Your Favorite Form Of Government

[Old_Joe]

How about a Theocracy?

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Old_Joe' date='Sep 13 2005, 02:44 PM']How about a Theocracy?
[right][snapback]721961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


well A theocracy can be run in many ways, while I have no problem with a theocratic Monarchy a theocratic Republic is potentionally destructive to the religion itself.

[White Knight]

[quote name='Old_Joe' date='Sep 13 2005, 02:44 PM']How about a Theocracy?
[right][snapback]721961[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]



A theocracy is a type of government that could go ethier way, depending on who you have to run it, is how it will turn out to be.

[musturde]

y federalism?

[son_of_angels]

[quote]

well A theocracy can be run in many ways, while I have no problem with a theocratic Monarchy a theocratic Republic is potentionally destructive to the religion itself.

[/quote]

My problem with this statement is that it doesn't match history. Consider Iran. There has been no liberal shift out of fundamentalist Islam, nor any real movement away from the government of the Imams, yet republican principles have been carefully applied.

I would say, generally, when people are free both to practice their religion in safety and to control their nation under the principles of that religion, the religion will take on a decidedly fundamentalist/charismatic/evangelical nature. The key with theocratic government is not to give the unreligious an open target (like the king, political parties, etc.) on which they can attach their hatred. After all, Christianity itself was not able to completely engulf the west until it could convert the major governmental centers of the Roman Empire, culminating in the reigns of both Constantine and Theodosius. Until then it was a hidden religion, a persecuted religion, which gave the early martyr saints a sense of solidarity [b]because they relied on each other[/b]

If this were reasonably applied to government (i.e., a college of deacons, lay apostolates, etc.) it would have the same effect as the martyrs, because it would reflect a solidarity between the people about the religion. Early Christians were absolutely obedient to their bishops, not because of the extraordinary powers attached to them, but because they were the heroes of their faith, speakers of an oppressed and downtrodden people. Likewise in modern Iran, and in many Islamic nations, this solidarity, which is lacking now in Christian circles, must be encouraged by lay holiness.

I know it has been a long time since this thread was discussed, but I thought it worthwhile to respond to this statement.

[son_of_angels]

[quote]
well A theocracy can be run in many ways, while I have no problem with a theocratic Monarchy a theocratic Republic is potentionally destructive to the religion itself.

[/quote]

My problem with this statement is that it doesn't match history. Consider Iran. There has been no liberal shift out of fundamentalist Islam, nor any real movement away from the government of the Imams, yet republican principles have been carefully applied.

I would say, generally, when people are free both to practice their religion in safety and to control their nation under the principles of that religion, the religion will take on a decidedly fundamentalist/charismatic/evangelical nature. The key with theocratic government is not to give the unreligious an open target (like the king, political parties, etc.) on which they can attach their hatred. After all, Christianity itself was not able to completely engulf the west until it could convert the major governmental centers of the Roman Empire, culminating in the reigns of both Constantine and Theodosius. Until then it was a hidden religion, a persecuted religion, which gave the early martyr saints a sense of solidarity because they relied on each other

If this were reasonably applied to government (i.e., a college of deacons, lay apostolates, etc.) it would have the same effect as the martyrs, because it would reflect a solidarity between the people about the religion. Early Christians were absolutely obedient to their bishops, not because of the extraordinary powers attached to them, but because they were the heroes of their faith, speakers of an oppressed and downtrodden people. Likewise in modern Iran, and in many Islamic nations, this solidarity, which is lacking now in Christian circles, must be encouraged by lay holiness.

I know it has been a long time since this thread was discussed, but I thought it worthwhile to respond to this statement.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I think that a good modification to the US government would be to have our legislators only be able to propose legislation and once a bill is passed through Congress it is voted up or down by the people. It must receive a simple majority of both 'yes' voters in the whole nation and states with a majority of 'yes' voters to become law. The executive branch becomes responsible for executing the laws. All voting would be done electronically and after some amount of time for local debate has elapsed. Budgets would be voted on line-by-line and if spending exceeds revenues, items are dropped from the budget starting with the lines that received the least number of votes. Excess revenue is distributed to the states proportionally by population until possibly taxes are decreased.

I think this sort of national democracy would work because it would force the legislators to write good legislatoin because the laws could easily be voted down by the people. Pork barrel spending also gets thrown away. This also reduces the federal load of government and puts more back into state and local governments.

[hierochloe]

Oh man, 1337 yer name is teh pwnz3r.

[Aloysius]

[quote]How so? How is it intrinsic?

God owns this earth; who are we to divide it up and hoard it to ourselves? Now, if you are talking about houses and personal possessions, then I agree with you to an extent, but if you are referring to large plots of land (and the like), then we'll have to disagree.

Every man has an intrisic right to have access to land than can sustain him. [/quote]

The Church teaches, based on the Genesis account, that God gave stewardship over ALL of his creation to man, giving him the duty of [i]owning[/i], not just having access to, the land and working on it.

Man is created in the IMAGIO DEI, the image of God, and as such has a creative intuition within him to create his own world for himself that he basically rules over. his property, not public property.

And this is the reasoning Pope Leo XIII of blessed memory gave for condemning socialism: that man has a right to own property. Anytime a government infringes any part upon the property that a man owns, it is transgressing upon natural law. To deny the right to private property is to deny man that thing which separates him from the beasts.

That's the main point of Rerum Novarum. Unions don't have to be socialist, that's why Leo invoked the great guilds of old that weren't tainted by socialist concepts when he praised the practice of unions. Fair wages are motivated by the idea that the person should RECEIVE something that is PERSONALLY his, i.e. private property, for his work.

[ardillacid]

The perfect government. one run by me.

[Aloysius]

I agree. The perfect government is one run by me.

Me governing my own house, my own family. And by subsidarity anything that my small government over my small family can do sufficiently should be respected and left to me by any higher governments.

Then there's the city government, which by subsidarity should be given to do anything that it can do sufficienty.

Then there's the state government, which by subsidarity should be given to do anything that it can do sufficiently.

By the time we get to the federal government, about the only stuff left should be international policy, national defence, and settling any disputes that should arise between state governments.

That would be the Republic for which my United States Flag is supposed to stand for

[Aloysius]

bump

[Malajacafa]

Monarchy. Catholic Monarchy.

[Socrates]

Bond. James Bond.

[Ed Normile]

I voted Republic, what I would really like to have is Limited.

ed