main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate What's more important: democracy, or secularism/liberalism?

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Jul 15, 2016.

?

What's more important?

  1. Democracy

    36.4%
  2. Secularism/Liberalism

    63.6%
  1. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    That's what I'm asking. If people would rather have that or a democracy, even an ugly bigoted power-grabbing democracy. Some in the other thread were saying a democracy is always better.
     
  2. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Yes those people are idiots, Ghost.

    Democracy is inherently flawed and awful, which is why Churchill was noting it's terrible like all others, only modestly less so because of theoretical checks and balances.

    But I mean, you can take an uneducated tradesperson and give them a vote that influences foreign policy. You can give a wet the right to have an enforceable opinion on economics, a topic they're wholly unqualified for. You can give a dry the right to decide humane social policy.

    It's actually a terrible idea when you consider it. And it's why nations get the leaders and governments they damned well deserve.
     
    Mar17swgirl likes this.
  3. Master_Rebado

    Master_Rebado Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    May 31, 2004
  4. Point Given

    Point Given Manager star 7 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Dec 12, 2006
    WDNDSWITJCC
     
  5. Ghost

    Ghost Chosen One star 8

    Registered:
    Oct 13, 2003
    Any new thoughts on this debate?
     
  6. Jedi_Jade-Skywalker

    Jedi_Jade-Skywalker Jedi Grand Master star 3

    Registered:
    Oct 8, 2000
    I'm quite partial to constitutional monarchy myself.

    Secularism can be very dangerous when allowed to run amok, like in France. I understand the wisdom of separation of church and state, but France is just too extreme. Seriously, how does someone else's religious clothing hurt other people? Shouldn't people be free to believe what they wish, in terms of religion?

    Another issue with the government regulating women's clothing is that there are legitimate, non-religious reasons for wearing 'religious' clothing. People with certain medical conditions might need to cover their skin completely. Or a woman undergoing chemo might need to wear a wetsuit and cover her head at the beach and could easily be mistaken for a Muslim. Should we really harass people who aren't well, all in the name of secularism?

    Democracy is also dangerous when taken to extreme, since some pretty horrible people have been elected as leaders of their governments. People should have some say in how they're governed. It might be a little better than secularism, but not much.

    This piece on Restrictions on Women's Religious Attire is quite interesting, especially when it comes to the graphs of where women are harassed over their clothing choices.
     
    SergeyX2017 likes this.
  7. SergeyX2017

    SergeyX2017 Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 14, 2017
    Well... I honestly don't know that much about Turkey.

    I can only try to discuss this looking at the example of modern Russia.

    Where the religious authority is actually helping quash democracy.

    Putin has been greatly aided in his power grabs by the Orthodox Church, even starting at the very beginning, by then-Patriarch (like Pope) Alexiy II, on the right there
    [​IMG]

    Alexiy, still, kept some autonomy for the Church, he even spoke out against the war with Georgia in 2008. He said, back then, on Russian TV, that Russians and Georgians, both Orthodox peoples, should not be fighting each other. Other clerics disagreed, of course, pointing out that Russia was defending the Ossetians, yet another Orthodox nation, from the Georgians. But, that's not the point.

    Even Alexiy, Russia's first post-Soviet Patriarch, bowed to Putin on many issues (much more than so to Yeltsin, I might add). Putin may have pressured him by threatening to reveal evidence of his past as a KGB snitch: Russian Patriarch 'was KGB spy'

    By August 2008, he probably knew his death was near, so, it didn't matter anymore, that's why he spoke against the war, I think...

    Alexiy died on December 5th, 2008
    [​IMG]

    Kirill, the current guy, was then crowned in his place
    [​IMG]

    And he completely tied the Church to the State, the Kremlin.

    In 2012, as part of his 2nd Inauguration, Putin went to I forget which cathedral at the Kremlin, where Kirill performed a blessing ceremony on him
    [​IMG]
    first time this was done, since the Tsars.

    Since then, Putin has done a number of such ceremonies, reaffirming his supposedly divine right to rule Russia
    https://s2.postimg.org/8sfqcz91l/482157328.jpg

    Last year, in November, Kirill spoke, in front of Putin, various politicians and other Russian religious leaders, and other citizens, at the opening of the new monument in Moscow, to Tsar Vladimir I, who baptized Russia to Orthodox Christianity 1000 years ago
    [​IMG]
    He said it was no coincidence that both the first Christian Tsar and Russia's current ruler shared the name Vladimir, it was a sign: God chose Putin as his Earthly emissary in Russia, as he had the original Vladimir! I kid you not...

