The Current Status of Monarchism.

But if the king of Sweden can't do anything important why do people like him?

lenin96, in some situations it's good to have a king. As an example we had a swede held in some african prison (forgot where), they refused to send him back to sweden. The state treid to get him back for years, but it wasnt untill the swedish king sent a personal letter to the dictator that something happened. I guess the dictators penis grows a little bit when they get a personal letter from a king.

Further, it gives things such as the Nobel Prize that little extra hint of being something special. To get medals and so on from a king is a little mroe special than getting it from whoever... If for no other reason then because of the protocol that must be followed (how to eat and dress and act and so on).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

He was sympathetic with them. Look at the Putney debates for example, throwing off the Norman yoke etc. I don't understand why politicians today can't conduct themselves so respectfully. Heck, the first thing Cromwell did when he took his seat in Parliament was to campaign for the release of the Leveller leader, John Lillburne.

---

Initially yes, Cromwell was sypathetic to Freeborn John, ultimately though the levellers were brutally supressed, just like the High Church, the Catholics and anyone who enjoyed Shakespeare or Christmas.

It was Charles, the King, who finally brought a measure of religious and social freedom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarmatian

Political thought advanced a bit in the several thousand years after Plato. Anyway, good or bad monarch - doesn't matter since they don't have any power. They're there just for show. The idea of someone being born into a position is contrary to meritocracy.

---

Has political thought really advanced since Plato, trying finding a philosophical system on wiki that is really different to something he, one of his contemporaries, or students first proposed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I'm just a revolting colonial, so what do I know? Folks have asked "By what right does a King rule?".

Wasn't it, in ancient times, the right of the sword? You're the strongest dude in the area, with the largest following = you get to lord it over the locals. Kingdoms weren't all that huge back 2,000 - 3,000 years ago (ignoring empires).

Then, with religion (and the theory of an interventionist God) getting involved, "the strongest dude" must ipso facto have been picked by God to rule (according to the holy guys), hence his vetting via coronation. If God didn't want him to be King, He wouldn't allow the coronation.

In the big picture of history, Kings have been usually acclaimed, and populations happy with them. It's when they died that things got sticky.

So it comes down to: how do you change rulers? How often, and by what means, and under what circumstances?

The old way: Strong guy gets to rule for life (NB life expectancy 35-50), then the folks who have his blood in them, on the probability that the good times will continue, god willing.

The new way: we understand blood and god and individual consent differently now. And leaders get their right to rule, not from god, or a strong right arm, but from we, the ruled. And we've come to see that, no matter how good a ruler starts out, after a time in power, he won't be as good as when he started, and needs to be replaced.

The new way may not be any more accurate or correct than the old way, but it's how we understand stuff now. If people want to call their head guy king, or president, or chief decider, or number one kahuna, what do I care? Everybody has a big boss, it seems. I don't get the big opposition to monarchy, other than they sometimes don't get picked popularly.

---

I think that's a good point about perception Kukri, though I naturally maintain that the English always chose their Kings when not directly conpelled by outsiders.

Of course, there has not been an English King since 1066.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

But if the king of Sweden can't do anything important why do people like him?

---

Firstly, monarchs do have some power and do some good, as Kadagar_AV pointed out. Secondly, the President of Germany can't do much either, so why do we like (or dislike) him?

Quote:

---

This person could be mentally deficient, it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

---

That wasn't exactly a very big list. There have been a fair share of democratically elected leaders with some problems in the cranial department.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

The French murdered Louis XVI, but this doesn't stop tourists from seeing the Versailles palace. Besides, I'm pretty sure people would visit the White House too if it was open for tourists.

---

It doesn't stop them, you are correct. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the reason many tourists flock to Great Britain is for the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy. It certainly is one of the things that the British government and travel websites most commonly advertise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

Firstly, monarchs do have some power and do some good, as Kadagar_AV pointed out. Secondly, the President of Germany can't do much either, so why do we like (or dislike) him?

---

Yes, they hand out medals and awards, sometimes even read a speech for a national holiday. Swedish king is forbidden to talk about political issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

It doesn't stop them, you are correct. However, I have absolutely no doubt that the reason many tourists flock to Great Britain is for the pomp and ceremony of the monarchy. It certainly is one of the things that the British government and travel websites most commonly advertise.

