Take a hold of yourself will y?What this whole kingdom of heaven thing you just mentioned?
Look there is no perfect system but the republic is the best we have so far.You can have your won opinion of course but yo ar econtradicting yourself.
If you say monarchs have no real power how is it preferable to the republic?We ARE talking about power.You agree SOMEONE must take the raigns of things right?
And there WAS a time when english kings dictated laws.You’ve mentioned it yourself.
Oh and I was making a point with that whole UK deal.It isn’t suposed ot be related to monarchy (directly anyways).
One more point - If republicanism is so wonderful, why is it “the Kingdom of Heaven”? Also, Jesus Christ was an elitist, with His entourage of twelve lieutenants, the Apostles, elevated in stature above His other disciples. [/quote]
Good thing I’m not Christian then
Also, as I said, I have nothing agianst you’re veiws (you actually remind me of a good friend of mine) but you do seem to be being rather agressive, which isn’t anymore likely to make people see things from your persepective.
[quote]
If you say monarchs have no real power[/quote]
I never did say that - indeed, the very prospect of such a situation appalls me. All I was saying was that monarchs are not absolutists.
Something that many people seem to have disregarded in discussing the monarchy (and aristocracy in general) is the sheer psychological need for it. People might moan that Sir Mark Thatcher’s baronetcy is “unfair” as it is “undeserved”. To them I simply say - sour grapes! There might, for the sake of argument, be no ‘reason’ as to why hereditary privilege is valid (but then what ‘reason’ is there for Le Declaration De Les Droits De L’Homme to be elevated to the state of Holy Writ?), but it simply must be. People might angrily ask “why?”, but it’s that very same “why” that’s given rise to “why must I go to school?”; “Why must I get a job?”; “Why must I obey my parents?”; “Why should I be bothered if I hurt someone else?” - which has been responsible for our contemporary devolution into base yob anti-culture. A visible peerage, populated by those who celebrate blue blood without inhibition, serves to continually inform people that there are certain axiomatic lines that we as rational humans simply cannot trespass - otherwise, society would rapidly degenerate into anarchy and that “nasty, brutish, and [very] short” horror raised in Hobbes’ Leviathan.
But what of republics extant now? Even if we look at the minority of free republics (most of the great experiments from the Winds of Change readily degenerated into despotism), social stability in places like the U.S.A. is not based on pure millenarian democracy, but rather on her recreation of aristocracy de facto in the Wasp hegemony. Can you imagine what it would be like if everyone was scrambling for office? Societies only survive through the tacit acceptance that there are people who rule, and others who don’t. Republicanism doesn’t change that in the slightest. It might juggle round titles and social backgrounds a bit, but power for all? No.
Many people also seem to forget that nobles are bound by the concept of noblesse oblige. If you disenfranchise the peers, they simply become contented and comfortable “billionaire commoners”. When they assume the mantle of King, Duke, or Earl, they also take on an obligation for stewardship, not personal enrichment. The New Poor Law of 1834 - the infamous one which introduced the workhouses of Oliver Twist &c. - is a prime example. Prior to this, gentry contributed generously and quite readily to local schemes for the poor’s welfare, co-ordinated by bodies such as parish committees. When this Act was passed, this benevolent link of tradition, culture and convention was rudely severed and replaced with a clunky and cumbersome universalist state system that was loathed by all and only served to make the condition of the poor decline.
And that’s all for tonight, I must get to bed. Hopefully I’ve mellowed some of the republicans around here, at least.
Kennedy was Catholic.
There are certainly more female and minority members of the house and senate than there once were.
One day there will be a black president. One day there will be a female president. Hell, you guys have already had a female prime minister. I see no reason for us to throw up our hands and say that white anglo saxon protestants will always have a stranglehold on government just because they happen to hold a majority at this particular moment in time.
I’m not sure what you mean by “pure millenarian democracy,” but of course the U.S. isn’t a pure democracy. We’re not even talking about pure democracies. A pure democracy is something that worked in Athens because it was one city, and a sizeable chunk of it wasn’t given citizenship. Of course you’re not going to have 200 million people voting on every single issue facing the country. That’s why we’re talking about a republic, a representative democracy. And that is something that the U.S. most certainly is. None of this aristocracy business. We change our leaders early and often. Yes, there are people who rule and people who don’t, but those two groups are absolutely not set in stone.
Now correct me if I’m wrong (which I may very well be), but I was under the impression that in social terms, the word “millenarian” indicates a specific kind of idealised society: one that can’t come into existance through practiced democracy, but only through some kind of extreme world-changing event. The example of a “millenarian” society I’ve always remembered comes from the Bible, in the bit where God creates the new Jerusalem at the end of the book of Revelations and thus engineers a perfect society that couldn’t otherwise have come into being.
(Incidentally, sorry, this is a very, very random aside. )
o.o That’s a bit eh… pessimistic ne? Boycotting because you’re not making a significant impact, that never stopped me! Ikuzora!
In any case… as an outsider of it all… and as part of a monarchy besides the british one… I don’t mind it really. I mean yeah our king’s mainly in a symbolic position. But things have been achieved by writing the king. And in times of trouble he always does seem to prove as a moral support.
And besides, it’s just neat to be able to say that you’re in one of the few remaining monarchies on the globe. XD
You can’t bring religion into politics they happen be to some of those most contraversial topics…EVER.
Jesus was a what now? You could say that You could also say he was a fictional character in a book happened to named ‘the Bible’ but it doesn’t mean it’s correct.
Note: I do happen to be a religious peep, Christian, sorry if I offended anyone.
But seriously though…it doesn’t seem up to be much use, the whole Queen thing. But, as I don’t want to have to read an essay against what I have said (author most likely Robert Frazer) however correct he may be, my brain cannot take nor handle this much mumbo jumbo in once session.
[/quote]
they happen be to some of those most contraversial topics…EVER.