OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 03:20:18 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Religion and Politics  (Read 4098 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« on: December 12, 2003, 09:15:10 PM »

I hope all are having a blessed Advent/Nativity Fast.

Does your religious faith influence your political affliation?

  If you are a member of a conservative church does it follow that you are a member of a conservative political party.  How much does your faith inform and shape your political views?


Carpo-Rusyn
RC and sometime monarchist
Logged
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #1 on: December 12, 2003, 09:23:51 PM »

Carpo: does not faith influence my politics? YES!! When it came time for me to first register to vote, I did what everyone SHOULD do - I researched the issues and where the parties stood on them - HENCE in good conscience there was ABSOLUTELY NO WAY I was going to register as a demoncrat.  Sadly, the best choice I could make was for the Republican party.  I wish there was a viable third party, specifically one that openly supports Christian values. The closest I have seen to a viable third Party (at least in my neck of the woods) is the Constitutional Party.  A Few years ago, it was the only party to field a PRO-LIFE candidate for the governors office here in PA.  They did pretty well, but after that one election *poof* gone.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
arimethea
Getting too old for this
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 2,968


Does anyone really care what you think?


« Reply #2 on: December 12, 2003, 09:54:01 PM »

There is no perfect political party. The Democrat party supports abortion, the Republican party's finacial plans tend to hurt the lower class, the Libertarian party wants drugs and prostitution to be legal. As a good Christian you can find fault with every party and every canidate.

Often times those who rule must make choices for the good of the county that are outside of the acceptable for a Christian.

When I go vote, and yes I vote in every election, is to study the canidates and what they stand for and how they vote and make the best choice I can. This forces me to use the write in spot a lot as a form of protest, this last election I wrote in Reggie Miller to be the next mayor of Indianapolis.
Logged

Joseph
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #3 on: December 12, 2003, 11:22:44 PM »

Until we get some kind of viable "Monarchist" party on the ballot, I think I'll be voting for the man rather than the party.
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #4 on: December 12, 2003, 11:29:52 PM »

I agree with the American Founding Fathers on Monarchy - I have no king but Christ.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #5 on: December 12, 2003, 11:35:24 PM »

I agree with Plato on monarchy  Smiley
Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
David
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of the South)
Posts: 1,952


Retired GM


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 13, 2003, 02:05:26 AM »

I am not registered with any political party, as none of the current ones in America follow my views as formed by The Church.  Those views in brief:

Pro-Life
Anti-Capital Punishment
Pro-Environment
Anti-Euthanasia

As far as fiscal policy goes, I tend to follow democratic views, but am not opposed to voting for other plans if they seem like they might work.  Economics aren't nearly as important to me as are social/moral issues.
Logged

"When looking at faults, use a mirror, not a telescope."
-Yazid Ibrahim
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #7 on: December 13, 2003, 09:30:54 AM »

[I agree with Plato on monarchy]

[I agree with the American Founding Fathers on Monarchy - I have no king but Christ]

I agree with Charles I on monarchy.

I agree that there is no perfect political party.  Isn't it amazing though that here in the states conservative Christians tend to vote Republican while liberal Christians tend to vote Democrat.  

Have any Orthodox on this forum ever read Hilare Belloc or G.K. Chesterton?  I am wondering if there is a Orthodox equivalent.

CR
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #8 on: December 13, 2003, 09:33:14 AM »

David

[Economics aren't nearly as important to me as are social/moral issues.]

Why?  Isn't how we use our resources a social/moral issue?  

CR
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #9 on: December 13, 2003, 09:35:59 AM »

Vicki

Yeah I agree about GKC.  As far as Belloc..........well?

CR
Logged
The young fogey
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,522


I'm an alpaca, actually


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 13, 2003, 11:01:58 AM »

Quote
Does your religious faith influence your political affliation?

Indirectly - it helps form my political beliefs but I agree with those here who have said no one party is right on every issue.

Quote
If you are a member of a conservative church does it follow that you are a member of a conservative political party.
 

No, because 'liberal' and 'conservative' in politics, unlike in religion, are relative terms - their meaning changes. As anybody who's read my blog knows, I am essentially a libertarian (which, amazingly, doesn't necessarily contradict monarchist sympathies), which roughly coincides with what's called 'conservatism' (at least the kind in America before World War II and last represented by Republican Sen. Robert Taft in the 1950s) but 200 years ago was called economic 'liberalism'. So one could say I am a classical liberal.

