www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall RANT: Monarchy VS Democracy.

Hey now! I feel insulted! lol Where is the Christian charity?

For starters, I would contend that prior to the Industrial Revolution, land was the only real form of capital (that is, wealth capable of generating more wealth). Thus, your "private land owners" were the real power brokers, whom the king would always have to keep an eye on, for fear he would lose their allegiance. In today's world, they would be the industrialists and financiers, and the government still needs to try and get their cooperation without ceding too much power to them.

In other words, although many things have changed externally, an awful lot has remained the same underneath. Human governments will always be just that--human governments, subject to the same sins and failings that humanity itself is subject to. This is equally true for the various kinds of monarchy as it is for the various kinds of democracy.

Some of the thinkgs I like about the American system are:

• Constitutional establishment of balance of power among governmental branches
• Constitutional direction to ensure a smooth transition of power
• The principle that--at least in theory--those who exercise power have to answer to the people

This last is especially important to me, because I see it as reflecting--or at least attempting to reflect--Our Lord's own mandate that "whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be the slave of all." (Mk.10:43-44)


Peace,
Deacon Richard

These principles are what make/made our Republic unique. Sadly, I think since the American Civil War [and the Presidency of Abraham Lincoln the first big government president, IMHO] these ideas have gradually been pushed to the side, while the executive branch has gained untold amounts of power never envisioned by the founders of our Republic. Thank the Lord we have a vibrant grassroots Liberty movement in this country seeking to return to these principles.

Then again I dream for a return to antebellum American government: a small-decentralized Constitutional Republic (minus the immorality of slavery of course!!!) but then again I may be a dreamer. (Or some may say delusional
)

You're not delusional Nelson. Those are my sentiments exactly.

I would argue thouh that Governments of the People are not of God. it is the Republicanism and Liberalism of the 18th century, that continues today, that defies God.

Monarchy can in the end declare God as Supreme, a Republic as we practice it today recognises man as supreme.

it also assumes a Majority Vote is somehow always Right or that it always reflects thee true Will of the People.

I find the instability of Republicanism terrible.

By the way, you can have checks and balances in a Monarchy, and Constitutional Transitions.

This thread was s Rant not mean tot convey deeper thoughts. For the modern world I would choose a constitutionals Monarchy that allows the King substantial, but not unlimited Power.

I'd also make him answerable for his actions, but I don't think man should be the final judge in terms of National law.

Plus, lets face it, politicians are greedy and ambitious, and we are lead by them.

Monarchs are people to, aren't they? And the have oppressed people and claimed they are doing it in the name of God. That to defies God.


You are assuming much, are you not? Yes a Monarchy can...but that doesn't mean they do. Monarchs place themselves above other men (God ordained me to rule you!) and can claim to serve God but are really dictators who have no regard for God and his Church. Republicanism today, which isn't true Republicanism envisioned by our Founders- which allowed man to live freely and worship freely but not infringe on others who may think differently (I know it didn't work out that way- way to idealized but worthy to try to live out)- is more about power- i.e the Executive branch.


You are allowed to hold such views, thats the great thing about Liberty envisioned by our Founders, but I would say that we aren't living in a true Republic anymore more a neo-Democracy controlled by an over reaching executive branch. In a monarchy would I be allowed to hold dissenting views about the King/Queen or Royal Family? And be vocal about it?


But it is good to have free exchanges of ideas.


Power Corrupts...sadly even in a Republic and the most idealized well meaning Monarchy. Even the idealized Byzantine Monarchs had their faults (and some promoted heresy with absolute force!)


What makes you think it would go away if we had a King? Look at England and the Royal Wedding. Is spending all that money not greedy? Why should English tax $ go to another person's wedding? What makes someone better than another man? Is it because he has "royal" blood? All men are equal before God- be it Bishop, Priest, laymen, or King.

We are all equal. This is the ideal of the Founding Fathers of our small Limited Constitutional Republic. (yes they had their faults- especially in regards to slavery) While they may not have all been perfect and orthodox Christians they believed that if you where an orthodox Christian you have the right to be one just don't tell someone else they have to be.


