairs in a positive way.  as i read the bible (esp. deuteronomy) i see the idea of blessings and cursings on nations for obedience or disobedience to a law that was given to the israelites.  not the laws about sacrifice - but the laws about how to set up a government that pleases God.  it seems so foreign to us that God allowed 'kings.'  but, if he allowed kings, he must have realized it was a 'pattern' that was followed from His own soveirgnty (and the next highest was the king).  this pattern was blessed under king David since he followed God and destroyed all the idols and false gods that people worshipped.  today, people don't even know that they are often worshipping or following idols of silver, wood, stone, gold, whatever.  statues, images, ideas. 

if some ruler was to do that nowdays, people would think they were crazy.  we are not used to the idea that there is one perfect law, one perfect God, one perfect peace that emanates from his Holy Spirit, that is able to bring peace to the entire earth (for all peoples).  that's why Christ said 'my kingdom is not of this world.'  if it were, people would have recognized Him when He came the first time.  the second time, He's coming in power.  We will realize from the occurances that are supranatural, that He is in absolute control whether we like it or not.  And, He will return to rule the world as King of Kings, and Lord of Lords.  We're not used to kings and obedience...but that is because we have not had good kings.  we're used to wreckless advantage taken by rulers over their constituents.  what if...what if we had a benevolent ruler that actually cared about us personally even more than any president that ever lived.  what if He really knew how to solve problems of all peoples.  maybe the idea of kingship wouldn't be so bad.  especially if it lead to peace for EVERYONE.  no more war.  no more tears.  no more huge graveyards of young men under 24.  to me, this would be ideal.

[pianistimo]

lisztisforkids,  did you say cute?  exactly how do you mean cute.  do you mean, cute, like you say cute things.  or, i'm cute like a hamster?  or, cute like ?  ok.  this is the only battle you will probably win with me.  i am speechless when someone calls me cute.  i have to think 'do not reply.  do not get into trouble again.  ignore good looking guys.  pretend they dont' exist.  do as rachmaninov said 'ignore good looking people'  -  think of them when you paly the piano but never give them an inch.'  they might take a mile.  they might take two miles.  who knows.  they might just take you around the world and then you'd be sorry.  especially when you're married.  i married a fine man - but he doesn't play the piano.  so, i must resist the temptation to look at other men's fingers (esp. piano players and wonder how it is that my hubbys are definately the trumpet players fingers and not the piano players fingers).  well, anyway,  playing the piano isn't everything *  hums incessantly to drown out the idea that lisztisforkids is probably cute, too.

[lisztisforkids]

lisztisforkids,  did you say cute?  exactly how do you mean cute.  do you mean, cute, like you say cute things.  or, i'm cute like a hamster?  or, cute like ?  ok.  this is the only battle you will probably win with me.  i am speechless when someone calls me cute.  i have to think 'do not reply.  do not get into trouble again.  ignore good looking guys.  pretend they dont' exist.  do as rachmaninov said 'ignore good looking people'  -  think of them when you paly the piano but never give them an inch.'  they might take a mile.  they might take two miles.  who knows.  they might just take you around the world and then you'd be sorry.  especially when you're married.  i married a fine man - but he doesn't play the piano.  so, i must resist the temptation to look at other men's fingers (esp. piano players and wonder how it is that my hubbys are definately the trumpet players fingers and not the piano players fingers).  well, anyway,  playing the piano isn't everything *  hums incessantly to drown out the idea that lisztisforkids is probably cute, too.

Like cute as in, I wish you werent married.