Christians agree on the ends - peace, charity, justice, etc. - but the means are not matters of dogma, and so we are free to disagree on them.

However, I'll add that a well-informed person is obligated to choose the relatively best method and not one that obviously doesn't work.

Quote
How much does your faith inform and shape your political views?

Very much. I understand why well-meaning Christians support the Left and socialist plans - modern liberalism is basically Christianity without Christ - but believe they are wrong because based on what little I know about government and economics, those plans don't work.

An example from history of the disconnect one sometimes sees of religious and political/economic conservatism: I understand the short-term practical and historical reasons behind the longstanding ethnic Catholic working class-Democrat (or Labour) connection. (I think immigrant Eastern Orthodox tended to vote the same way.) I also believe objectively in the long run they were wrong.

I haven't read Belloc. Re: Chesterton, he's a lot less verbose than many Eastern Orthodox, except perhaps the Desert Fathers, and even with those few words he goes over my head a lot, but when I do understand him, he's great!

'I am afraid that I am a completely unregenerate High Tory. I believe that wealth carries responsibilities towards the less fortunate, and believe firmly in old-fashioned paternalism with every community taking care of its own. I distrust both unfettered Capitalism and Socialism, or any other system that fails to take account of original sin. Catholic socialism a la Frs. Conrad Noel and Jack Putterill might be okay in theory, but in practice it might just be a little too utopian.'

- Fr Peter Robinson
« Last Edit: December 13, 2003, 11:54:02 AM by Serge » Logged

Tony
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


« Reply #11 on: December 13, 2003, 12:02:43 PM »

You may be right about Chesterton. After all one of his most famous books is _Orthodoxy_  Grin

In Christ,
Anthony

G.K. Chesterton...(I think he was more Orthodox than he let on ) and Belloc... Grin
Logged
Keble
All-Knowing Grand Wizard of Debunking
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Posts: 3,371



« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2003, 12:38:24 PM »

I'm a Democrat because (at least in this part of Maryland) Democrats get a vote.
Logged
The Caffeinator
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 433



« Reply #13 on: December 13, 2003, 05:15:48 PM »

I once voted straight party Libertarian, but have since been unable to reconcile my prolife, pro-family views with their platform. I voted straight party Republican in the last election. I don't think I'll do that again either, because one of our lovely senators sent me a letter proclaiming the merits of experimental cloning. (If you're in Texas, this was Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson.)

I don't know if I'll vote again next election, but voting the palanca's not doing it for me anymore.
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2003, 01:33:01 AM »

I vote Pro-Life. Normally I don't like to discuss politics in connection with my faith.

I don't think it is wise to make too close a connection between any one secular political party and the kingdom of God.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
gregory2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 405


Most Holy Theotokos, Save Us!


« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2003, 08:54:09 PM »

There's a letter to the editor in the recent "The Orthodox Church" newspaper (OCA publication) where some lady writes in saying how it's really inconsistent to vote Democrat and be an Orthodox Christian because part of the platform of the Democrat party is pro-abortion.  At least on the Republican side of things this isn't so.

This makes me recall when I was a teenager going to church with my parents at an urban Greek Orthodox church in Wilmington, Delaware -- when we came out of church "Vote for Dukakis" flyers were on the windshields of all the cars.  My Dad was livid -- Greek Orthodox, yes.  Voting for Dukakis, no!  (I think of George Stephanopoulos along the same lines -- a good priest's son and a nun's brother that working for President Clinton???)
Logged

"Anything that is worth accomplishing cannot be accomplished in a lifetime." - the Holy Fathers
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2003, 02:28:01 PM »

There is very little difference between the Demoncratic and Republic Parties today.  But the differences that exist, are profound.  If you break it down it's simply this - the Demoncrats are socialists and the Republicans are capitalists.  Demoncrats are for redistribution of wealth and entitlements - the republicans are for free trade and the right to keep what you earn.  Capitalism will run amuck without Christian principals to curb abuses and excesses, but socialism is contrary to the gospel.  YES we should give to help the poor - but we should never be forced to give  - does the dole ever help the poor?  No.  It just keeps the placated and docile and inclined to lick the hand that feeds them.  One need only look at Rome to see the results of the dole upon society.  Entitlements do not help - they destroy.

