The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Rocco, Hvizsgyak, P.W., Ramon, PeaceBeToAll
5,982 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (1 invisible), 167 guests, and 48 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,388
Posts416,719
Members5,982
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
Quote
[/quote]But its not the Genius of the Republican form of Government. If it were then the form itself would porevent the DeChristianisation proccess, but it dint in France or Russia.
Quote
Not all republics are built the same! Don't clump all republics into one nice mold.
Quote
However, they are also not Truly studying it with an open Mind and letting Christianity form them, they are molding Christianity to fit their own personal visions of what its suppose to mean, just as they mold America's Founding Vision into what they want it to be.
Quote
You can make that argument about all nations for all time! That problem is not germane to the US only! Didn't Medieval Kingdoms mold or interpret the Gospels to view Serfdom as morally acceptable and a good and positive development? The fact is people read and view the world through a cultural context. And a good part of culture is formed from our physical environment.
Quote
You conflate, with regret, American Foreign Policy with American citizenry's.
Quote
This is debatable, but for arguments sake, I will withdraw this statement from my argument.
Quote
But I never advocated forcing people to believe. I advocated the Government encouraging proper morals and Christianity, but Promotion is not compulsion.[quote]
So you wouldn't have a state run religion? IF not thats a positive.

Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2010
Posts: 115
Quote
[/quote]You do know that up till recently More Canadians attended Church percentage wise than Americans, Right?
At this time who is attending church more percentage? U.S.!
[quote]
n case you had forgotten to read your History books, King George the Third was not an Absolute Monarch who ruled alone and by decree. Britain has had representative Government for Centuries longer than America has existed.

While the Neo-Feudalism would require giving up Representative Government, Constitutional Monarchy doesn’t.

Under your system the Senate and governors would be replaced by appointments, that's called losing representation. Not all representation but more than half of what we have now!

Zarove, this has been a good discussion but I think it has run its course of usefulness. I am no closer to changing my mind than I think you are, so I will agree to disagree! I will say that Constitutional Monarchies can form good governments! But do not forget the history of strong Monarchs, Edward I (Longshanks), Henry VIII, Charles I, Napoleon B.,King Philip of France, Vlad III the Impaler, and this is to name JUST a FEW. Also remember the 80 Years War! None of these were shining examples of what good Christian Kings and Queens should be!
Good Day Sir!

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Scotty, isn’t it a bit disingenuous to say that not all Republics are the same when a lot of your Historical complaints on Monarchy would naturally assume all Monarchies are the same?

Why lump all Monarchies together?


That said, I’d allow the Churches Autonomy. They’d sit in Government, but not be subject to Parliamentary Rule over their own affairs. They’d serve as the Conscience of Society with power in the Lords. They’d have real power and a Vote, and not be interfered with internally by the King or Parliament.


Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Scotty, one last then.


Emphasis added by me.


Quote
Zarove, this has been a good discussion but I think it has run its course of usefulness. I am no closer to changing my mind than I think you are, so I will agree to disagree! I will say that Constitutional Monarchies can form good governments! But do not forget the history of strong Monarchs, Edward I (Longshanks), Henry VIII, Charles I, Napoleon B.,King Philip of France, Vlad III the Impaler, and this is to name JUST a FEW. Also remember the 80 Years War! None of these were shining examples of what good Christian Kings and Queens should be!
Good Day Sir!

Those two are bolded as they don't belong on this list.

While napoleon was for the most part an Atheist, and certainly a terror to rival Nations. he is to France a hero. He overturned the Violent excesses of the Jacobins and restored law and Orer to France, and despite his own rejection of Christianity he still allowed far greater Freedom to practice it than did the Republic.

His Napoleonic Law Code was also brilliant.

I realise Americans also would interpret any Story in which a struggle existed between Republican Revolutionaries and a Monarchy in a manner that made the Republicans Heroes and the Monarch the Villain, but King Charles the First is regarded as a Saint in the Anglican Church and his 14 years of personal Rule were seen in retrospect as a sort of Golden Era in which all was Well in the Kingdom. He was actually a good King and Good Christian who was interested in the liberty of his People. The fact that he was overthrown and executed is not evidence that the was a Tyrant and the New Model Army fought for Liberty.

Why they are included as examples of bad Monarchs I don't know.

