|
1 members (1 invisible),
507
guests, and
130
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,526
Posts417,646
Members6,178
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964 |
Dear Joe, I'm apologize for my poor choice of words in my previous post. I don't think you have ever advocated immorality, in government or anywhere else. My point is that the government needs improvement to make it worthy of the people it is supposed to represent. I agree with you that the Iraqi people must decide the structure of their government. Originally posted by J Thur:
[QUOTE]What makes you think I would advocate an immoral government? Have I stated or implied in anything that I post that being 'immoral' should be a feature of any government?
Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Annie, First of all, some of my best friends and relatives are Americans  I was not referring to how Americans see themselves. I think everyone knows how you see yourselves - and all that about your values and flag-waving is to be respected. I have always admired the Americans for their patriotism. If I ever became an American (who knows?), I'd wear the flag on my lapel, keep it on my desk, in my home, outside my home etc. As for all men being created equal, well, the Confederate States of America also held to that, yet it approved slavery. General Robert E. Lee's wife was the granddaughter, I believe, of George Washington himself, was she not? Had the Confederacy succeeded in seceding from the Union, there would have been two American republican traditions based on all men being equal, descended from George Washington - but some more equal than others. Certainly, constitutions are ideals that must be realized through definitions through particular cases especially via the courts. As for religion, the U.S. has a great separation of church and state, does it not? That doesn't prevent Americans from being pious. But it is now illegal to even have a cross in any American government heraldry at any level. My comment on the cave-man was, yes, slightly tongue in cheek, but that's just me!  19th century anthropologists did indeed see cave-men sharing the same values and goals as they with the difference that the cave-man was more technologically handicapped and so could not realize his dreams as well. My comment is simply that the U.S. seems to feel that everyone in the world wants "freedom" U.S. style. And I would suggest that the U.S. should reconsider that attitude - which I think is happening already. I was watching CNN on the weekend, and an American soldier, upset at a demonstration or group of chanting Iraqis yelled out, "Look, we're here to defend your f----- freedom, so back off!" The vast majority of the world is rooted in tradition and the ways of their elders. "Freedom" is simply the freedom not to be persecuted for adherence to one's tradition. The idea of wanting to do "what one wants" as a definition of freedom is just non-existent in the minds and hearts of most of the world. So I was simply commenting on American attitudes toward the world. As for your flag-waving, values etc., well, the only thing I have to say to that is: God bless America! Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear John,
"The Iraqi people must decide their own form of government."
Unfortunately, this is typical American naivete when it comes to other political cultures.
They need a strong form of government that protects the rights of all, including minorities.
Not all political cultures are as developed as that of America.
Remember that when Britain left its former colonies, chaos soon developed.
I met a former seminarian from Sri Lanka who was actually shot at with his colleagues by police of the Buddhist majority there.
He cherished the British colonial flag of Ceylon and said that Sri Lanka's great tragedy began when the British left with their rule of law.
I hope the U.S. doesn't repeat the British situation via democratic values to people who just aren't ready for them.
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 339
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 339 |
Annie:
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I enjoyed your post, but was wondeirng about the following:
"...Why are we so suspicious? Because government comes from imperfect man and not from perfect God. Imperfect man sometimes has his own less-than-good motives. God Creates with a big 'C,' and man when he tries to do God's will still only creates with a small 'c.'"
How does this square with Romans 13.1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."
Just curious, since I'm not sure how Christian it is to maintain that the State is founded on human sovereignty rather than on God's will.