oh and Chesterton transcends religious boundaries.  He spoke truth and that crosses all lines. Smiley
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2003, 02:29:43 PM »

I once voted straight party Libertarian, but have since been unable to reconcile my prolife, pro-family views with their platform. I voted straight party Republican in the last election. I don't think I'll do that again either, because one of our lovely senators sent me a letter proclaiming the merits of experimental cloning. (If you're in Texas, this was Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson.)

I don't know if I'll vote again next election, but voting the palanca's not doing it for me anymore.

I have only ONCE in my life ever pulled the party lever in an election and it was in the last election.  I always vote the issues, so I choose person by person, office by office.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
shanmo9
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 63


OC.net


« Reply #18 on: December 18, 2003, 05:12:52 PM »

I  generally vote republican because I am very conservative at the core. However, I believe that most politicians are in it for themselves and would sell their souls to get elected.  

Very few have any real principals or beliefs. ( for example look at Al Gore who for years was pro 2nd amendment and pro life, or Ted Kennedy who claims to be R.C. , but pays no heed to the teaching of the church )

Let's face it, this nation, the U.S., has turned it's back on God and His Law a long time ago.  We butcher millions of innocent babies,  ignore our elderly and pass off our responsibilty to care for and to HONOR them to a seculiar goverment. And then we have enough nerve to approach a just God and ask Him to bless this nation??  

Come to think of it, I'll think I'll just stay home in the next election.  :-";"xx
Logged

Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on me a sinner!
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #19 on: December 19, 2003, 01:35:23 AM »

shanmo9 - funny how all the people you mention as being duplicitous are all DEMONCRATS!!  A portion of American society I agree has turned its back on God and his laws - but not all of us have!  There is still hope.  SLIM hope, but still hope.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 19, 2003, 10:07:47 AM »

Bro. Max,

Quote
I agree with the American Founding Fathers on Monarchy - I have no king but Christ.

I agree with the Holy Scriptures, that Christ is the "King of kings". Smiley

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 19, 2003, 10:14:20 AM »

Serge,

Quote
No, because 'liberal' and 'conservative' in politics, unlike in religion, are relative terms - their meaning changes. As anybody who's read my blog knows, I am essentially a libertarian (which, amazingly, doesn't necessarily contradict monarchist sympathies)

It's interesting you say this.  Apparently Tolkien various identified himself as an "anarchist" but also as a "non-constitutional monarchist".   In essence, I too am of "monarchist" sympathies...though that's easy to say, since strictly speaking (though it is rarely "felt" in day to day life), my country's head of state lives in England. Smiley

However, I think we're deluding ourselves if we think there is such thing as a "perfect" government in this world (even an unambiguosly Orthodox Kingdom/Nation will have more than it's share of problems...I'm sure you'd agree that history bears this out) - that is something from another world, which we can for now only wait for with great anticipation.

Seraphim
Logged

Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #22 on: December 19, 2003, 10:19:35 AM »

lol you say that like it proves that God intended there to be kings!! lol

1 Samuel 8:6-7  But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2003, 10:20:26 AM by Br. Max, OFC » Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 19, 2003, 10:35:54 AM »

I'd forgotten you were in Canada, Seraphim. I do have quite a few monarchist American friends. I don't know how successful they expect to be at restoring a godly form of government to the USA.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #24 on: December 19, 2003, 10:40:39 AM »

I'm more or less familiar with the partisan divide in the United States.  In Canada, you'll only see this kind of partisanship (which I find mindless and offensive, but that's me just being a typical Canucklehead) in the "zealous few" who actually have party membership and are actively involved in the campaigns of their respective candidates (party membership here, as far as I can tell, is much less common than it is in the United States, amongts the "average joe".)

