Today on Blogcritics
Home » Governments and Gods

Governments and Gods

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

When building a house, you must make everything with respect to the foundation. The house that is built without the protection of the foundation in mind surely will fall.

Now consider the following:

When building a government whose foundation is based on a god, then everything you do must be done in respect to the god. When building a government whose foundation is based on the individual, everything you do must be done in respect to the individual.

There are many places in the world in which the government’s foundation is based on a god. If you, as an individual, expect to go there and become part of the people whose government is based on a god, then surely, you are a threat to its foundation.

There are few places in the world in which government’s foundation is based on the individual. If you, as a Muslim, Christian, Mystic or Jew, expect to go there and become part of the people whose government is based on the individual, as in America, then surely you are a threat to its foundation. RH

Georgia Weblog

Powered by

About Ron

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Your point is unclear, either through phrasing or intent. Care to explain?

  • billy

    thank god america isnt founded on god.

  • http://www.templestark.com Temple Stark

    I got it. Very simple and I may borrow such imagery at some point 1,000 years from now.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    I get the intended point, incoherent though the post is.

    It’s an oversimplification at best, outrageous distortion more likely.

    The author has created a false dichotomy between “a god” and “the individual,” apparently not realizing that “a god” could in fact be very supportive of “the individual,” and clearly also assuming that “the individual” is vastly superior to “a god” without any explanation of why that might be so.

    In any case, as Billy pointed out, American wasn’t founded on “a god,” but rather on principles (including support for “the individual” against the tyranny of larger groups of individuals) that most people at the time believed were “natural law” precisely because they were derived from study of the God they believed established those same principles in the formation of the world.

    My point is that the issue is far more complex and nuanced than the author seems to realize.

  • billy

    i have no clue what this post means. someone please explain??

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    The author seems to be advocating the removal of all religious people from America, among other things.

  • Eric Olsen

    gee, I thought the point was pretty interesting: government of the people vs people of the government, so to speak; and the inherent conflicts of such systems

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Except that the government is always of the people, by the people, whether explicitly stated that way or not. It is the people, or a small subset thereof, who govern. Always.

    We don’t have robot councils yet!

    So anyway, that’s clearly not the distinction the author is making, because there’s no such distinction.

  • http://selfaudit.blogspot.com Aaman

    Unless you are a government of one, like that King of San Francisco, can’t remember the bloke.

  • http://adamantsun.blogspot.com Steve S

    He’s saying that in religion, since you abdicate your individuality, if you build a government based on religion, the government must do the same.

  • http://w6daily.winn.com/ Phillip Winn

    Not all religions require one to abdicate one’s individuality, though some (like Christianity) do demand that one consider others more than themselves.

    However, the problems that we have with Christians in politics today isn’t that they’re following the tenets of their religion closely, it’s that they aren’t. If they were, they would put aside their own individual quest for power and support others instead.

    In any case, most religions recognize and promote a role for government that is separate from the role for individuals, so the argument still doesn’t work.

  • billy

    “the problems that we have with Christians in politics today isn’t that they’re following the tenets of their religion closely”

    i disagree. jesus would have shocked and awed the whole world if he was here today.

    just kidding.

  • Eric Olsen

    to clarify, I believe the point is that in our system, in theory anyway, the government gains its legitimacy from the people nad the individual is the indivisible unit. In a theocracy, autocracy, dictatorship, or fascism, the government is primary and indivisible and the individual is only legitimate as a piece of the whole

  • beadtot

    Perhaps the gist of the review can be summarized as an antipathy to the quite popular psychosocial maneuvers which eliminate both plaintiffs and miscreants in favor of a ‘happy hominid’ operative orientation.

  • macatac

    governments are never based on individuals, that is likened to basing american government on 300 million gods, as each individual is a distinct unique entity. Whereas with God, government must please one, with individuals, it must please each or it has failed in its duty. All governments have a religion, like it or not. America was founded on the basis of a type of Christianity. Now America is in the midst of a religious war (of words) between the intolerance of humanism and christianity. SCOTUS has even recognized humanism as a religion, so officially there can be no denial. Law is meant to legislate morality. The humanist version of legislating morality, as an example is “hate crime” legislation, where disagreement is hate. That is a sad moral code, considering a person can continually change their minds, when there are no compasses to guide.