In Christ,
Theophilos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405 Likes: 38 |
Dear Theophilos, Excellent point! We read of the truly awe-inspiring word of St Peter to "honour the emperor" even when he is persecuting the Church. The republican style of government "by the people" etc. is based on the notion that people may rule themselves by choosing their own leaders. Like democracy itself, this too is an ideal that one may approximate. This is also one reason why constitutional monarchy is an excellent form of government, from my point of view and that of others, since it, at once, incorporates traditional and critical/democratic elements. The goal has always been how to unite the need for stability and proper reverence for state authority with the other need for accountability, critical assessment of politicians and the ability to change them when they're not doing their job. Many republican states answer this by having a president as a head of state and a prime minister who serves as head of government. The U.S. unites both roles in one person. Some have argued that your Civil War resulted, in part, from this fact. The republican prime minister can be attacked, questioned and ultimately changed for doing or not doing his or her job properly. The president is also elected but is supposed to be the representative of the authority of the state etc. My argument would be that if you are going to have such a president, you are better off with a king or other sovereign who is not elected. We only need to elect politicians who are chosen under the scrutiny of the people to do a job and whose job is judged by the people later. For purposes of stability and unity, a constitutional monarch, such as an Elizabeth II or King Juan Carlos, may best serve as the focus of historic national values and unity and stability on that basis. Authority, in such a context, truly does then come "from above" and is ordained by God. It is implemented through love and service to the people via the government which interacts with the people to ensure their best interests are being served. As a Christian and a sociologist, trained in the grand theories of socialism et al. , I believe this form of government to be the best of all worlds. When my Sovereign was made so in June of 1953, the song that was sung came from the Scriptures: "Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon King - and they all sang out: God save the King! Love live the King!" Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641 |
Yes, Robert E. Lee was married to a Custis. His mansion is often referred to as the Custis-Lee house or Arlington House. It is in the grounds of Arlington Cemetery - and has a terrific view. The Union started the cemetery there while he was "away," and, well, he never lived there again. The legend is he last glimpsed it from a training leaving - I think to Washington & Lee university - sometime after the war. I am personally unaware of any legal ban on crosses in American "heraldry" (we don't technically have heraldry, being rejectors of monarchy and all). We don't generally display sectarian symbols for obvious reasons. But Christian military chaplains certainly still wear crosses as insignia. Matter o' fact, I'm a Fed and I've got a little icon corner in my office. I spend most of my day in my office and I wouldn't feel at home without it. My agency has a written policy saying it is perfectly alright to do things like this. Freedom of religion is (despite some judges' unfortunate confusion) not freedom FROM religion. As to the soldier, I think I might have uttered words not unlike that fellow in his shoes and at his age, although I'd have try to avoid the expletive. Oh, and I should mention I did have one of my older uncles who went to Canada to join the military in WW2. He was a young pilot and joined the RCAF and at some point thereafter became a Canadian citizen. As I recall, my dad told me that his oldest brother didn't like isolationism and the "America first" movement (I know Charles Lindbergh was big into that) and he thought we ought to do something about that madman in Europe. My dad and his other brothers were in the US Army during the war, though. They were a little younger and we were in the war by the time they were old enough to enlist. Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic: Dear Annie,
First of all, some of my best friends and relatives are Americans
I was not referring to how Americans see themselves. I think everyone knows how you see yourselves - and all that about your values and flag-waving is to be respected.
I have always admired the Americans for their patriotism.
If I ever became an American (who knows?), I'd wear the flag on my lapel, keep it on my desk, in my home, outside my home etc.
As for all men being created equal, well, the Confederate States of America also held to that, yet it approved slavery.
General Robert E. Lee's wife was the granddaughter, I believe, of George Washington himself, was she not?
Had the Confederacy succeeded in seceding from the Union, there would have been two American republican traditions based on all men being equal, descended from George Washington - but some more equal than others.
Certainly, constitutions are ideals that must be realized through definitions through particular cases especially via the courts.
As for religion, the U.S. has a great separation of church and state, does it not? That doesn't prevent Americans from being pious. But it is now illegal to even have a cross in any American government heraldry at any level.
My comment on the cave-man was, yes, slightly tongue in cheek, but that's just me!
19th century anthropologists did indeed see cave-men sharing the same values and goals as they with the difference that the cave-man was more technologically handicapped and so could not realize his dreams as well.
My comment is simply that the U.S. seems to feel that everyone in the world wants "freedom" U.S. style.
And I would suggest that the U.S. should reconsider that attitude - which I think is happening already.
I was watching CNN on the weekend, and an American soldier, upset at a demonstration or group of chanting Iraqis yelled out, "Look, we're here to defend your f----- freedom, so back off!"
The vast majority of the world is rooted in tradition and the ways of their elders. "Freedom" is simply the freedom not to be persecuted for adherence to one's tradition. The idea of wanting to do "what one wants" as a definition of freedom is just non-existent in the minds and hearts of most of the world.
So I was simply commenting on American attitudes toward the world.
As for your flag-waving, values etc., well, the only thing I have to say to that is: God bless America!