At this point, my conscience is not totally set on any one party - all do things which bother me, both in small and big ways.  Given this, like a typical Canadian, I will tend to vote not so much for the local MP (Member of Parliament - our government, both provincial and federally, is Parliamentary, much like the U.K.) as for the party in general, and what they are offering.  Very often, a vote can just as often be a rejection of the ruling party (that has the most seats in the House of Parliament), or a perceived "balancing act", as it can be a positive embrace (indeed, I think such negative voting is at least as common as the positive variety...perhaps that betrays something of the "Canadian temprament.")

Most people here tend to be extremely cynical of governments anyway, and I don't think too many leaders in recent times, if ever, have been held with the kind of semi-sancrosanct reverence that you find amongst some people in the U.S. (even generally liked leaders are the subject of jokes, and very open satire, with no protest whatsoever.)   Perhaps that is because, ultimatly (whether most  people here are formally conscious of it or not), in Canada, the Prime Minister (who in some ways has "presidential" qualities) is not in fact the head of state - all are viewed as being differing degrees of public servants (and public servants in general here, including the politicians, are viewed with an incredible amount of cynicism by most people.)

Besides the "rejectionist" thread in Canadian voting patterns (and admittedly, in many cases, my own voting), as someone who believes in Christ, another complication is that I do not see any party which realistically is going to do much about the more "key" social issues which typically get identified in the U.S. as "Christian issues" (such as pro-life issues.)  For example, while you're more likely to find "pro-life" voices in the so called "conservative" parties (or I should say, "party" since the Tories and Alliance Party are on the verge of a merger), the truth is these parties have never given any real evidence that they will in fact do anything positive on these "Christian issues" (not to mention the fact that most of their leaders are in fact quite indifferent to these issues, or even outright "pro-choice".)

Thus for me, the abortion issue is not something that dictates my voting here (even though the Alliance Party has this undeserved aura of being the most "moral" party.)  I have to choose the "lesser of several evils", so to speak.

It also doesn't help that generally, given what we have to work with, I'd say my views tend to be "morally conservative, fiscally liberal" (in line with the old school, western Canadian "Social Credit" types, often called "Christian Socialists").  Thus, depending on the circumstances, I may be as liable to vote NDP (New Democratic Party - a party socialist in ways that would be unthinkable in the American political milieu), as I would be to vote for the "right leaning" Canadian Alliance (whose quasi-Republicanesque economics, and air of servility towards the United States I find extremly off putting.)

Sorry for the discussion of Canadian politics.  I will shut up (for) now. Wink

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 19, 2003, 11:08:36 AM »

(ok, I fibbed about shutting up) Smiley

Bro. Max,

Quote
lol you say that like it proves that God intended there to be kings!! lol

1 Samuel 8:6-7  But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Good point!  HOWEVER...  Grin

I think the passage you are using is a case of "apples and oranges", in so far as the situation of Israel at this point was much different than the situation of the Kingless "republican" styles of government which have appeared here and there throughout history (and have become fairly common since the revolutionist movements of the Enlightenment era).

For, strictly speaking (using America as an example), the President is the "head of state" - where as in Israel at this time, the Lord was the head of state.  And I'm not using these terms in an analogous or ambiguous way - no, the Lord settled disuptes, and issued decrees just as visibly and discernably (from the Mosaic Tabernacle) as any flesh and blood President ever has.  Unless of course, you're suggesting that the Presidency in the U.S. is simply a fable, and in fact you have an official Priesthood in your country which receives the audiable oracles of God (in a terrifying, archaic Hebrew perhaps?) from the place just above the Mercy Seat... Smiley

Allow me to throw in some controversy here - I think materially, there is no difference between an Emperor or King (particularly the former) and a "President", save in the popular consciousness (and that is the problem, imho.)

- Both (monarchs and "presidents") are in fact the "head of state"

- The difference between them, realistically, fundamentally lies in the manner of selection.  Kingships, are via bloodline.  Empires, while typically via bloodline, do not always have to be (for example, the Roman Emperor could, at least at one point as far as I know, have chosen someone other than his son to succeed him).  And Presidencies, are the result of those who are enfranchised (in America, this is every adult...though historically, this wasn't so, nor does it have to be so to constitute a "presidency") voting.  All that distinguishes the form of Imperial rule, from the presedential kind, is the duration the successor is understood to enjoy rule (permanent vs. temporary.)