Edward the First shouldn’t really be on this list either. Yes he's the Villain in the movie Braveheart, but he really was one of England’s better Kings, and didn't really behave in a manner that was inconsistent with the Times he lived in. Scotland saw him as an interloper but it should be remembered that he had been initially invited to intervene to settle a Succession dispute, and was really caught in the middle of a war. He was not just a vile tyrant and conqueror.

Back in England he was also known as a Just Ruler.

He also really shouldn’t be on this list. He didn’t fight Mel Gibson and the movie version is historically Rubbish.


That said, one can also list bad Republican rules, some of which Ironically are called "Monarchs" now to show how bad Monarchy is. EG, in a recent discussion with a new Friend one listed Mubarack as a bad King to show why Monarchy is easily made into a Tyranny. Never mind that he was a President.

But lets look at Republicanism. What about Joseph Stalin? Or Chairman Mao? Or Pol Pot? What about Hugo Chavez? Roppispierre? Hitler? Saddam Hussein? Benito Mussolini? Oliver Cromwell? (Fitting as St. King Charles the First was listed.)

Even some we call "Heroes" were really Tyrants, EG. Abraham Lincoln and Benito Juarez.

Listing bad Kings is not the same as showing Monarchy as evil, even Strong Monarchy. One can list ,any Strong Monarchs who were good, EG, Edward the Confessor, King Alfred, Charlemagne, King Louis the First, of France, Tzar Nicolas the first of the Russias, Queen Elizabeth he First, of Happy Memory, and many, many more.


Listing good Republican Rulers is also not the same as proving Republics are good, as just as many Villains can be named.

The real questions are, how low are the Taxes, how secure are people in their land and belongings, and how well are they Treated? How moral are they? How just is their society?



Even the most wanton and decadent of Kings, living The most Hedonistic and Degenerate of lives, surrounding by women he beds frequently and constantly drunk on the best Wins, who spends his day in the Sinful delights of the Flesh, if he costs the Taxpayer little and if he secures for his people a continuation of Just law and their personal Liberty, is far better than a Devoutly Pious President who nevertheless Taxes his People heavily and removes form them the security in their own property, and who administers a Government of injustice and inequity.




Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Oh one last addendum.

Vlad the Impailer wasn't that bad either. His fearsome reputation was mainly the product of his treatment of his Enemies, the Turks. His brutality was however necessary to secure his own Kingdom, and in Romania he is remembered as a Hero.

Often, it seems, we make Villains out of other peoples Heroes then use them to prove some sort of point, forgetting how they will be seen by others.


Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 89
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 89
It surely seems to me that were it not for Vlad III's stubborn resistance, the invading Ottomans would have made deeper inroads into medieval Europe than they did. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Vlad Tepes stood between the advancing Ottoman Turks and the Hungarian Empire. I do not defend Vlad's capricious excess. But even considering his limited resources, Vlad certainly protected eastern Europe from Islam for a time. Thus he gave the Hungarian Holy Emperor opportunity to prepare his own forces to withstand the Turks.

Those were uncertain times.

Μεθ ημων ο Θεος, γνωτε εθνη και ηττασθε

μιχαηλ

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
E
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
Offline
Za myr z'wysot ...
Member
E
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,125
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by ZAROVE
Even the most wanton and decadent of Kings, living The most Hedonistic and Degenerate of lives, surrounding by women he beds frequently and constantly drunk on the best Wins, who spends his day in the Sinful delights of the Flesh, if he costs the Taxpayer little and if he secures for his people a continuation of Just law and their personal Liberty, is far better than a Devoutly Pious President who nevertheless Taxes his People heavily and removes form them the security in their own property, and who administers a Government of injustice and inequity.
Zarove,

Would it not be true to state it this way?
Quote
A notoriously wanton and decadent King or President who executes his authority with justice (assuming this is possible) is preferable to a Devoutly Pious King or President who administers a Government of injustice and inequity.
No one would deny the hypothetical truth of this statement, although many would challenge its probability.

Still, you seem to be implying that a King is more likely to rule fairly, even if he is personally lacking in moral character, than a President, even if he has moral character. I really don't think you can make a case for such an assertion.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
Z
ZAROVE Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
Z
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 424
My point was only threefold.

1: Monarchies have not really been more oppressive or dictatorial than have Republics. While we today are told they were, and thus one of the main reasons Republicanism is better, History shows otherwise. it should also be noted that all Republics have jumped onto the Revolutionary cry for Liberty, and even the Soviet Union depicted itself as Freedom, and the Oktober Revolution as break from a corrupt and Tyrannical Tzar. Simply saying “Monarchy is Tyranny, WE WANT THE LIBERTY OF A REPUBLIC!” is not sufficient to prove that Monarchy is in fact more Tyrannical.