Alex
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641 |
Well, Jesus tells Pilate that he would have no authority over Him if it did not come from above. But I don't think He'd have gone so far to say that Pilate was a good governor or that he carried out his duties with exemplary justice or mercy. I cheerfully (or at least dutifully!) do the things the government requires of me - I pay my taxes, I don't disturb my neighbors, I mow my lawn, I get my car's emissions inspected, I answer the census form every ten years, etc. etc. As a citizen of a free state, I make the effort to vote in every election no matter how puny the office seems and participate in government in other ways. As the citizen of a free state, I have the duty to see my government carried out honestly. The flip side of right is duty. I know darned well that the earliest Christians, including lots and lots of early saints and martyrs, didn't follow every rule - and I don't think St. Paul would have argued they should have. They didn't participate in the pagan rituals required by Roman law, and they ended up getting martyred for it. Sometimes "bad Roman citizen" = "good Christian martyr." So obviously, there is some moral judgment involved. Just because authority may at its essence derive from God, doesn't mean that human beings - in the imperfect states they create -follow God's will. My point is that human beings in free states enumerate their rights because that makes it clear what the most basic ground rules are. We say in the American system - consistent, I think, with Scriptures - that basic human rights come from God, that basic human rights must be respected by government institutions. If OUR government varies from the ground rules, then we peacefully try to push it back. If OTHER governments vary from the ground rules - particularly in a way that we see as threatening -then we generally try to push back peacefully first but sometimes we end up in a conflict situation. There are governments that we, as a country, have refused to recognize as legitimate -like the Taliban in Afghanistan. Philosophically, when human beings band together in government and agree to laws, then they do give up some of their individual freedom for the common good. And that is where "suspicion" (okay, perhaps that was the wrong word?) derives. You don't want to give up too much, but you want to make sure that your government can function. Is permitting, for example, partial birth abortion a government position consistent with basic human rights or with good government? I'd say not. Even good governments can make bad decisions on invidiual issues. So in a free state, should I just sit around and say, "Oh, well, it's the law and it is my Christian duty to accept it - sorry, little babies, I can't help you." Nope. I'm supposed to work peacefully and within the system to try to communicate the moral position and put it out there for consideration. To do less is to ignore my Christian duty. All earthly governments, even accepting that their authority initially derives from God, are in their execution imperfect human institutions. I don't personally see any way around that. Some governments are better than others, of course. (I tend to think my government is one of the good ones!) Originally posted by Theophilos:
Annie:
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I enjoyed your post, but was wondeirng about the following:
"...Why are we so suspicious? Because government comes from imperfect man and not from perfect God. Imperfect man sometimes has his own less-than-good motives. God Creates with a big 'C,' and man when he tries to do God's will still only creates with a small 'c.'"
How does this square with Romans 13.1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."
Just curious, since I'm not sure how Christian it is to maintain that the State is founded on human sovereignty rather than on God's will.
In Christ,
Theophilos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641 |
Originally posted by Annie_SFO: Well, Jesus tells Pilate that he would have no authority over Him if it did not come from above. But I don't think He'd have gone so far to say that Pilate was a good governor or that he carried out his duties with exemplary justice or mercy.
I cheerfully (or at least dutifully!) do the things the government requires of me - I pay my taxes, I don't disturb my neighbors, I mow my lawn, I get my car's emissions inspected, I answer the census form every ten years, etc. etc. As a citizen of a free state, I make the effort to vote in every election no matter how puny the office seems and participate in government in other ways. As the citizen of a free state, I have the duty to see my government carried out honestly. The flip side of right is duty.
I know darned well that the earliest Christians, including lots and lots of early saints and martyrs, didn't follow every rule - and I don't think St. Paul would have argued they should have. They didn't participate in the pagan rituals required by Roman law, and they ended up getting martyred for it. Sometimes "bad Roman citizen" = "good Christian martyr." So obviously, there is some moral judgment involved. Just because authority may at its essence derive from God, doesn't mean that human beings - in the imperfect states they create -follow God's will.
My point is that human beings in free states enumerate their rights because that makes it clear what the most basic ground rules are. We say in the American system - consistent, I think, with Scriptures - that basic human rights come from God, that basic human rights must be respected by government institutions. If OUR government varies from the ground rules, then we peacefully try to push it back. If OTHER governments vary from the ground rules - particularly in a way that we see as threatening to us -then we try to push back peacefully first and sometimes we may end up in a conflict situation. Government often don't recognize other governments as legitimate - and we're no exception to that - there were several "governments," including the Taliban regime that we refused to recognize for obvious reasons.
Philosophically, when human beings band together in government and agree to laws, then they do give up some of their individual freedom for the common good. And that is where "suspicion" (okay, perhaps that was the wrong word?) derives. You don't want to give up too much, but you want to make sure that your government can function.