The fundamental problem I have with most "republican" style governments, is the popular consciousness which is associated with them.  While materially, the President (as head of state) is really under the same obligations before God as a King is, this is not clear to the people.  Indeed, inherent to such "presidencies" (which are the fruit of various revolutionary trends and Enlightenment philosophies, which I think we can safely say were "contra-Christian" in their ethos) is the false idea that authority comes from the people.

Nay - authority, all authority (whether it be that of a parent over their child, or a King over his Kingdom) comes from God.

Besides the practical benefits I perceive in monarchism (whether on a Kingdom or Imperial scale), one big benefit (particularly when the ruler is a Christian) is the unambiguous witness that the person inheriting the throne, not only possesses authority, by does so from above.  While there are varying possible forms for establishing how the successor will be selected (bloodline, the choice of the previous holder of the Throne, etc.), there is no ambiguity as to where their power comes from once they are duly seated.

This is why the economy of sacral-kingly rule, is the only form of human headed government which the People of God have ever known (save for the exceptional example, prefiguring the world to come, of the Israelites who enjoyed the direct, day to day government of the Lord from the Tabernacle - a situation not at all analogous to the American situation.)  This is the synergy, in a "healthy", Christian society, which the Orthodox peoples have traditionally symbolized in the form of the "double headed eagle" (used in "Byzantium", and also by the "Third Rome", the Russian Empire)...


(The Insignia of the Romanov Dynasty)

The one head, symbolizing the authority of the Church, the other the authority of the State - the two together, ruling their respective spheres, while at the same time supporting one another.

Seraphim
Logged

Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #26 on: December 19, 2003, 11:33:13 AM »

Quote
Seraphim Reeves: Most people here tend to be extremely cynical of governments anyway, and I don't think too many leaders in recent times, if ever, have been held with the kind of semi-sancrosanct reverence that you find amongst some people in the U.S. (even generally liked leaders are the subject of jokes, and very open satire, with no protest whatsoever.)

If you think leaders here are viewed with "semi-sancrosanct reverence," then somebody's slipped something into your maple syrup!  
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Justinianus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 255



« Reply #27 on: December 19, 2003, 11:42:00 AM »


However, I think we're deluding ourselves if we think there is such thing as a "perfect" government in this world (even an unambiguosly Orthodox Kingdom/Nation will have more than it's share of problems...I'm sure you'd agree that history bears this out) - that is something from another world, which we can for now only wait for with great anticipation.

Seraphim


I agree with you and history does bear this out.  Even Imperial Byzantium had is share of very big problems.
Logged

"If we truly think of Christ as our source of holiness, we shall refrain from anything wicked or impure in thought or act and thus show ourselves to be worthy bearers of his name.  For the quality of holiness is shown not by what we say but by what w
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 19, 2003, 12:38:19 PM »

Linus,

Quote
If you think leaders here are viewed with "semi-sancrosanct reverence," then somebody's slipped something into your maple syrup!

Oh, I'm fully prepared to admit I may be labouring under some serious misperceptions when it comes to assessing the situation of Americans and their government.   However, I should have perhaps been clearer - I was thinking more of the Presidency in the United States, and not so much of lower offices (whether federal in scope, or state/municipal.)  It's been my observation (once again, I'm willing to admit it's mistaken or misperceived on my part) that Americans have a view of their President (and even his familial extensions, particularly his wife) which has some resemblence (though I qualified this as being "semi") to the reverence someone in another part of the world may reserve for a King.

But thinking about it, in light of some of my other views, I guess that only makes sense...since both the President and a King are the "heads of state" in their respective realms, so that (in spite or revolutionary-historical conditioning in the American situation) it would be natural for your people to have this kind of regard for their President.  Perhaps it's more a contextual difference between our two countries, than a difference on a fundamental level.

Seraphim
Logged

Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #29 on: December 19, 2003, 12:51:13 PM »

Seraphim - A wonderful job pontificating in your last post!  You know I never once learned about different government styles in all of my political science courses while I was studying for my degree as a HISTORY TEACHER. Lol Thank you for the rather informative lecture. Roll Eyes

NOW - there is a very important key you have overlooked. Where does each form of government look to for its authority?  Oh it’s nice to suppose that you’ll end up with some perfectly benevolent king who will rule with mercy and compassion - but that is almost NEVER the case.  Monarchy looks to the WHIMS and desires of the Monarch for guidance, while a Republic looks to the rule of Law.  NOW, when you base your rule of Law off of the Law of God as was done here in America, you have a perfectly wonderful government where people can live with liberty.  Why do you think that 236 french republics have failed?  They always sought to base their governance upon reason and not law.  In fact, I would say that that is the case with all of the European “republics” were are republics in name only.  The American republic is built around God’s Law - hence the outcry against the judicial activists who have declared the display of God’s law “unconstitutional.”  