    The Church has acted as a "soft power ally" of Putin in the conflict in East Ukraine: How the Russian Orthodox Church answers Putin's prayers in Ukraine

    Kirill also backed Putin's intervention in Syria, calling it, repeatedly, a "holy war" against terrorism:
    Russian church: The fight in Syria is a ‘holy war’
    Russia's Patriarch Kirill urges 'holy war' on terror

    Priest blessing Russian troops with holy water aboard aircraft carrier "Admiral Kuznetsov", as it steamed to Syria back in February
    [​IMG]
    Priests have become as normal a part of the Russian military as Communist commissars and political officers back in the Soviet era...

    This ideological support from the Church comes with a price, of course. The deal goes both ways.

    Kirill, in turn, gets to influence the Russian government and its policies (mainly internal ones, foreign policy does not seem to interest him quite so much, it's the spread of his power and authority at home, in Russia, the old bastard is fixated upon).

    I recall watching when he was allowed to address the Duma, the Russian parliament, for first time ever, in 2015
    [​IMG]

    I remember, as he walked to the podium, and lawmakers rushing up, to kiss his hands
    [​IMG]
    I remember thinking, "Wow! And just 30 years ago, this was Godless Soviet Union!"

    It's more than just Duma speeches though; he gets to appoint his own officials!

    Vitaly Milonov, the member of St. Petersburg's legislature who has pushed through all those anti-gay laws
    [​IMG]
    who holds a political office despite also being an ordained priest
    [​IMG]
    which is against both the Russian Constitution (the clause which guarantees the secular nature of the government) and the Church's own conventions. But, nobody seems to care about that...

    I remember Milonov rebuking a senior police general on TV that his guys are not rough enough with gay rights protesters: "You need to be teaching these animals a lesson!"
    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-XI6pCY0wjOA/UgYPHRBJ7mI/AAAAAAAAafI/E8CZ50_qdzU/s1600/machop15.jpg
    Nice guy.

    What he must be teaching to his kids, I don't even want to imagine
    http://s10.stc.all.kpcdn.net/share/i/4/1235758/wx1080.jpg

    Elena Mizulina
    [​IMG]
    the senator who recently helped decriminalize domestic violence and is also pushing severe abortion restrictions. And supports Milonov's anti-LGBT initiatives at the federal level too.

    Olga Vasilieva, Minister of Education, as of last year
    [​IMG]
    who is bringing Orthodox religious classes, taught by priests, into Russian schools (in majority Orthodox regions)
    http://ugraeparhia.ru/assets/w0ywH.jpeg
    and even introducing prayers and Bible into kindergartens in some places!
    http://slavyansk.blagochin.ru/files/2016/08/DSC00580.jpg
    At the same time, schools are being allowed to scale back teaching of evolution theory.

    Anna Kuznetsova, also appointed last year, at 34, as the new federal Ombudswoman for Children
    [​IMG]

    Highly conservative lady, wife of an Orthodox priest, mother of six
    https://static.life.ru/posts/2016/09/901370/eb1fd09906bbabb9f1c2fb320ce88c71__980x.jpg
    Long time anti-abortion activist (member of board of directors of a prominent national anti-abortion group led by her husband); who publicly supported, to the outrage of some people, already in her position as Ombudswoman, senator Mizulina's push to decriminalize family violence. Specifically, Mizulina's assertion that parents have a "God given right" to physically discipline their kids... This is the person whose job it is, supposedly, to defend Russian children from violence and abuse...

    Those are just three well known examples. I am sure there are others.

    Kirill has become so powerful in Russia now, many people feel like instead of the ruling Duumvirate (of Putin and PM Medvedev), there is, in fact, a Triumvirate, with Kirill as the 3rd member
    [​IMG]

    And why shouldn't they think that:

    Kirill gets to fly around on his very own elite Il-96 government plane, part of the special squadron "Russia", just like Putin's Board 1 and Board 2, and Medvedev's Board 3
    [​IMG]
    Not sure if Kirill's is referred to as Board 4, but anyway.

    Kirill also has, now, a detail of FSO (Russian Secret Service) agents providing security for him
    [​IMG]
    Again, just like Putin or Medvedev...

    In the broader Orthodox World, Kirill is regarded as, perhaps, even more powerful than Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, who is, technically, considered our common "Pope", sort of.