---

You advertise what you have. What is UK gonna advertise? Good food or nice weather?

I don't have the latest data, but I believe France still attracts more tourists than GB (if not, they're very close), even if GB has the advantage of having the same language as US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I'm also pretty sure that after Norway threw off the Swedish yoke they chose to be a monarchy, and that it was subsequently the kings that brought in Democracy across Scandanavia.

---

The Kings introduced democracy here? Just what are you on? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Initially yes, Cromwell was sypathetic to Freeborn John, ultimately though the levellers were brutally supressed, just like the High Church, the Catholics and anyone who enjoyed Shakespeare or Christmas.

It was Charles, the King, who finally brought a measure of religious and social freedom.

---

Of course he was not sympathetic to the mutineers, who decided to go rebel while on campaign in Ireland, despite the fact that Cromwell had allowed every division to elect representatives, effectively forming a democracy within the army in opposition to that at Westminster (which was occupied by the less radical landed interests).

And I'm glad the High Church was supressed, it was a political machine and had nothing to do with Christian religion. The disestablishement of the church was central to the idea of 'liberty of conscience', and Cromwell allowed Anglican services to take place, but without their previous status as the national church.

And I'm glad he banned Christmas too, it is a pagan practice and as such well without the scope of liberty of conscience within the Christian religion. Don't get me wrong, I don't run around telling children Santa doesn't exist (though that would be hilarious), but the religious element of Christmas should be removed, no Christian should wish to honour Baal's birthday.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

It was Charles, the King, who finally brought a measure of religious and social freedom.

---

Erm... ever heard of the killing times?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Of course, there has not been an English King since 1066.

---

Finally, you and the Puritans can agree on something! :beam:

"The French murdered Louis XVI": The French executed Louis Capet after a Court proceeding where the in favor of the Death Penalty won by one voice for betraying the Country. Incidentally, this voice was from his own brother, the future Louis XVIII. He had lawyers and had times to prepare his case, things that most opponents to his regime never got.:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

But why bother have a King? This person could be mentally deficient, it's better choose someone who has shown their level of intelligence (as well as other things of course).

---

because nobody has found a better way of governing a country. full stop.

there are lots of people in other countries who will say they prefer what they have, and good for them, but why change what works perfectly well for an unknown quantity which has frequently led to instability and revolution when tried in the past?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Of course he was not sympathetic to the mutineers, who decided to go rebel while on campaign in Ireland, despite the fact that Cromwell had allowed every division to elect representatives, effectively forming a democracy within the army in opposition to that at Westminster (which was occupied by the less radical landed interests).

---

Freeborn John was not a rebel, he resigned his commission when the Scots forced the Solemn League and Covenant on the English.

Cromwell kept him in prison, when he was like to die the warden released him so he could visit his wife. Cromwell ordered him returned to prison, he was already dead.

Your great hero persecuted a man who had once been his friend because because he disagreed with him politically.

Quote:

---

And I'm glad the High Church was supressed, it was a political machine and had nothing to do with Christian religion. The disestablishement of the church was central to the idea of 'liberty of conscience', and Cromwell allowed Anglican services to take place, but without their previous status as the national church.

---

So it's freedom of Calvinism then, is it?

Had I been alive at that time I would not have had the money to flee, I would probably have had my head stoved in when I tried to stop them desicrating the cathedral by dividing it in half, or closing 7 of the 11 churches in the city. Measures taken by parliament and supported by the army.

The Book of Common Prayer, was banned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer

You might want to take note of the quoted diary entry,

"Christmas Day 1657. I went to London with my wife to celebrate Christmas Day. . . Sermon ended, as [the minister] was giving us the holy sacrament, the chapel was surrounded with soldiers, and all the communicants and assembly surprised and kept prisoners by them, some in the house, others carried away... These wretched miscreants held their muskets against us as we came up to receive the sacred elements, as if they would have shot us at the altar."

So, I might have been shot as well.

Quote:

---

And I'm glad he banned Christmas too, it is a pagan practice and as such well without the scope of liberty of conscience within the Christian religion. Don't get me wrong, I don't run around telling children Santa doesn't exist (though that would be hilarious), but the religious element of Christmas should be removed, no Christian should wish to honour Baal's birthday.

