Replacing God with government

[shunyadragon]

Obviously this no longer applies to the modern world where people can select their own leaders, but historically there is a decent argument that a sense of sacred kingship was better than the alternative that was raw power.

In the past Monarchies and Theocracies represented raw power.

If you look at the later Roman Empire, once the taboo against killing the ruler disappeared completely, it just became a free for all.

I do not believe the Roman Empire government is representative of government issues today.

People feeling the ruler had some kind of divine sanction for their role was better for stability than everyone just thinking the guy with the biggest stick gets to rule.

Divine rule in history represents the biggest Divine stick

 

[shunyadragon]

It means that the oath of allegiance implies recognition of the doctrine of the Church of England. This is evident from Article 9 of the Anglican Articles of Religion and the fact that the state treats people as persons, not men.

This on the surface may be what it means, but recognition of the doctrine of the Church of England is superficial and lacks any real power. IT remains in Great Britain that the Monarchy is only a cultural figurehead without any real power.

 

[shunyadragon]

There is evidence for the laws' existence.
But none for whether they were created
or simply always are.
Consider that it's typical for believers to
say their gods weren't created, but rather
always existed. Both claims are unverified.

The word "factual" should apply to claims
that can be independently & objectively
verified. The Bible is a book from just 1 of
many different religions. There's no objective
basis to say that it is true or singularly true.

Like Christianity, Islam and Judaism the belief that the ancient scripture is "singularly true" is the basis for justification of "singular "Divine Right" to rule as one form of tyranny where others do not have a voice in government or the "singularly true" religious based laws.

Statism is an odd word used in this thread describing oppressive government. It neglects that governments in the past and present "Divine Statism" represents historically very oppressive governments.

 

[Ebionite]

This on the surface may be what it means, but recognition of the doctrine of the Church of England is superficial and lacks any real power.

It's not superficial because of the penalty of swearing a false oath. In commerce, truth is sovereign.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This on the surface may be what it means, but recognition of the doctrine of the Church of England is superficial and lacks any real power. IT remains in Great Britain that the Monarchy is only a cultural figurehead without any real power.

There are several examples from the colonies that show this isn't the case. Here in Canada, we've had a few cases in recent years where the power of the monarch (vested in the Governor General) was able to have real influence.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are several examples from the colonies that show this isn't the case. Here in Canada, we've had a few cases in recent years where the power of the monarch (vested in the Governor General) was able to have real influence.

I would like to see the "examples," because as far as I know the civil govern ment has the last word. Yes, in any country the churches have some influence on the government. I, of course would strongly object if the "influence" is coercive over the will of the people or the elected government.

I do know that in Canada, like in the USA the churches had considerable more influence in the government.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's not superficial because of the penalty of swearing a false oath. In commerce, truth is sovereign.

I believe swearing a false oath would bring the wrath of government regardless.

 

[Augustus]

I do not believe the Roman Empire government is representative of government issues today.

Yes, that’s why I explicitly stated this is no longer relevant to the modern world but is an interesting historical detail.

Divine rule in history represents the biggest Divine stick

But might have served some practical utility if it made for more stable governments, and there is a decent case that it did.

A useful fiction.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would like to see the "examples," because as far as I know the civil govern ment has the last word.

The cases where the Governor General (or Lieutenant Governors of the provinces, also acting in the monarch's stead) have had decisions with real impact have generally involved the Governor General's decision to prorogue Parliament or their decision on which party/parties should form the government.

In particular, there's GG Michaëlle Jean's decision to assist the government of the day to silence debate on controversial issues by proroguing Parliament in 2008 and again in 2010.

Going back further, there's the 1925 King-Byng Affair (where the Canadian GG refused the PM's request to dissolve Parliament for an election) and the 1975 Australian Constitutional Crisis (where, on his own initiative, their GG dismissed the PM and invited the leader of the opposition to form a government).

Yes, in any country the churches have some influence on the government. I, of course would strongly object if the "influence" is coercive over the will of the people or the elected government.

Sure. This is especially apparent with our taxpayer-funded religious schools.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I see a problem when humans reject God as the ultimate authority and the One from Whom human rights are endowed.

Human rights don't come from any gods. In fact, they are quite recent and are literally the result of what you call "statism".
In fact, in every theocracy ever known to man, both past and present, human rights have been trampled left and right.

Many of these human rights, in fact, would be considered herecy / blasphemy / against the religious rules.

Statism or human government as the ultimate authority steps in and often demands absolute power becoming a controlling tyrannical entity.

Theocracy matches that description really well.

What do you think?

I think what you wrote is obviously and demonstrably false

 

[Augustus]

would like to see the "examples," because as far as I know the civil govern ment has the last word

You are right.

The monarch is not doing anything that is not decided upon by politicians or those under political control.