The President of America may be our “head of state,” but our ruler - is God almighty.  I would greatly prefer a theocracy like the Israelites had BEFORE they insisted upon a king, but since that is unavailable to me, I’ll take a Republic over any other form of Government.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,406


« Reply #30 on: December 19, 2003, 01:10:22 PM »

Bro Max,

That may well be true in theory and as the "Founding Fathers" intended, but I think has digressed far away from that in reality.  I'm sure the Religious Right (or whatever the term is for the Prot Fundies) might still think the country is this way, but I think they're deluding themselves if they really do think this way.
Logged
Bogoliubtsy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,268



« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2003, 01:13:55 PM »


Besides the practical benefits I perceive in monarchism (whether on a Kingdom or Imperial scale), one big benefit (particularly when the ruler is a Christian) is the unambiguous witness that the person inheriting the throne, not only possesses authority, by does so from above.  While there are varying possible forms for establishing how the successor will be selected (bloodline, the choice of the previous holder of the Throne, etc.), there is no ambiguity as to where their power comes from once they are duly seated.

This is why the economy of sacral-kingly rule, is the only form of human headed government which the People of God have ever known (save for the exceptional example, prefiguring the world to come, of the Israelites who enjoyed the direct, day to day government of the Lord from the Tabernacle - a situation not at all analogous to the American situation.)  This is the synergy, in a "healthy", Christian society, which the Orthodox peoples have traditionally symbolized in the form of the "double headed eagle" (used in "Byzantium", and also by the "Third Rome", the Russian Empire)...


(The Insignia of the Romanov Dynasty)

The one head, symbolizing the authority of the Church, the other the authority of the State - the two together, ruling their respective spheres, while at the same time supporting one another.

Seraphim


Agreed!

I'd like to add this from Bishop Alexander Mileant:

Western writers do not understand Orthodox monarchy. And because America rebelled against the King of England; Americans in particular have no sympathy for the idea of Monarchy. Indeed, it is almost a sacred tradition to applaud any nation that "comes to its senses" and overthrows its king! The Tsars of Russia are viewed in this same man- centered rather than God-centered light.

But; in Orthodox Russia there once existed a society composed not of "church and state" (such as existed in medieval Europe) but of "government and priesthood" - a holy commonwealth. The Tsar was never placed outside the Church or "above the law," but always within the Church and subject to the law of Christ. He was very much the "servant of the Gospel": he was required to live by it and rule by it in order to be worthy of the blessings of God upon himself, his family, and his nation. Such a righteous Father to his people was the last Tsar, Nicholas II. And now, in this year of grace, 1981, in spite of more than 60 years of Marxist deception, it pleases God to reveal Nicholas and those that suffered with him, to the Church and to the whole world (if only the world will hear it!).

Blessed Archbishop John Maximovitch has written: "Why was Tsar Nicholas II persecuted, slandered and killed? Because he was Tsar, Tsar by the Grace of God. He was the bearer and incarnation of the Orthodox world view that the Tsar is the servant of God, the Anointed of God, and that to Him he must give an account for the people entrusted to him by destiny..."

In Orthodox teaching, Tsar Nicholas was the last representative of lawful Christian authority in the world, the last one to restrain the mystery of iniquity (2 Thess. 2:27). (And, indeed, from the time of his martyrdom can be dated the unprecedented lawlessness, godlessness, and apostasy of this final age: the complete unleashing of the forces of darkness, which now threaten to complete ly engulf the world as a preparation for the reign of Antichrist.).