---

Yes, invoking pointless suffering in the name of his personal religion.

Quote:

---

Erm... ever heard of the killing times?

---

Had they not tried to (sometimes violently) force their religion on others, including the King, things might have been different. That doesn't make it right, but it's worth remembering.

We restored the monarchy because, frankly, everyone hated the Republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Freeborn John was not a rebel, he resigned his commission when the Scots forced the Solemn League and Covenant on the English.

Cromwell kept him in prison, when he was like to die the warden released him so he could visit his wife. Cromwell ordered him returned to prison, he was already dead.

Your great hero persecuted a man who had once been his friend because because he disagreed with him politically.

---

First of all, the Scots did not force the Solemn League and Covenant on anyone. The Puritans were very happy to sign it, otherwise they would have fought the Covenanters in the 1640 invasion. Both Covenanters and Parliament were happy with the document, although conflict would later arise over their interpretation of it

To be specific, the Scots interpreted it as a static agreement which stated at the time of its signing the relationship between church and state; the Parliamentarians on the other hand believed that God's providence was shown by the successes and failures of the army, justifying the victors. Obviously, this propaganda related back to the defeat of the Engagers, which was taken by the English as a sign of God's preference of the congregationalist church model over Presbyterianism. Of course, the Kirk did not see things that way and hearkened back to the covenant. I sympathise more with the Parliamentarians on this (since the Solelm League and Covenant was far from clear on the issue), however something which was not considered by either side is that defeats could also be a result of God's providence to punish the elect, rather than justify them - just a little thought of my own to add confusion to a very confusing issue.

As for Lillburne, I sympathise with his cause but the means with which he was promoting it were unacceptable. He took advantage of Parliament's refusal to pay the troops and caused rebellion in the Army while on campaign. To take advantage of the fragile government at the time was just not on, especially given the importance of the wars being fought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So it's freedom of Calvinism then, is it?

Had I been alive at that time I would not have had the money to flee, I would probably have had my head stoved in when I tried to stop them desicrating the cathedral by dividing it in half, or closing 7 of the 11 churches in the city. Measures taken by parliament and supported by the army.

The Book of Common Prayer, was banned

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer

You might want to take note of the quoted diary entry, "Christmas Day 1657. I went to London with my wife to celebrate Christmas Day. . . Sermon ended, as [the minister] was giving us the holy sacrament, the chapel was surrounded with soldiers, and all the communicants and assembly surprised and kept prisoners by them, some in the house, others carried away... These wretched miscreants held their muskets against us as we came up to receive the sacred elements, as if they would have shot us at the altar."

So, I might have been shot as well.

---

No, it is freedom to practice the Christian religion. When people hear about how Cromwell spoke of 'liberty of conscience', they do not understand what he was referring to. He was pointing to Chapter XX Part II of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."

So, if you are not a Christian, then you cannot even have liberty of consience, since you are in effect a slave to sin. This goes for the pagan elements seen in many branches of Christianity. If you celebrate Christmas, you are wishing Baal happy birthday. If you celebrate Easter, you are acknowledging the pagan godess Ashtar, and it is a grave sin to have the name of any false God on your lips!

The Book of Common Prayer was used to reinforce such un-Christian beliefs, and as such falls without the liberty of conscience Cromwell spoke of. You could be an Arminian and believe in free will, you could support the Episcopalian church polity, but when you start worshipping pagan God's something is going wrong.

Also, don't forget is was Charles' attempt to force the Book of Common Prayer on the Scots that caused the British Wars of Religion in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Yes, invoking pointless suffering in the name of his personal religion.

---

LOLWUT? What's that got to do with the stuff about Christmas? Can anyone actually defend this pagan practice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Had they not tried to (sometimes violently) force their religion on others, including the King, things might have been different. That doesn't make it right, but it's worth remembering.

We restored the monarchy because, frankly, everyone hated the Republic.

---

The landed interests united with some of the superstitious English peasantry and that is why the Republic came to an end. I'm ashamed to say the landed interests in Scotland, even within the Kirk, did the same.

