The Four Institutions

[Milon]

I'd say 25% across the board.

Wow, I think this is the first time I've disagreed with Alcyone!

The problem I see there is that the populace will be told that everything is an even split. Then "behind the scenes" each sector would be working to increase its own power. Conflict would start hidden, but eventually erupt publicly. Consider the moving tectonic plates. We don't notice it happening slowly, but all of a sudden something gives and the Earth's surface buckles and ruptures. Which isn't good for the local fauna or flora.

I'm going to have to go with Duty on this one. Philosophy should govern science, and science should govern the rest. The remaining question is how to avoid/settle philosophical problems. There are such things as age-old problems you know.

 

[mayflow]

Render unto God that which is God's and unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's is an understandable position that Jesus spoke of, but is there really a justifiable position that what is one's is not the other's? Doesn't that sort of argument set up differential boundaries that do not need to be set up, if an altruistic world working in harmony with one another world is what we would seek and construe as our mutually beneficial and lovely goals?

 

[Satya]

Render unto God that which is God's and unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's is an understandle position that Jesus spoke of, but is there really a justifiable position that what is one's is not the other's? Doesn't that sort of argument set up differential boundaries that do not need to be set up, if an altruistic world working in harmony with one another world is what we would seek and construe as our mutuall beneficial and lovely goals?

Personally I love separation of church and state. I don't want to live in a theocracy.

 

[acd]

Personally I love separation of church and state. I don't want to live in a theocracy.

Pretty much what I was just about to reply.

 

[Zero Angel]

Two observations.

First. Religion is necessary for the functioning of the state, because ldoking at history, every culture at every time has had religion - ie. it is probably in the nature of man to be religious. Where there is no religion (no organised religion, that is) superstition and appointment of a god-figure usually occurs. In a monarchy, it would be dangerous for the monarch to take on a god-like role. So the monarch should be religious, so that he/she still acts as a citizen, subject to a higher power - otherwise, if regarded as the ultimate power, such a monarch could easily become a tyrant.

Wouldnt requiring a head of state to be religious be a problem? Many senseless acts have been committed in the name of faith. There is also the problem of a head of state endorsing one religion at the expense of the others. He may not have an open enough mind to listen to other religious viewpoints which conflict with his chosen faith.

 

[mayflow]

Personally I love separation of church and state. I don't want to live in a theocracy.

What is your definition of "church?" - it seems rather Christian oriented and negatively biased, but there are many religions in the world you know. Shamanism, Wiccanism, Jainism, Hinduism - yes there are several hundred million Hindus or so - Buddhism, Paganism, - granted Christianity has created many wars in the name of God, but so have many states. Still, the unjustifiable wars by either state or Church, are still just as unstifiable no matter what they call themselves. AS long as they stay at antihesis with one another, peace and harmony are lost. Segregation sucks, you know.

 

[acd]

What is your definition of "church?" - it seems rather Christian oriented and negatively biased, but there are many religions in the world you know. Shamanism, Wiccanism, Jainism, Hinduism - yes there are several hundred million Hindus or so - Buddhism, Paganism, - granted Christianity has created many wars in the name of God, but so have many states. Still, the unjustifiable wars by either state or Church, are still just as unstifiable no matter what they call themselves. AS long as they stay at antihesis with one another, peace and harmony are lost. Segregation sucks, you know.

I wouldn't want a Wiccan speaking for me or legislating for me anymore than I'd want someone who followed Hinduism or any of the others. It's a problem when you start making laws for people to follow in which you can't back up the necessity for with fact. Imposing your religious beliefs on an entire population's lives just seems irresponsible to me.
I don't want to live my life according to some one else's faith. Everyone can follow whichever religion they see fit on their own, or follow no religion at all. I really don't care what other people believe in. I don't impose my beliefs on others and I don't want their beliefs imposed on me. So, in this case, I find that segregation does not suck.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

I think that all four factions would be present no matter which of the four forms held sway. Though this is an bastract exercise, it can't be forgotten that all four of these factions are essentially people.
In a purely market-ruled sytem, the religious, scientific (logic), and ideologies of right/wrong could not be abstracted from the individuals in the ruling positions.
For example, if the majority of the ruling individuals of a market-based system were Christian, Creationist (Intelligent Design), and extreme right-wing in judicial ideologies, then the subsequent market-based system would reflect those biases.

As an abstract exercise, this lacks many of the complexities which permeate actual governmental implementation.

Merely an observation.

 

[Satya]

What is your definition of "church?"

I defined it in the beginning of this thread.

- it seems rather Christian oriented and negatively biased, but there are many religions in the world you know. Shamanism, Wiccanism, Jainism, Hinduism - yes there are several hundred million Hindus or so - Buddhism, Paganism, - granted Christianity has created many wars in the name of God, but so have many states. Still, the unjustifiable wars by either state or Church, are still just as unstifiable no matter what they call themselves. AS long as they stay at antihesis with one another, peace and harmony are lost. Segregation sucks, you know.

I don't know of many scientific institutions that have waged war. I don't want any religious group to rule the state.

 

[Satya]

As an abstract exercise, this lacks many of the complexities which permeate actual governmental implementation.

As I've said before, this exercise is meant to tell us more about the values and thinking of the posters than lead to the creation of a practical government.