« Last Edit: December 19, 2003, 01:59:18 PM by Bogoliubtsy » Logged

"When you give food to the poor, they call you a saint. When you ask why the poor have no food, they call you a communist". - Archbishop Hélder Pessoa Câmara
Br. Max, OFC
Target of choice
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,418


ECCE HOMO


« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2003, 02:55:12 PM »

Bro Max,

That may well be true in theory and as the "Founding Fathers" intended, but I think has digressed far away from that in reality.  I'm sure the Religious Right (or whatever the term is for the Prot Fundies) might still think the country is this way, but I think they're deluding themselves if they really do think this way.

As one whom I'm sure you would term the religious right  - no one says that America as it exists TODAY is what the FF intended.  IN fact, I'm QUITE sure that if George Washington, Benjamin Rush, Patrick Henry, Governor Morris, and John Adams were around today, they would lead a revolt against THIS government the same way they lead a revolt against the Brits.  It is not so much that people want to believe that the country is as it WAS, as much as people believing in what the FF intended and working to RESTORE what the humanists and relativists have perverted.
Logged

"Where I live in Manhattan and where I work at ABC, people say 'conservative' the way people say 'child molester.' Leftist thinking is just the culture that I live in and the culture the reporters who populate the mainstream media
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 20, 2003, 11:24:35 AM »

Why did the Russian monarchy abolish the patriarchate in Russia if it were so benign?

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 20, 2003, 12:34:30 PM »

Max,

Quote
Seraphim - A wonderful job pontificating in your last post!

I didn't realize that is what I was doing (at least any more so than you.)

Quote
 You know I never once learned about different government styles in all of my political science courses while I was studying for my degree as a HISTORY TEACHER. Lol Thank you for the rather informative lecture.

Even if I knew this (and I don't see how I could have), it wouldn't have changed a thing I wrote.  The main purpose was to contrast and compare, through examples.  Facts can be taught...sadly, common sense and reason do not necessarily follow.

Quote
NOW - there is a very important key you have overlooked. Where does each form of government look to for its authority?  Oh it’s nice to suppose that you’ll end up with some perfectly benevolent king who will rule with mercy and compassion - but that is almost NEVER the case.

In a Christian Monarchy, it is unambiguous that the head of state is receiving his authority from above.  It is fanciful to believe that this is even close to being the case (whether in theory, but most strikingly, in reality) in the various "constitutional republics" the world has seen since the "enlightenment" (including the American experiment, which I suspect in our own generation, let alone those immediately to follow, is going to undergo radical changes.)

Quote
Monarchy looks to the WHIMS and desires of the Monarch for guidance, while a Republic looks to the rule of Law.

Yes, this can be so - if you've caught any of my other posts in this thread, I freely admit that there is no "perfect" government.  I'm only arguing which best expresses the Divine Order - a sacral King whose coronation explicitly recognizes his authority is from God, or the reality of a secular republic, where it is popularly believed that the head of state solely rules by the consent of the people (IOW - authority from the masses, God somehow cut out of the picture.)

I don't think there is any argument as to which more clearly manifests a Christian cosmology.

It should also be mentioned that before Israel had a visible King, God ruled not as a "president' by the popular consent of the people, but once again, as a King - hence "King of Kings" not "President of presidents."

Quote
NOW, when you base your rule of Law off of the Law of God as was done here in America, you have a perfectly wonderful government where people can live with liberty.

This is a case of theory vs. reality.  Strictly speaking, America was never a "Christian nation" (particularly by an Orthodox understanding), but this is even less so according to the lived reality;  I think there are plenty in your country (both "Christians" and flaming liberals) who would dispute that your laws in toto are "based" on the Law of God.

Quote
Why do you think that 236 french republics have failed?  They always sought to base their governance upon reason and not law.  In fact, I would say that that is the case with all of the European “republics” were are republics in name only.

I'm not an "expert", but I'd suspect there is a little more to it than this.

I find it odd that you also characterize them as being "republics" in name only - would you then characterize the very source of ancient republicanism (Hellas) as only knowing republics in "name only"? Smiley

Quote
The American republic is built around God’s Law - hence the outcry against the judicial activists who have declared the display of God’s law “unconstitutional.”

While there is never any accounting for what nay-sayers will say or do, I cannot help but wonder, if this "theological" dimension of American law and jurisprudence were just so obvious, why is there such a tremendous amount of basic disagreement on this?