Don't forget the Restoration was much to the disgust of the New Model Army, sadly it was so busy defending the Republic from foreign threats that it could not handle the domestic pressure. The common Scots were absolutedly disgusted with the Kirk for supporting the King, I am still angry about it today! The ideals didn't die with the Restoration though, the Galloway Levellers were still revolting in 1723, good for them!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

First of all, the Scots did not force the Solemn League and Covenant on anyone. The Puritans were very happy to sign it, otherwise they would have fought the Covenanters in the 1640 invasion. Both Covenanters and Parliament were happy with the document, although conflict would later arise over their interpretation of it

To be specific, the Scots interpreted it as a static agreement which stated at the time of its signing the relationship between church and state; the Parliamentarians on the other hand believed that God's providence was shown by the successes and failures of the army, justifying the victors. Obviously, this propaganda related back to the defeat of the Engagers, which was taken by the English as a sign of God's preference of the congregationalist church model over Presbyterianism. Of course, the Kirk did not see things that way and hearkened back to the covenant. I sympathise more with the Parliamentarians on this (since the Solelm League and Covenant was far from clear on the issue), however something which was not considered by either side is that defeats could also be a result of God's providence to punish the elect, rather than justify them - just a little thought of my own to add confusion to a very confusing issue.

As for Lillburne, I sympathise with his cause but the means with which he was promoting it were unacceptable. He took advantage of Parliament's refusal to pay the troops and caused rebellion in the Army while on campaign. To take advantage of the fragile government at the time was just not on, especially given the importance of the wars being fought.

---

The Covenanters sought to force their particular form of Christianity upon England in return for military help. For them religion was more important that the excesses of the King. Would the Covenanters have invaded anyway in 1640 and sought to impose that theology on the embattled English?

As to Freeborn John, he pointed out the iniquitiues of parliament. They should have payed the army, then it would not have rebelled. They were as corrupt as John said they were.

Quote:

---

No, it is freedom to practice the Christian religion. When people hear about how Cromwell spoke of 'liberty of conscience', they do not understand what he was referring to. He was pointing to Chapter XX Part II of the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

"God alone is Lord of the conscience, and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship. So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience: and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also."

So, if you are not a Christian, then you cannot even have liberty of consience, since you are in effect a slave to sin. This goes for the pagan elements seen in many branches of Christianity. If you celebrate Christmas, you are wishing Baal happy birthday. If you celebrate Easter, you are acknowledging the pagan godess Ashtar, and it is a grave sin to have the name of any false God on your lips!

---

I would not sign the Westminster Confession if you were to put a gun to my head, I could not. I therefore do not meet your definition of a Christian. Worse, I celebrate Easter and Christmas with the rest of my City, in an ancient Church, before a Bishop.

You define Christianity as Calvinistic, the Confession is Calvinistic.

You are using your interpretation of Christianity to justify the violent, and it was violent, supression of divergant views.

Catholics did the same to the Lollards.

Quote:

---

The Book of Common Prayer was used to reinforce such un-Christian beliefs, and as such falls without the liberty of conscience Cromwell spoke of. You could be an Arminian and believe in free will, you could support the Episcopalian church polity, but when you start worshipping pagan God's something is going wrong.

Also, don't forget is was Charles' attempt to force the Book of Common Prayer on the Scots that caused the British Wars of Religion in the first place.

---

Un-Christian? I suppose that makes Jesus un-Christian because he celebrated passover, which is exactly what Easter is. We use a Pagan word to ifentify the festival just as we use a Pagan word to identify God. It's going to be that way unless you want us to learn Hebrew.

Still, just because you don't like it why should I have my prayer book taken at gunpoint? What gives you that right?

Quote:

---

LOLWUT? What's that got to do with the stuff about Christmas? Can anyone actually defend this pagan practice?

---

Cromwell decided what HE didn't like and supressed it, he justifyed his brutality with a deterministic religion.

He decided he knew what God wanted and he forced it upon others.

That is why he was hated, he was as bad as the King.

Quote:

---

The landed interests united with some of the superstitious English peasantry and that is why the Republic came to an end. I'm ashamed to say the landed interests in Scotland, even within the Kirk, did the same.