    During his visit to Greece, last year, Kirill was offered the throne normally used by Bartholomew when HE is in Greece!
    [​IMG]
    Many observers saw it as recognition: Bartholomew's authority is mainly a nod to history and tradition; but, really, he only rules a neighborhood of Istanbul, at best, today... Kirill, on the other hand, holds direct sway over the government of a major nuclear power, and heads of a Church of, perhaps, a couple hundred million people, including around the former Soviet Union and abroad. As much as one third of the global Orthodox population hold allegiance to Kirill... His influence is such that he is able to keep the international Orthodox community from recognizing his rival Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Kiev Patriarchate. The Ukrainian Church exists illegally, basically, unable to attend international meetings, let alone vote in them. All thanks to Kirill. In December, Kirill said he will never allow the Ukrainian Church to go independent of Moscow, period: Patriarch Kirill at 70: No autocephaly for Ukraine and no multiculturalism for Russia


    He has also amassed personal wealth estimated at $4 billion; and the guy sure knows how to live well:

    He has at least three (that I am aware of) personal jets, aside from the government plane
    [​IMG]
    a yacht, the "Pallada" ($6.5 million)
    [​IMG]

    And here, he meets a delegation from the Greek Orthodox Church on his luxurious personal train, courtesy of Russian Railroads (it even has special compartments for his armored limos and the FSO motorcade, among other things!)

    The Greeks were said to have been shocked by his opulent lifestyle haha

    Oh, and here is the palace built for Kirill at Gelendzhyk, near Sochi, couple years back
    [​IMG]

    But this has been a great deal for Putin too, after all, he gets absolute authority, backed by religion; and he has amassed a far greater fortune than Kirill in office too, at least $40 billion in secret assets. That's a conservative estimate. Some say he is, in fact, the richest man in the world, at this point...Now wonder he gave some kudos to the Church, today: Russian President Vladimir Putin lauds Orthodox Church for its service to people

    So, yeah, to come to my conclusion, if you don't want your country to descend into the above, support secularism and liberalism.
     
  8. Octavian Dibar

    Octavian Dibar Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2015

    Should they not have at least some say in the foreign policy or economic policy that will affect their lives? Why would you not allow them that opportunity? Even if it is merely in representative form, e.g., representative democracy.

    This whole notion that you have to be somehow "qualified" to have an "enforceable opinion" on something is always leads to troubling end points when put into practice. The very idea makes my skin crawl. Who makes the final determination of qualifications? What prevents them from abusing the power to set those standards?

    Also, I have a problem with the highly flawed "uneducated = idiot" assumption that seems to be popular these days. It's constantly used as a hammer against those who did not attend higher education as a method to push them down in society. Some of the smartest men I know work in various trades. I also know some real idiots who somehow managed to get their masters or PhD. I'd rather have those tradesmen voting on elected officials.

    I'd rather live in a representative democracy perpetually run by mild idiots, than a dictatorship or oligarchy run by geniuses.

    Edit: I just realized I may have zombified the discussion, by replying to a year-old post. Meh.
     
  9. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Well I wasn't saying they have no vote on it; I was saying the notion that their opinion is as equal as a qualified person's opinion is wrong.

    EDIT: Sergey, please stop with the pictures. Put spoiler tags if you must.
     
  10. Alpha-Red

    Alpha-Red Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Apr 25, 2004
    Yeah, but what are you going to do to stop them from acting on their wrong opinions? Either you do nothing, which in the extreme case means you've chosen democracy over liberalism and secularism, or you go the other way and end up like Turkey's Kemalist military dictatorships.
     
  11. epic

    epic Ex Mod star 8 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jul 4, 1999
    democracy ended up with the likes of Brexit and trump. democracy clearly sucks. I'll pick the other option obv
     
    Mar17swgirl likes this.
  12. Octavian Dibar

    Octavian Dibar Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2015
    So, I should have recognized and pointed this out earlier, but the poll that is presented to us is flawed in the present state.

    Liberalism, specifically classical liberalism*, really can't exist without some form of democracy. Even under democratic/republican-style governments, it is insanely hard for individual liberties and freedoms to be protected. Under non-democratic regimes, it's essentially impossible long-term. The question is not: "Democracy or Liberalism?" Rather the question is: "Democracy or Totalitarianism?"

    This isn't a buffet. You don't get to pick and choose elements of governance at random and try to fit them all on your plate of government to suit your mood. Some elements cannot exist without the other. Some can't exist in the presence of others. If you want your individual liberties protected, then you're going to have to put up with the masses occasionally making choices you don't agree with. If don't want the common man making decisions or having influence, then you need to put up with having no rights yourself vs. the state. But hey, at least the trains run on time.



    *Not the more recent Social Liberalism
     
  13. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    The point is not to deny people a right to vote; it's to swing momentum away from populism and back to a system in which expertise is valued. Right now, the pendulum swings towards uninformed people having sacred views that ought be listened to.

    You mostly all will have seen this New Yorker cartoon;

    [​IMG]

    "These smug pilots have lost touch with us regular passengers. Who votes that I fly the plane?"

    It's where we are at, and that's something democracy is actually ill prepared to handle - as the current views on populism amply demonstrate.
     
  14. dp4m

    dp4m Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Nov 8, 2001
    Ender stealing my references... truly we are at the end times...
     