Quote
The President of America may be our “head of state,” but our ruler - is God almighty.

Well now we're just devolving into sophism.  Your President most certainly "rules" and hence is a "ruler" - even if you want to fancifully believe he conciously (as a matter of tradition and popular consensus) does so by God's leave (which like it or not, is precisely what a King does.)

The King is also a "ruler", who is obliged by "rules" (in this case, the very direct expression of the Law of God - the Church being his conscience and teacher in this regard).  Just as with your President, he does rightly or fails, in so far as he maintains fidelity to this.  Once again, I stress that the fundamental difference here, is the difference in clarity, between these two forms of government, in their consciousness as to precisely where their authority comes from.

Btw. I noticed you did not have a thing to say in response to my critique of your use of the situation of the pre-Davidic Israelites (and the inappropriatness of your using this as a point of comparison with the American form of government.)  I trust this was an oversight on your part.  Given this, any thoughts?

Seraphim
Logged

Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 20, 2003, 01:12:16 PM »

Vicki,

Quote
Early Colonial law is full of laws governing what will happen to those who skipped churchgoing, etc.

I agree this was the case with some of the colonists - but then again, this form of self governance passed away a long time ago.  Besides, the views of such persons were only one contributing factor in the hodge podge of ideologies which came to found what we now know of as the United States of America (and arguably, were not the overwhelming ones - for example, I seriously doubt such colonials were ever totally satisfied with the division of state from church which said nation would consider a hallmark of it's democracy; since they obviously were in the habit of imposing their beliefs and customs upon those living in their territory.)

Seraphim
Logged

carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #36 on: December 20, 2003, 03:59:47 PM »

Seraphim
Thank God I was sitting down when I read your posts re monarchy.  I actually agree with you.  I must report this to the Vatican as I believe it counts as a miracle.  Grin  Would you say you're a monarchist?  If so are you a legitimist?

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
carpo-rusyn
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 383



« Reply #37 on: December 20, 2003, 04:04:03 PM »

The Russian monarchy abolished the patriarchate under Peter the Great for political reasons.  You could argue that the Russian monarchy was benevolent prior to Peter ascending to the throne and his bringing in of western ideas.  Maybe someone more versed in Russian history could comment.

In the west we have the idea of sacral kingship.  Is such an idea prevalent in the east?

Carpo-Rusyn
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 20, 2003, 04:58:49 PM »

Well in the Golden Age of the Old English Church the monarchy was Orthodox and supportive of the Church. And of course I am a monarchist, I am just a bit hesitant to laud the Russian monarchy above what it seems to deserve.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 20, 2003, 10:28:34 PM »

Peter,

Quote
Well in the Golden Age of the Old English Church the monarchy was Orthodox and supportive of the Church. And of course I am a monarchist, I am just a bit hesitant to laud the Russian monarchy above what it seems to deserve.

Admittedly, this is a subject (the events surrounding the dissolution of the Patriarchate in Russia for a time, a long time if memory serves) I am not too familiar with...however, I wouldn't be surprised if at least part of the explanation for this, was the influence of western European countries (with their "state churches", most conspicuously England, where the reigning monarch is officially recognized as both "head of state" and "head of the church").  I don't perceive things ever became as far gone as England - but I do agree, that the situation has a simultude which is "too close for comfort."

With all of this said, however, from what I have gathered, pre-revolutionary Russia was quite special amongst nations, even Orthodox ones - the way the Orthodox faith, let alone with such fervor, became an ingrained part of popular consciousness and the way of life of the people, was quite striking.  Thus, even with it's short comings (which were very real), I think the acknowledgment of Russia as "Holy Russia" (even by other Orthodox abroad) was a well deserved title, and it can also be said that the Tsars were, on the whole, true "defenders of the faith" whose very identity was impossible to separate from Orthodoxy in general.

I am inclined to the belief, held by many (in particularly Russians, for obvious reasons) that the final termination (via a passion bearing martyrdom) of the royal dynasty, really was of "apocalyptic" significance.

Your questioning on this point actually gives me good reason to brush up on my history of Russia. Smiley

Seraphim
« Last Edit: December 20, 2003, 10:29:43 PM by Seraphim Reeves » Logged

Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.143 seconds with 68 queries.