Don't forget the Restoration was much to the disgust of the New Model Army, sadly it was so busy defending the Republic from foreign threats that it could not handle the domestic pressure. The common Scots were absolutedly disgusted with the Kirk for supporting the King, I am still angry about it today! The ideals didn't die with the Restoration though, the Galloway Levellers were still revolting in 1723, good for them!

---

The Restoration was a restoration of Parliament as well as of Monarchy. It saw the disolving of the army districts and the end of Martial Law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars

That wasn't exactly a very big list. There have been a fair share of democratically elected leaders with some problems in the cranial department.

---

Yes, elected leaders have had those problems as well, but those insane monarchs came to power because of their birth, they wouldn't have came to power if it wasn't a Monarchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

because nobody has found a better way of governing a country. full stop.

---

Trusting that your leader will be good when they are decided by birth and nothing else isn't a good government, merit and ideology matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

Yes, elected leaders have had those problems as well, but those insane monarchs came to power because of their birth, they wouldn't have came to power if it wasn't a Monarchy.

---

Not specifically them, perhaps not, but someone equally inept or insane, certainly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The Covenanters sought to force their particular form of Christianity upon England in return for military help. For them religion was more important that the excesses of the King. Would the Covenanters have invaded anyway in 1640 and sought to impose that theology on the embattled English?

As to Freeborn John, he pointed out the iniquitiues of parliament. They should have payed the army, then it would not have rebelled. They were as corrupt as John said they were.

---

I would hope religion is more important than the excesses of the king! But the two had become inseperable, and the King's attempts to force religious uniformity are what led to the Scottish invasion. Also, I do not know where you get this idea that the Scots forced the Solemn League and Covenant upon the English, the Puritans were quite happy with it (in fact, a majority of the Puritans supported a Presbyterian polity under the king at this stage - although the situation reversed, the Covananters started off as the more radical faction).

Also, parliament had become iniquitous, and was threatening the principles of the Godly Republic. Cromwell was just as disgusted with Parliament as Lilburne, the Political Presbyterians (not actually Presybterian by this point, yeah confusing) had gained a majority and were far less radical than the Independents that were dominant in the New Model Army. Lilburne wasn't persecuted for his criticism of Parliament, but for encouraging rebellion in the army while on campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I would not sign the Westminster Confession if you were to put a gun to my head, I could not. I therefore do not meet your definition of a Christian. Worse, I celebrate Easter and Christmas with the rest of my City, in an ancient Church, before a Bishop.

You define Christianity as Calvinistic, the Confession is Calvinistic.

You are using your interpretation of Christianity to justify the violent, and it was violent, supression of divergant views.

Catholics did the same to the Lollards.

---

I didn't say you had the agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith to be Christian. But I do agree with its definition of what could be reasonably said to come within the boundaries of Christian religion. It is fine to believe in Arminian doctrines of free will, or support the Bishops if you like them. However, by no stetch of the imagination does the worship of false gods and the celebration of pagan festivals have anything to do with Christianity.

Calvinism is just one branch of Christian thought and I wouldn't claim to believe with certainty that it is correct. But where does the freedom to believe other doctrines extend to completely un-Christian practices?

I am not justifying the supression of Anglicanism through my Calvinist views, I am justifying it through Christianity. It is no longer Christianity when people worship Baal and Ashtar. :no:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Un-Christian? I suppose that makes Jesus un-Christian because he celebrated passover, which is exactly what Easter is. We use a Pagan word to ifentify the festival just as we use a Pagan word to identify God. It's going to be that way unless you want us to learn Hebrew.

Still, just because you don't like it why should I have my prayer book taken at gunpoint? What gives you that right?

---

Jesus was Jewish messiah, remember our other debate going on in the other thread about the significance of the customs of ethnic Israel. As Gentiles, why would we keep Jewish customs? Or invent our own to run parallel to them? Also, I don't consider God to be a name in place of Yahweh, to us 'God' is a concept used to identify the one who says that he is 'I am'. Praising 'I am' by a festival called Easter is a bit like giving someone a birthday cake with someone elses name on it, its completely different from using a word to describe our idea of Yahweh.

As for what gives me the right to take a prayer book... well that is a whole other can of worms. Dare I say God?