I have simply not seen from my reading of History evidence that a Monarchy would be more likely to restrict Freedom, and usually the opposite is True.

Look at the examples Scotty has given. Most of them really weren’t that bad at all, and even King Philip of France had his pluses to consider. However, if you are sold on the Republican ideal its easy to then buy into the Propagandistic version of History that would shore up that view, by believing all the negative press one can throw at any given Monarch, whilst ignoring the same complaints can exist even against the most revered of Elected Leaders. EG, one can easily complain in the same fashion about Thomas Jefferson.

The assumption that these Kings were bad is easy to make when you assume the Automatic Superiority of a Republic, just as its easy to assume that some Heroes pushing for a Republic were just and moral.

History really is not so easy though.






2: While I am not saying that a President would necessarily be bad or a Tyrant, or that its more likely that a Pius President would be a Tyrant than a Hedonistic Monarch, the opposite is also true. a Pious and Devour King would be much less likely to be a Tyrant than would a Hedonistic and self serving Politician who is elected president of a Nation.

I simply see no reason to assume that by mere Virtue of being a Monarch, a man would be much more likely to be a Tyrant. I actually think that this makes him much less Likely to be a Tyrant.


3: Actually, a case can be made for the idea that a Morally Corrupt King being less likely to be a Tyrant than a president even if said President was Morally upright personally.

Look at the contrasts between Morally Pious Oliver Cromwell, and Morally hedonistic Charles the Second. Charles may not have been the most moral of men, but he granted far, far greater Liberty than did Cromwell in his Zeal to eradicate what he saw as impure Christianity or Pagan practices, and his Treatment of the Irish Alone for their stalwart refusal to abandon Catholicism is nothing less than atrocious.


Monarchies function by nature on Tradition. Republics function by Nature on a constant struggle and shifts in balances of Power. A Monarch is not elected by the People but either inherits the Throne or is chosen in a conclave by a limited number of Electors from the ranks of those with proven service. There is no competition for the Throne on average, and while contested Thrones have lead to struggles, even wars, the Truth is that these events are much less likely to occur in a Functional and established Monarchy than sometimes its Imagined, and in general Ambition, Greed, and political compromise to win support are simply not as often employed. That’s not to say they are fully absent, but they aren’t the business of the Day as they are in Republics.



This is also true: A Monarch may find it in his own best interest to promote the old Order and thus to secure existing precedents in Law than would an Elected President who is under constant demand for reform or Change of some Kind. At the very least, a King not uninterested in actual Governance and who is more interested in his own pleasures will simply fall back on Precedence to make things run more smoothly, while its highly unlikely a President could be lax and achieve the position he is in as running for office demands Ambition. You will thus not find Lazy Presidents who simply le the Machines run as hey always have with Minimal Effort, he is compelled both by the forces that placed him in power, and his own Ideological Desires, to enact a constant series of Reforms in order to both Justify his Position and to secure the Goals that he had established for himself in order to run for President.

I’d actually argue that its more likely for a Democratically Elected leader to be a Tyrant than a Monarch for this reason. This is true even for those who are Morally Just and run, as opposed to an Immoral Monarch. Rather than being less likely because he’s a common man elected by the people to represent them, he’s more likely as by definition he’s in power because of a special interest he represents, a Numerical superiority to a rival at voting day, and his own desire to hold the office.

While a King has power Automatically bestowed upon him, and is thus not beholden to said groups and is less likely to be swayed by offers from them as they can give him nothing, in general. A King is also not inherently an ideologue who came to office on the Promises of some Social Change or to favour some partisan Agenda, and thus has no real need to secure his position by catering to that interest.

While it is certainly preferable to have a Morally Just man lead us whether this man is elected, appointed, or Hereditarily placed, and while it is also True that morally corrupt men will sometimes occupy the offices, I simply don’t see the great advantage of a republic in minimising the impact in Immoral Conduct, especially as I see the actual partisan nature of republican politics as itself morally corrosive on society, as well as this underpinned Logic which leads to nothing more than the Randian Rational Self Interest conclusion.


Page 6 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moderated by  Irish Melkite, theophan 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2023). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5