11-29-2005, 07:59 AM
Disregarding problems with formatting and UN jurisdiction, I think the fundamental problem is contained in the opening line:
Quote: I propose an alliance between theocracies and democracies [/quote]
A democracy cannot be a theocracy any more than it can be a dictatorship. One may arrive at both theocracy and dictatorship by way of democracy, but the former two by definition do not permit democratic change. Thus, any theocracy foolish enought to ally itself democratic allies will quickly see its hold on the populace weaken.
As to the central planks:
Quote: 1. devotion to God
2. belief in one God (let us remember that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God)
3. compliance with the ten commandments, the laws of God
4. freedom to worship God [/quote]
1. Within denominations and traditions, there is strong disagreement on what constitutes devotion and what constitutes idolatry. The church my mother grew up in split over the issue of church organs, one faction believing that organs were impermissible because they weren't mentioned in the New Testament and the other that they were permissible because they weren't banned in the NT. And according to the Book of Acts, all Christians should be Communists or die at the hands of God.
2. Again, supposed monotheist Christians have intense theological arguments over the godhead, which itself is suggestive of polytheism. The most pious (i.e., fundamentalist) of each of these three Abrahamic religions are also the most likely to deny (wrongly) this plank in the platform.
3. This becomes difficult when there are such disagreements as 2. It also automatically disqualifies democracies because it requires the violation of civil rights to freedom of religion and conscience. Of course, an ochlocracy (the trappings of democracy but with none of the limits on government interference in personal realms) could coexist with theocracy, at least for a time, but that was not the alliance offered.
Why does Jahweh get protection while Vishnu does not? And some Hindus argue that the Hindu pantheon is no more polytheistic than the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. What's more, there is a strong tradition that Jesus spent his missing years in the sub-Continent (places in present day Pakistan being most commonly asserted) so why isn't Hindusim part of the same group? And if Hindus join, would Southern Baptists stay?
4. Now you're getting somewhere. Democracies must respect civil rights and the freedom to worship is one of those, subject only to the same limits on freedom as any other. So, Hindus are free to offer food to statues of Ganesh but not free to strangle travellers for Kali in the Thuggee cult; adult Snake-handling Christians are free to exercise their Pentecostal gifts but not to subject their children to it. Ritual bodily mutilation, e.g., Jewish circumcision or male genital mutilation, is available to adults making a free choice; Muslim female circumcision or genital mutilation, is not in fact based in Islamic scripture and is normally a cultural reflection of the populace pre-Islam.
So 4 is the only area of common ground, and it is already covered.
For people interested in some of these sorts of argument, feel free to read my NS Wiki page on the Christian Unity Party of Sober Thought. The basic problem is that religion lacks the capacity to compromise that politics requires; they operate on different planes.
Quote: I propose an alliance between theocracies and democracies [/quote]
A democracy cannot be a theocracy any more than it can be a dictatorship. One may arrive at both theocracy and dictatorship by way of democracy, but the former two by definition do not permit democratic change. Thus, any theocracy foolish enought to ally itself democratic allies will quickly see its hold on the populace weaken.
As to the central planks:
Quote: 1. devotion to God
2. belief in one God (let us remember that Jews, Christians, and Muslims worship the same God)
3. compliance with the ten commandments, the laws of God
4. freedom to worship God [/quote]
1. Within denominations and traditions, there is strong disagreement on what constitutes devotion and what constitutes idolatry. The church my mother grew up in split over the issue of church organs, one faction believing that organs were impermissible because they weren't mentioned in the New Testament and the other that they were permissible because they weren't banned in the NT. And according to the Book of Acts, all Christians should be Communists or die at the hands of God.
2. Again, supposed monotheist Christians have intense theological arguments over the godhead, which itself is suggestive of polytheism. The most pious (i.e., fundamentalist) of each of these three Abrahamic religions are also the most likely to deny (wrongly) this plank in the platform.
3. This becomes difficult when there are such disagreements as 2. It also automatically disqualifies democracies because it requires the violation of civil rights to freedom of religion and conscience. Of course, an ochlocracy (the trappings of democracy but with none of the limits on government interference in personal realms) could coexist with theocracy, at least for a time, but that was not the alliance offered.
Why does Jahweh get protection while Vishnu does not? And some Hindus argue that the Hindu pantheon is no more polytheistic than the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. What's more, there is a strong tradition that Jesus spent his missing years in the sub-Continent (places in present day Pakistan being most commonly asserted) so why isn't Hindusim part of the same group? And if Hindus join, would Southern Baptists stay?
4. Now you're getting somewhere. Democracies must respect civil rights and the freedom to worship is one of those, subject only to the same limits on freedom as any other. So, Hindus are free to offer food to statues of Ganesh but not free to strangle travellers for Kali in the Thuggee cult; adult Snake-handling Christians are free to exercise their Pentecostal gifts but not to subject their children to it. Ritual bodily mutilation, e.g., Jewish circumcision or male genital mutilation, is available to adults making a free choice; Muslim female circumcision or genital mutilation, is not in fact based in Islamic scripture and is normally a cultural reflection of the populace pre-Islam.
So 4 is the only area of common ground, and it is already covered.
For people interested in some of these sorts of argument, feel free to read my NS Wiki page on the Christian Unity Party of Sober Thought. The basic problem is that religion lacks the capacity to compromise that politics requires; they operate on different planes.