"I will ask you a question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things" :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Cromwell decided what HE didn't like and supressed it, he justifyed his brutality with a deterministic religion.

He decided he knew what God wanted and he forced it upon others.

That is why he was hated, he was as bad as the King.

---

He was right. :shrug:

I still can't see a reasonable defence of how these pagan festivals could be said to come within the realms of the Christian religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The Restoration was a restoration of Parliament as well as of Monarchy. It saw the disolving of the army districts and the end of Martial Law.

---

And attempted to plunge Britain back into absolutism, leading to the events of 1688. The New Model Army was a better voice for the people than Parliament ever was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

I would hope religion is more important than the excesses of the king! But the two had become inseperable, and the King's attempts to force religious uniformity are what led to the Scottish invasion. Also, I do not know where you get this idea that the Scots forced the Solemn League and Covenant upon the English, the Puritans were quite happy with it (in fact, a majority of the Puritans supported a Presbyterian polity under the king at this stage - although the situation reversed, the Covananters started off as the more radical faction).

Also, parliament had become iniquitous, and was threatening the principles of the Godly Republic. Cromwell was just as disgusted with Parliament as Lilburne, the Political Presbyterians (not actually Presybterian by this point, yeah confusing) had gained a majority and were far less radical than the Independents that were dominant in the New Model Army. Lilburne wasn't persecuted for his criticism of Parliament, but for encouraging rebellion in the army while on campaign.

---

Freeborn John was no longer an officer by this point. He complained, rightly, that the Army was not being paid while the generals had comfortable livings.

He was not a soldier, he could not mutiny, nor be held responsible for the conduct of soldiers. He was scapegoated because, as always, the officers tried to screw the Poor Bloody Infantry.

Quote:

---

I didn't say you had the agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith to be Christian. But I do agree with its definition of what could be reasonably said to come within the boundaries of Christian religion. It is fine to believe in Arminian doctrines of free will, or support the Bishops if you like them. However, by no stetch of the imagination does the worship of false gods and the celebration of pagan festivals have anything to do with Christianity.

Calvinism is just one branch of Christian thought and I wouldn't claim to believe with certainty that it is correct. But where does the freedom to believe other doctrines extend to completely un-Christian practices?

I am not justifying the supression of Anglicanism through my Calvinist views, I am justifying it through Christianity. It is no longer Christianity when people worship Baal and Ashtar. :no:

---

There is no worship of Ba'al or any other God in Anglicanism, nor in any similar denomination. Those festivals were replaced by Christian ones, root and branch. I celebrate both, and I don't recall sacrificing any babies or animals. Nor do I recall any naked dancing or public fornication.

If you want to attack my religion you'll need more that one word and a few dates.

Right now this is just sanctimonious dross, and has already crossed the line into being personal.

Quote:

---

Jesus was Jewish messiah, remember our other debate going on in the other thread about the significance of the customs of ethnic Israel. As Gentiles, why would we keep Jewish customs? Or invent our own to run parallel to them? Also, I don't consider God to be a name in place of Yahweh, to us 'God' is a concept used to identify the one who says that he is 'I am'. Praising 'I am' by a festival called Easter is a bit like giving someone a birthday cake with someone elses name on it, its completely different from using a word to describe our idea of Yahweh.

---

If Jews can keep their customs, why can't others? Is this not what Acts and the Epistles Establish? Why can't Gentiles celebrate Christ's birthday on what used to be a pagan Holy Day?

Surely that just makes life easier for everyone.

Quote:

---

As for what gives me the right to take a prayer book... well that is a whole other can of worms. Dare I say God?

"I will ask you a question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things" :beam:

---

So you're Jesus now? How about this one,

"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain"

Quote:

---

He was right. :shrug:

I still can't see a reasonable defence of how these pagan festivals could be said to come within the realms of the Christian religion.

---

Maybe he was, but that gives him no right to enforce his view upon others with violence, an entirely pointless and ineffective stratergy in any case.

Quote:

---

And attempted to plunge Britain back into absolutism, leading to the events of 1688. The New Model Army was a better voice for the people than Parliament ever was.