Is permitting, for example, partial birth abortion a government position consistent with basic human rights or with good government? I'd say not. Even good governments can make bad decisions on invidiual issues. So in a free state, should I just sit around and say, "Oh, well, it's the law and it is my Christian duty to accept it - sorry, little babies, I can't help you." Nope. I'm supposed to work peacefully and within the system to try to communicate the moral position and put it out there for consideration. To do less is to ignore my Christian duty.
All earthly governments, even accepting that their authority initially derives from God, are in their execution imperfect human institutions. I don't personally see any way around that. Some governments are better than others, of course. (I tend to think my government is one of the good ones!)
Originally posted by Theophilos:
[b] Annie:
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I enjoyed your post, but was wondeirng about the following:
"...Why are we so suspicious? Because government comes from imperfect man and not from perfect God. Imperfect man sometimes has his own less-than-good motives. God Creates with a big 'C,' and man when he tries to do God's will still only creates with a small 'c.'"
How does this square with Romans 13.1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."
Just curious, since I'm not sure how Christian it is to maintain that the State is founded on human sovereignty rather than on God's will.
In Christ,
Theophilos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 641 |
Sorry, that last post was an accident. Ignore it. I'm having all kinds of problems typing today! Originally posted by Annie_SFO: Originally posted by Annie_SFO: [b] Well, Jesus tells Pilate that he would have no authority over Him if it did not come from above. But I don't think He'd have gone so far to say that Pilate was a good governor or that he carried out his duties with exemplary justice or mercy. I cheerfully (or at least dutifully!) do the things the government requires of me - I pay my taxes, I don't disturb my neighbors, I mow my lawn, I get my car's emissions inspected, I answer the census form every ten years, etc. etc. As a citizen of a free state, I make the effort to vote in every election no matter how puny the office seems and participate in government in other ways. As the citizen of a free state, I have the duty to see my government carried out honestly. The flip side of right is duty. I know darned well that the earliest Christians, including lots and lots of early saints and martyrs, didn't follow every rule - and I don't think St. Paul would have argued they should have. They didn't participate in the pagan rituals required by Roman law, and they ended up getting martyred for it. Sometimes "bad Roman citizen" = "good Christian martyr." So obviously, there is some moral judgment involved. Just because authority may at its essence derive from God, doesn't mean that human beings - in the imperfect states they create -follow God's will. My point is that human beings in free states enumerate their rights because that makes it clear what the most basic ground rules are. We say in the American system - consistent, I think, with Scriptures - that basic human rights come from God, that basic human rights must be respected by government institutions. If OUR government varies from the ground rules, then we peacefully try to push it back. If OTHER governments vary from the ground rules - particularly in a way that we see as threatening to us -then we try to push back peacefully first and sometimes we may end up in a conflict situation. Government often don't recognize other governments as legitimate - and we're no exception to that - there were several "governments," including the Taliban regime that we refused to recognize for obvious reasons. Philosophically, when human beings band together in government and agree to laws, then they do give up some of their individual freedom for the common good. And that is where "suspicion" (okay, perhaps that was the wrong word?) derives. You don't want to give up too much, but you want to make sure that your government can function. Is permitting, for example, partial birth abortion a government position consistent with basic human rights or with good government? I'd say not. Even good governments can make bad decisions on invidiual issues. So in a free state, should I just sit around and say, "Oh, well, it's the law and it is my Christian duty to accept it - sorry, little babies, I can't help you." Nope. I'm supposed to work peacefully and within the system to try to communicate the moral position and put it out there for consideration. To do less is to ignore my Christian duty. All earthly governments, even accepting that their authority initially derives from God, are in their execution imperfect human institutions. I don't personally see any way around that. Some governments are better than others, of course. (I tend to think my government is one of the good ones!) Originally posted by Theophilos:
[b] Annie:
Glory to Jesus Christ!
I enjoyed your post, but was wondeirng about the following:
"...Why are we so suspicious? Because government comes from imperfect man and not from perfect God. Imperfect man sometimes has his own less-than-good motives. God Creates with a big 'C,' and man when he tries to do God's will still only creates with a small 'c.'"
How does this square with Romans 13.1: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."
Just curious, since I'm not sure how Christian it is to maintain that the State is founded on human sovereignty rather than on God's will.
In Christ,
Theophilos [/b]
|
|
|
|
|