    Juliet316 and SuperWatto like this.
  15. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    It needed to be elevated.
     
  16. Octavian Dibar

    Octavian Dibar Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Ender Sai

    You're mistaking mob rule for democracy. Mob rule is deciding to vote on a new pilot mid-flight.

    Democracy is choosing which airline you want to fly on for the trip and living with your decision until you land.

    Edit: Also, don't start quoting Jefferson to me, either. I'm talking about representative democracy.
     
  17. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Le Pouvoir Social aka mob rule aka the "tyranny of the masses" is not itself divorced from democracy. It is, as de Tocqueville warned, democracy's greatest weakness and threat. Though I seem to be alone in being cognisant of this.
     
  18. Octavian Dibar

    Octavian Dibar Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2015
    :rolleyes:

    Oh please. Stop with the "I alone" stuff. You're no more qualified than the next guy to talk about this stuff. And I'm the next guy.

    First, if you're going to quote de Tocqueville, it is "tyranny of the majority" I believe*, though it's often misinterpreted as "tyranny of the masses"**. Second, Tyranny of the Majority is something completely different than what you've been previously describing. Further, you've left out the most important part of his warning and discussion about democracy's greatest weakness. It is not, in fact just "tyranny of the Majority", but rather the unlimited power of the majority.

    So, I'm going to back up a moment. Since you've put a heavy emphasis on qualifications and the expertise of voters. What exactly are your qualifications to discuss the nature of government?

    *It's been a while and I don't have a copy of Democracy in America handy.
    **To my recollection, de Tocqueville doesn't use the term "masses" in this part.


    Also, Unlimited Power:
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    You're correct it was majority. However, what you are talking about is in fact utterly linked. You have read Democracy in the Worst Country America, no? you know the story of the Baltimore paper and its journalists, right? And you don't see that issue in the United States, a country happily eating itself?
     
  20. Octavian Dibar

    Octavian Dibar Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2015
    Ender Sai

    No. Not really. No more so than many other countries in the world. But I also have a different perspective than you appear to. If you look at the full breadth of history, what we're experiencing is a merely a bump, rather than a cliff. Things change, but that doesn't mean the end. We'll probably get there at some point because nothing is eternal.

    The random footnote you expect me to know does not have much bearing on your previous points about an uneducated/unqualified majority--which is what we were originally discussing. What happened to the journalists is a symptom of two issues primarily:

    1) A government that lacks the the ability to fully enforce the laws. This is particularly common in newly formed states.

    2) A majority that has yet to grasp the importance of the rule of law, or a majority that has lost respect for it. The former is common in newer states, the latter is more often seen in more established ones.

    It did not really have anything to do with the qualifications of the mob. The fact is that Tyranny of the Majority is not limited to just a majority made up of people you would deem not properly qualified.

    I'm going to politely reiterate my question, since you seemed to have dodged it in the first instance. You've placed an emphasis on the common man respecting and listening to expertise. What is your level of expertise in the realm of government? I've been willing to answer your questions. Please do me the courtesy of answering this one.
     
  21. Rylo Ken

    Rylo Ken Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Dec 19, 2015
    just a thinking. But it's a very old thinking. The first dictator thought that to himself, and then he told everyone else about it: "I'm benevolent. And I'm the dictator. Aren't we all so very lucky?
     
  22. Scapro Tyler

    Scapro Tyler Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Oct 17, 2015
    Jumping in this a little late however I for one would be behind a Democracy*. What I mean by Democracy* is we need a sort of unbiased group of people (in theory the Electoral College) who will sort of referee the population.

    In an ideal world, the Electoral College would have stopped a power hungry, unqualified person from being president. Unfortunately that didn't occur in 2016;however, in theory a system such as the Electoral College should exist to help become a stop-gap be it against a budding theocracy that was democratically elected or a businessman with no clue of how to govern.

    Taken a step further what if the makeup of our House and Senate required X percentage being Doctors, X percentage being educators, X percentage being scientists, etc etc. Anyone who fits those qualifications could be eligible to run but it would ensure, in theory, intelligent people in office as well as a diversity of opinions.
     
  23. DANNASUK

    DANNASUK Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 1, 2012
    The principles of democracy are a fundamental part of liberalism - so, isn't this poll a little silly? You cannot support liberalism whilst believing in a undemocratic society.
     
    Octavian Dibar and Scapro Tyler like this.
  24. TheAvengerButton

    TheAvengerButton Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2011
    Unless you're one of those damn Commies. I ser what you guys are trying to do here!

    Sent from Hell--depending on whether or not it exists.
     
    Octavian Dibar likes this.
  25. DANNASUK

    DANNASUK Force Ghost star 7

    Registered:
    Nov 1, 2012
    Would you like to explain, without using Google, what Communism is?