---

The majoriety of the people supported the restoration, overwhelmingly, because they were tired of muskets shoved in their faces.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Freeborn John was no longer an officer by this point. He complained, rightly, that the Army was not being paid while the generals had comfortable livings.

He was not a soldier, he could not mutiny, nor be held responsible for the conduct of soldiers. He was scapegoated because, as always, the officers tried to screw the Poor Bloody Infantry.

---

He continued to promote propaganda about a domsetic issue while the soldiers were on an important campaign... there is no excuse for that. It must have seemed even more unforgivable at the time, given the fact that the Puritans thought they were fighting an apocalyptic war in anticipation of the Second Coming, in their minds they were living out the Book of Revelation. Of course they turned out to be wrong, but there was good reason to believe it at the time, the only piece in the puzzle missing was Israel, although plans were underway to gather together the Jews into the Commonwealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

There is no worship of Ba'al or any other God in Anglicanism, nor in any similar denomination. Those festivals were replaced by Christian ones, root and branch. I celebrate both, and I don't recall sacrificing any babies or animals. Nor do I recall any naked dancing or public fornication.

If you want to attack my religion you'll need more that one word and a few dates.

Right now this is just sanctimonious dross, and has already crossed the line into being personal.

---

I didn't know there was such a thing as a Christian festival, where does the scripture mention it?!

Also, I don't see how it is personal, I am talking about an established national church here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

If Jews can keep their customs, why can't others? Is this not what Acts and the Epistles Establish? Why can't Gentiles celebrate Christ's birthday on what used to be a pagan Holy Day?

Surely that just makes life easier for everyone.

---

There is a verse where Jesus clearly states not to acknowledge days and years, although I can't find it now, gah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So you're Jesus now? How about this one,

"Thou shalt not take the Lord's name in vain"

---

Jesus always has a better answer at hand than I do, the scripture is there so we can apply his wisdom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Maybe he was, but that gives him no right to enforce his view upon others with violence, an entirely pointless and ineffective stratergy in any case.

---

So you are asking what gives him the right to spread the Gospel? Jesus didnt' walk into the temple and say to the money changers, "please do not do that". Jesus didn't tell people it was OK to go about blaspheming, least of all in a church. No 'rights' about it, every Christian should seek to see the word practised, and not lost under a mountain of traditions, festivals, and church hierarchies.

According to the Anglican take on resistance theories, Cromwell and his government was the power appointed by God, and so everything they do is by God's providence. If they tell you not to celebtrate Christmas, you should not. Of course, such propaganda was designed before the Interregnum, and was supposed to keep the Puritans in check - kind of backfired when the government it was supposed to uphold collapsed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The majoriety of the people supported the restoration, overwhelmingly, because they were tired of muskets shoved in their faces.

---

Not really, the government collapsed and the opportunists were waiting to pounce. It was a military state, Cromwell was a soldier and after he died his son didn't have the ability to hold the army together. It was not collapsing due to royalist support, but its own internal struggles - between the levellers, the diggers, the Political Presbyterians, the Independents, the Political Independents, Parliament v Army etc etc. It was the first time in English (even world) history that the average person became seriosuly involved in the political scene. The period was a golden age for political movements when universal suffrage and communism (in a form) first appeared, complemented as well by unparalleled advancements in theology given the short space of time. There was just too much going on for it to be held together, so the kings came back and we went back to the feudal :daisy:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In any case, none of this justifies the killing of a king. Generally when you kill a King you get something worse. Take a look at England or France, for a start.

---

lolwut ?

While Louis XVI was actually a decent king, and probably did not deserve to be shortened the way he was, his familly was on a general basis and by all accounts, a bunch of inbred morons responsible for most of the wars that plagued Europe for centuries.
If anything, the Restauration (1815-1830) shown us that the royal family was nothing but a lot of idiots.

I mean, you can admire the Sun King's military and political achievements. That doesn't change the fact he caused thousands of deaths. He probably killed as many people as Napoleon, yet he did not bring with him the ideas of equality, freedom and republic.
And I'm not even talking about Louis XVIII, Charles X, and the rest of the gang.

So yeah, I'm glad we got rid of them all. I'd take Napoleon or Robespierre over any of them at any time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

Trusting that your leader will be good when they are decided by birth and nothing else isn't a good government, merit and ideology matter.

