Phil 101 - Political Authority Discussion

[Gelare]

Alright students, this is the discussion thread for the political authority lecture. As usual, I'll be updating the lecture thread as I write more chunks of the lecture. They say that if you want to make friends, two things never to talk about are religion and politics. Oh well. Got questions? Got answers? Go to it!

[Rook]

So far we've discussed, more or less, theocratic government. I want to keep that as far away from Uantir as possible. I am no God, or related to God and I don't think God pays much attention to me. So, considering all the holes in the 'God says so' justification, I'm happy to hear I don't fit that category.

[Gelare]

No one really buys into it anymore, but it's interesting to think that governments were justified on the grounds of divine right for way longer than they've been justified on anything else. After all, having God on one's side makes ruling just way easier.

[Rook]

Easier if everyone believes the same religion, or believes in a religion. Atheism and 'alternative' (not Judeo-Christian) faith are on the rise.

It's just a tyrannical scare tactic anyway. Instead of 'do what I say or I kill you' it's 'do what I say or burn in everlasting hell.' One way or the other it predatory.

[Queen Rachel]

"The most popular variant of this argument came around the mid-1600's, which stated that God had given authority to Adam, and that the current monarchs of Europe were direct descendants from Adam, and therefore had his divine authority."


To deviate from the present topic a bit, this interested me.
To say that the monarchs of Europe at the time were direct descendants of Adam seems to be a given considering the popular Christian belief that all human life sprang from one person, Adam. So that means that either ANYONE would be a God-sanctioned monarch, and people just never bothered to question it, or that popular belief is not quite as accurate as is typically portrayed.
Of course that second option implies that only the European monarchs are truly decended from Adam, and everyone else just came from somewhere else. If that's true, the inherited Original Sin would only apply to the monarchs...Which would mean that the whole basis for religion at the time (The Christ's death, so that the people would have a chance at redemption) is completely invalid. But that's a whole other can of worms.

[Gelare]

There are a few intricacies to Filmer's argument, having to do with how the rights of authority were passed down in the lines of eldest sons. As you know, the eldest sons were always the ones who were supposed to inherit the throne, and so they were also the ones who inherited political authority from Adam. Of course, since all the monarchs came from families who took over the throne after viciously slaughtering some other family, even if we could trace the lines of eldest sons, we would probably find the monarchs weren't descended from it. I've edited the lecture to make this clearer.

[Mira O'Halloran]

Politics and religion should never mesh... it's not fair to those who are different from mainstream.

One example: look at whats happening to that poor woman in Saudi Arabia: www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a=usmd&c=words&id=12420 may she safely get out of that situation. And thats practically a replay of the 1600 and some thing Salem trial. And the fact that they have "religion police" makes me scared a bit to travel.

But here's a funnier take on it: www.caw.org/articles/otherpeople.html and it also makes you wonder. I agree with the origins of humanity according to this article. It might be hilarious, but there are some thinkers and pearls of wisdom.

I guess it comes down to: why do people feel they have to be right AND have everyone agree with them?

-Edited by the king to comply with the Law of Literacy.

[Rook]

Ah yes, the other people. The Queen loves that article.

See, Mira, I believe people don't feel right unless they have everyone agree with them. It's herd mentality. Most people can't be right and disagree with everyone, because mainstream exists for comfort. Majority vote and public opinion and all that.

[Mira O'Halloran]

Then those people should clone themselves, if they want everything to to be monotonous.
I'm sick of being surrounded by sheep. Can we claim some actual physical land and have a 'no sheep' rule?

[Rook]

I'm not sure how to enforce the no sheep rule. Technically the moment the no sheep rule is the majority sentiment a paradox forms.

Believe me, I've thought long and hard about real land. Unfortunately I haven't found anywhere to claim where I wouldn't be shot or arrested.

[andreasthewise]

Once again a very interesting lecture, Gelare. Since I've now started uni in real life, covering Poltical Science and Economics, some of the stuff is making even more sense ...

[Gelare]

Your best hope for real land to claim would be if a big volcano erupts somewhere under international waters and makes a new island. Get there first - via either a boat or a seaplane - and bring a population with you to legitimate your claim to the land in international eyes, and you'll be set.

As for sheep, there are plenty of good psychological and evolutionary reasons why people want to have similarly-inclined peers around. And, logically, it isn't a problem as long as the sheep are, collectively, correct in whatever it is they're sheep-like about. The average person has no idea why giant holes in the ozone layer have been forming, but they believe that these holes exist merely because they've been told so by a bunch of scientists who claimed to analyze research data that the average people couldn't possibly comprehend! But, of course, there are giant holes in the ozone, so even though people don't understand why the holes are there, and are just blindly following the opinions of others, we call them "well-informed" instead of "sheep".

Besides, lamb chops are tasty.

[Derek Nahigyan]

I just read "EARTHBOY JACOBUS" by Doug Tennapel--who is a very religious man--in it there is an allusion to Jonah and the whale. As a child I was obligated to attend church and I remember this story, the Pastor spoke of how Jonah ran from G-D and even though he was disobeying Him, he thought to himself, "What's the worse that could happen?" Jonah was then swallowed by a great fish. I believe this is relevant because, to quote our King,
"It's just a tyrannical scare tactic. Instead of 'do what I say or I kill you' it's 'do what I say or burn in everlasting hell.'"
The power of saying "I am G-D" is great because, since most people were very religious and most people were fundamentalists, you can't afford to disobey especially if "He's" right there in front of you.
Also, in "A Short History of Myth" by Karen Armstrong, she goes into this one segment where she announces that many people believe in religion due to their need for a father figure. I believe that most people need a leader, someone strong enough to teach them, rather than command them. I've always viewed the testaments as fairy tales like 'the boy who cried wolf' they're not real but they teach an invaluable life moral. I believe that people--as of late--have grown too dependent on a leader though, rather than seize an opportunity and rise through the ranks (educate yourself, go to law school, join the senate, etc), people are much more lazy and are too comfortable with being led. I believe that everyone needs to become a leader but can only do so by selecting a good mentor, I believe that that's what the new testament tried to show people.
In the old testament, a G-D leads the people but they become too dependent--constantly complaining and asking what to do next.
The new testament has a boy just like us, who finds that he is G-D--in Buddhism, we are all G-D--and he leads the people.
Then his disciples go off and lead people, becoming leaders themselves.
Now, in present day, fewer and fewer people seem to want to lead or take responsibility. Now, there are countless people who have become too dependent on a leader.
As Olivera Travels says, "If you move faster than light, darkness will overcome you."

[Nesslandria Haneh]

Derico, I think this would make a good discussion for the controversial issues thread over in the 'Laws' section of the board.

That being said, you have a good point. A well timed natural disaster could do wonders for a monarch claiming Divine support. While I do believe that a few monarchs were placed by God (ex: King David), without doing any sort of research, I don't believe that any of the European monarchs had Divine backing. In several instances, the monarchs were even in violent opposition with the Church. Not to say that the Church was always squeaky clean, either.