Penguin is confused because he mistakes political appointees who are nominally representatives of the crown for people being chosen by the monarch to do their bidding.


The governor-general is formally appointed by the monarch of Australia with a commission made under the authority of section 2 of the Constitution and regulated by letters patent issued by the monarch.[10][11][3] When a new governor-general is to be appointed, the current prime minister recommends a name to the monarch, who by convention accepts that recommendation.[8]Prior to the 1940s, the recommendation was made and decided by the Cabinet as a whole.[12] The monarch then permits the recommendation to be publicly announced, usually several months before the end of the existing governor-general's term. During these months, the person recommended is referred to as the governor-general-designate. After receiving their commission, the new governor-general takes an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the monarch and an oath or affirmation of office.

 

[Dimi95]

I think posts like yours makes me even more appreciative of the separation of church and state.

I agree with you
The problem is that most people don't understand the meaning of the verse:
"So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s."

Many see the problem with institutions, and ignore the fact that so many lived and died to erect and establish protection and guidence, which for all their faults , have served us so well.

I am sorry @InChrist , but i think that we should look forward and not backwards.

I agree that the state abuses power very often , but so does the population of the world and so do many religious people.

We are where we are , for a reason.

 

[InChrist]

Regarding the OP... do you honestly even see any way of making such a proposal work on its own terms?

It does not take a lot of skill or effort to notice that there isn't any coherent view on what "god" would see as "proper" human rights. People usually do better on their own, as a matter of fact.

Also, Fascism is strongly enabled by theocratic ideas, even more so than by ethnic chauvinism.

What you are proposing is not "democracy", but rather theocratic anarchy. Hard pass.

I’m not proposing a theocracy at all. I prefer the constitutional republic the U.S. was intended to have. I am just saying that when individual people lose their acknowledgment of God or understanding that human value and rights emanate from the Creator God…then people look to government as God, which I think becomes dangerous.

 

[LuisDantas]

I’m not proposing a theocracy at all. I prefer the constitutional republic the U.S. was intended to have. I am just saying that when individual people lose their acknowledgment of God or understanding that human value and rights emanate from the Creator God…then people look to government as God, which I think becomes dangerous.

That... just doesn't seem likely to ever happen.

 

[InChrist]

That... just doesn't seem likely to ever happen.

Are you saying it’s not likely that people will or do look to government as their God?

 

[Sand Dancer]

I see a problem when humans reject God as the ultimate authority and the One from Whom human rights are endowed. Statism or human government as the ultimate authority steps in and often demands absolute power becoming a controlling tyrannical entity.

What do you think?

“According to philosopher Harry Binswanger (an associate of the late Ayn Rand’s) fascism and communism (which the world has suffered immeasurably under) are two of the more well-known variants of statism. He is quoted as saying: “Fascism is racial statism and communism is statism of economic class.” However, as we have experienced in the modern day, some leftist democracies should also be considered a form of statism, particularly where the state plays a significant role in regulating the economy, introducing and regulating social welfare programs and engaging in social engineering. You see, even though our lives are full of freely made choices, we are also constrained by the rules and regulations of the State which rules over us. Therefore, in this age, the human experience is an uneasy duality of autonomy and regulation. I say “uneasy” becomes it is becoming apparent that as time goes on, those who see statism as a worthy replacement of democracy are really advocating for less autonomy and more regulation.”

Setting Out To Dethrone God: The Slippery Slope Of 'Statism'

As we have seen with other political and social ideologies in the past and present, the purveyors of this reality then set out to dethrone God. That is why all forms of statism must be rejected by Christians. We should not entertain the acceptance of any ideology which seeks to usurp God.

harbingersdaily.com

Which god are we supposed to use for rules? All of them?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I see a problem when humans reject God

Which god?

 

[F1fan]

I’m not proposing a theocracy at all. I prefer the constitutional republic the U.S. was intended to have. I am just saying that when individual people lose their acknowledgment of God or understanding that human value and rights emanate from the Creator God…then people look to government as God, which I think becomes dangerous.

Rights don't come from Gods, they are decisions democracies make for themsleves.

And who sees government as God? I've never heard anyone say such a thing except you.

 

[InChrist]

Which god?

Which god are we supposed to use for rules? All of them?

Although, I believe the biblical God is the Creator, I am not advocating for a particular God. Rather, I am saying if people don’t acknowledge a higher power or authority the danger is in looking to government or allowing government to become too big or controlling in their lives.

 

[InChrist]

Rights don't come from Gods, they are decisions democracies make for themsleves.

And who sees government as God? I've never heard anyone say such a thing except you.

If people look to government for answers to life’s problems, for money, for their needs to be met, then I think they are looking to government as their god. A government which has people totally dependent upon them can easily cross over into becoming tyrannical.