Good discussion and have a Blessed Paschal season.

In a magisterial appropriation and summation of the entire post-Constantinian debate concerning the right relationship between Crown and Mitre, Richard Hooker, the architect of the Elizabethan Settlement, in his Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, posited the crown as the image of Christ's Humanity and the mitre as Christ's Divinity.

In this respect at the very least, an annointed king is an icon; something an elected official - especially a partisan one - requires some serious casuistical reform to be.

Two images come to mind in this regard: that of Queen Elizabeth's coronation and her annointing by the Archbishop of Canterbury of the time, and a painting of Tsar Nicholas II receiving communion in the Altar at his own coronation. Both manifest the sybolism of the Two Natures of the Incarnation.

And one final word: from a Canadian-in-Britain's point of view, the Crown is much more present in daily life that some of you assume. Above all, the fact that the Crown represents no one particular political vision, means that one can espouse almost any political opinion shy of revolution without fear of being disloyal. It is why the opposition in Parliament is called 'Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition'. Practically, this means that nothing like the McCarthy Hearings could ever really gain ground, as it is not really possible to be disloyal to the State based on belief, either real or perceived.

One question to ponder is can republican governments dedicate themselves to God? And can this relationship bear fruit? I have only this to say about that, of all the "Christian Monarchies" in the last 30 years who among them have defended the Christian religion as well as we commoners here in the US? SO for Zaroves ideals to work he must have feudalism as he stated from the beginning.

The English Republic of Oliver Cromwell certainly saw itself as devoted to God, as did the Puritans who established the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bay. Geneva was also a republic during the time of John Calvin, and one would be hard pressed to find a polity that more visibly dedicated itself to God.

And yet each of these republics did not grant full rights to Catholics. Even today, our American republic does not recognize or respect the rights of a fetus.

Well, you could hardly expect them to extend full rights to Catholics, considering that the Catholic Church of their time did not consider a republic to be a legitimate form of government.

You are partly correct. The Protestant republics mentioned did not extend full rights to Catholics only because the Church did not consider republics to be legitimate. They also did not believe heresy had any rights, so they refused full rights to Catholics, Anabaptists like Mennonites, and early Unitarians like Michael Servetus (whom Calvin approved for burning at the stake while saying "Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me" instead of "Jesus, ETERNAL Son of God, have mercy on me" which would have saved him). Calvin wrote:

Whoever shall maintain that wrong is done to heretics and blasphemers in punishing them makes himself an accomplice in their crime and guilty as they are. There is no question here of man's authority; it is God who speaks, and clear it is what law he will have kept in the church, even to the end of the world. Wherefore does he demand of us a so extreme severity, if not to show us that due honor is not paid him, so long as we set not his service above every human consideration, so that we spare not kin, nor blood of any, and forget all humanity when the matter is to combat for His glory....

So, Protestants hated and sometimes persecuted and even executed Catholics as heretics and Papists; but then some Catholic countries also persecuted and executed Protestants as heretics. The ruling powers believed and practiced "Cuius regio, eius religio" translated as "Whose realm, his religion", meaning the religion of the ruler dictated the religion of the ruled. Those were not peaceful times regardless of the type of government or the religious faith - except for Poland which alleges that it never burned heretics at the stake, and I do not know if that historical claim can be proven. However, that is another separate topic.

Scotty-


This thread is a Rant. I never gave a full and well thought out Argument in it at the Start. My actual position is that any Monarch is better than a republic in form. I’ve always been an advocate of Constitutional Monarchy, though I do prefer a Constitutional Monarch who has real ,but not Absolute, Political Power. (For some reason we assume if a Monarch has any power at all tis not Constitutional…)

Neo-Feudalism is more of a dream, that would make the world run on the Model of Subsidiary as the Church teaches, and which would enable smaller Government. I still recommend Hoppe’s “Democracy: The God That Failed” to see what I mean.

Still, in our present world this model won’t be accepted, as we are entitlement and democracy Junkies who can’t sand the idea that we can’t band together and bully the Governing forces to change to suit our Whims, and prefer not to have personal responsibility for our actions but to allow society to absorb our blame.