 

[mayflow]

I wouldn't want a Wiccan speaking for me or legislating for me anymore than I'd want someone who followed Hinduism or any of the others. It's a problem when you start making laws for people to follow in which you can't back up the necessity for with fact. Imposing your religious beliefs on an entire population's lives just seems irresponsible to me.
I don't want to live my life according to some one else's faith. Everyone can follow whichever religion they see fit on their own, or follow no religion at all. I really don't care what other people believe in. I don't impose my beliefs on others and I don't want their beliefs imposed on me. So, in this case, I find that segregation does not suck.

I really don't understand the point. I don't want any one to impose their beliefs on me or their laws on me either, nor I on them, but how does that translate into thinking segregation is good for you?

 

[acd]

I really don't understand the point. I don't want any one to impose their beliefs on me or their laws on me either, nor I on them, but how does that translate into thinking segregation is good for you?

Segregating or separating religious influence from government powers. What kind of segregation are you thinking I mean?

 

[EloquentBohemian]

As I've said before, this exercise is meant to tell us more about the values and thinking of the posters than lead to the creation of a practical government.

I am aware of that.
Yet, if someone chooses or creates another choice beyond the four given, it tells more about the values and thinking of an individual in that this individual thinks outside the limited parameters, outside the box, rather than to merely blindly accept that these are the only four options available to access political power.

Does one choose between four available inadequate options, or does one move beyond the options to create new ones?

I accept that currently, these are the four obvious options available, but what proves more about an individual, limiting their choice to what is offered or being creative and thinking beyond what is accepted?

I choose none of the above because of their proven track record of inability to rule without prejudice. Even if all four gained 25% equally, this would create a hypothetical situation of stalemate, unless coalitions are made which are inherently unstable.

If the point of this exercise is " meant to tell us more about the values and thinking of the posters", then to chose and create beyond the set parameters illustrates the values and thinking of an individual.

 

[mayflow]

I defined it in the beginning of this thread.

I don't know of many scientific institutions that have waged war. I don't want any religious group to rule the state.

Who do you want to rule the state then? Because state is like Hitler, Mousalini, Ceasar, George Bush - methinks they may have also started a war or two? How many world wars have you seen created by Buddhists? Ps It was your beloved scientists who created atomic weaponry ya know? -and it was not at the request of any religious groups I don't think.

 

[Satya]

I am aware of that.
Yet, if someone chooses or creates another choice beyond the four given, it tells more about the values and thinking of an individual in that this individual thinks outside the limited parameters, outside the box, rather than to merely blindly accept that these are the only four options available to access political power.

Yes, some posters in this thread have done so by adding "Philosophy".

Does one choose between four available inadequate options, or does one move beyond the options to create new ones?

If you can think of other potential institutions, then share them.

I accept that currently, these are the four obvious options available, but what proves more about an individual, limiting their choice to what is offered or being creative and thinking beyond what is accepted?

I don't think I have limited anything.

I choose none of the above because of their proven track record of inability to rule without prejudice. Even if all four gained 25% equally, this would create a hypothetical situation of stalemate, unless coalitions are made which are inherently unstable.

I don't think science has had an opportunity to rule as of yet.

If the point of this exercise is " meant to tell us more about the values and thinking of the posters", then to chose and create beyond the set parameters illustrates the values and thinking of an individual.

I don't disagree. I found it very interesting that many of the posters included "philosophy" and "spirituality" as alternative options to religious organizations.

 

[Satya]

Who do you want to rule the state then? Because state is like Hitler, Mousalini, Ceasar, George Bush - methinks they may have also started a war or two? How many world wars have you seen created by Buddhists? Ps It was your beloved scientists who created atomic weaponry ya know?

George Bush said that God wanted him to go to war in Iraq. He might not be a good example to use.

Based on the arguments that have been presented by the posters up until now, I think that science, tempered by philosophy, should rule. Not the state, market, or church.

 

[IndigoSensor]

Based on the arguments that have been presented by the posters up until now, I think that science, tempered by philosophy, should rule. Not the state, market, or church.

I agree

 

[Flavus Aquila]

And every society has failed or is currently messed up. Coincidence?



Religion IS superstition...




So we need religion for our heads of state to not be corrupt? From the precedences of history, religion is exploited by the corrupt, it does not make them not corrupt.

True points, but if you look at the very few atheistic governments which have existed, they have always been dictatorships, where the dictator has personal cult. Moreover, atheistic dictatorships, historically, have been notoriously ruthless with no restraint.

For example, Joseph Stalin is estimated to have ordered the death of over 20,000,000, most of which were soviet citizens. In one year alone he is said to have ordered the death of 100,000 priests, nuns, and monks.

 

[Satya]

True points, but if you look at the very few atheistic governments which have existed, they have always been dictatorships, where the dictator has personal cult. Moreover, atheistic dictatorships, historically, have been notoriously ruthless with no restraint.

For example, Joseph Stalin is estimated to have ordered the death of over 20,000,000, most of which were soviet citizens. In one year alone he is said to have ordered the death of 100,000 priests, nuns, and monks.

Are you making an argument against atheism or secularism?

 

[mayflow]

Segregating or separating religious influence from government powers. What kind of segregation are you thinking I mean?

Just what you said, but that is not to me either possible or honest. If I believe in certain ideals and a certain religion or state belives in this as well then we are in harmony but I don't care if it is called by this or that name, so to segregate religions from states from blacks from whites is all quite simply nonsense to my mind. I think these whings should all work together, not war at one another.