To this end I’d for our culture and world advocate basically an American or British style Government, and replace the Head of State with a Monarch who not only possesses the Political Power in Theory but is allowed to use it.

For a Federal Alliance of Nations like America, I’d repeal the 17th Amendment an have the Senate selected by the States, and replace the President with the Monarchy. I’d prefer the British Monarch, who could select a Governor-General to execute those Functions as she does in her Dominion of Canada.

I’d then leave everything else alone.

As for the States, I’d let them have a Proper House of Lords, who are either Hereditary, appointed, or mixed, but not Elected, allow them to have State Churches with Guaranteed religious Liberty do those not in the Official Church, and allow Clergy to sit in the Lords, an elected House, and a Duke to replace the Governor.

You may thus even potentially have a perfectly balanced system in which three separate Franchises regulate the Government, thus securing a System of Checks and Balances in a much more sensible way.

That’s what I’d push for in the modern World.

Neo-Feudalism is more of a Dream for a far off time.

But I still like the idea of a Radical Libertarian Society of Private Contract and Regulation by land Ownership.

Slavophile-


I agree. I'd also like to point out that Republics tend to only involve a continual social struggle between partisan groups who neverendingly assail each other.

This is one Reason tfor a Non-Political Unelected crown.

Scotty-



Most of those Christian Monarchies pride themselves on being Democracies, and are also very proud of the fact that the Monarchs do not engage in any Political debates, but just carry out the Will of the Elected Legislature. The Monarchs thus have no real ability to defend the Christian Faith, lest they loose heir Thrones.

That said, America is an odd exception in terms of Modern Republics. If you really want to pit America against the Christian Monarchs, you should be honest and look also at the other Republics, such as once upon a Time how France was strongly Catholic and It was the Jacobins who went on a DeChristianisation campaign in the name of Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality. The French Revolutionaries also inspired most European Republicanism, especially Karl Marx, and in Europe Republicanism is mostly linked to Atheistic Philosophical beliefs.

That said, America is not truly a defender of Christianity. American Christianity drapes Nationalism and Political Ideology in the Cloak of Christianity to give it greater Authority by usurping Christ, but most often what is advocated by the Right ( and even the Left when they do this) is not what Historical Christianity Taught.

Do you really think O’Reilly or Glenn Beck represent Christian teachings over American Neo-Conservative Ideology?

Glenn Beck praised an even that happened in Tennessee, where a mans house burned down and the Fire Department did nothing as this man lost Three Dogs and a Cat and his Home, mocked the Mans Southern Accent, and said we should ignore all talks of Compassion.

Beck Cleary puts the pursuit of Wealth above the Pursuit of Compassion, and even mocked those of us who would bring up Compassion.

We see other examples of this on the So-Called Religious Right as well, with most of its Chief Actors like Joseph Farah, Sarah Palin, or Rush Limbaugh do nothing but stir up Hatred and Division, while frightening people into sending them boatloads of money to continue to fight “The Enemies of America”.

lets not forget that to them, Liberals aren’t Real Americans.

Do you really think the Message of Christ is Free Market Capitalism? While I reject the same arguments that Jesus was a Socialist, I should note that Pope Leo the 13th condemned both Capitalism and Socialism, and those are not the Only Economic methods.

Speaking of Liberals, they promote Same Sex Marriage, Abortion on Demand, and the taking of peoples wealth to give to those who do not work. They promote Promiscuous Sexuality, Moral Relativism, and Demonise those with any wealth thus promoting Greed. Class Warfare is nothing more than Greed and Envy.

Still, they swill find some useful quote form Jesus they can use to say he Endorsed them and their beliefs.


I’m sorry but, American Christians may show more zeal and may insert Christ and God into the discussion by name, but neon of them care really what the Christian faith demands of them and ultimately have created their own versions of Christianity that is nothing more than a vehicle for their own opinions.


A lot of why Christianity is hated in some parts of the world has to do with this sort of thing too.