---

you are confusing an absolute monarchy with a constitutional monarchy.

that really isn't going to be a problem for the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you are confusing an absolute monarchy with a constitutional monarchy.

that really isn't going to be a problem for the UK.

---

I was mostly talking about an absolute Monarchy, but even a constitutional one, they haven't done anything great to deserve the treatment that they get.

Ours hasn't done anything wrong either, and given that there is no absolute advantage to any other sort of governance yet devised why introduce instability into the system for zero benefit?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Ours hasn't done anything wrong either, and given that there is no absolute advantage to any other sort of governance yet devised why introduce instability into the system for zero benefit?

---

The British queen doesn't deserve what she has, should she have all of that wealth? Can you imagine her giving money to poor people or even caring about them? And what instability would occur?

I think the instability argument may have had some merit going back a while but in the modern world i highly doubt UK would be less stable without a monarchy...

Im against the monarchy on prinicple but i have got to be honest the Queen ain't all that bad and she does a fairly good job... i predict the death of the monarchy not long after our next bad monarch...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

The British queen doesn't deserve what she has, should she have all of that wealth? Can you imagine her giving money to poor people or even caring about them? And what instability would occur?

---

political instability always results from tinkering with the constitutional mechanisms of governance. you add additional entropy to system that is already perpetually seeking equilibrium.
we can consider finland as this fictional example of equilibrium, and we might equally consider rwanda as an excellent example of the entropic extremes of the pendulums swing.

so you are happy to create a less stable society just so you can remove a few palaces from the person who we call our head of state?

we have a working system, which is no worse than any other system, and significantly better than the vast majority.

again, why change it?

So Britian would be as instable like Rwanda if we tried to remove the head of state ?!

We have a functioning first world democracy, removing the monarchy would cause neither revolution nor instability, infact i suspect the country would function pretty much along the same lines... the Queen is a figure head... no more than that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

again, why change it?

---

Becaue it is people living with money and "happiness" without doing any work, in this case they do not deserve it so they cannot have it.

We might have to agree to disagree as I am bent on getting rid of the aristocracy.:rifle: :crowngrin: --------->:smg: :crowngrin: :hmg:--------->:hanged:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

Becaue it is people living with money and "happiness" without doing any work, in this case they do not deserve it so they cannot have it.

We might have to agree to disagree as I am bent on getting rid of the aristocracy.:rifle: :crowngrin: --------->:smg: :crowngrin: :hmg:--------->:hanged:

---

the queen and phil work harder than you ever will, by an order of magnitude.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

So Britian would be as instable like Rwanda if we tried to remove the head of state ?!

We have a functioning first world democracy, removing the monarchy would cause neither revolution nor instability, infact i suspect the country would function pretty much along the same lines... the Queen is a figure head... no more than that...

---

no, but neither are we finland.

the point stands, why change what has no net-deficit compared to any other system when the only result will be an increase in social instability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

the queen and phil work harder than you ever will, by an order of magnitude.

---

What do they work towards? And we might have to agree to disagree here as well, in my oppinion any member of the working class is far more important or good than any monarch will ever be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

Becaue it is people living with money and "happiness" without doing any work, in this case they do not deserve it so they cannot have it.

We might have to agree to disagree as I am bent on getting rid of the aristocracy.:rifle: :crowngrin: --------->:smg: :crowngrin: :hmg:--------->:hanged:

---

So it would seem that the core of modern western communism is...
Hatred of a certain class?

Without doing any work? I fear you may have a very simplistic and outright wrong impression of our Monarchy. Monarchs have never been able to simply do nothing and slack off the duties given to them.

more...good? Is this a claim of moral superiority over another? Sounds dangerous to me, probabaly sounded dangerous to alot of thinking Russians before they got ventilated heads.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

So it would seem that the core of modern western communism is...
Hatred of a certain class?

---

Of course not all rich people are bad, but a lot of them don't respect the working class, ignore the problems of people less fortunate than them and/or don't work enough for good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Without doing any work? I fear you may have a very simplistic and outright wrong impression of our Monarchy. Monarchs have never been able to simply do nothing and slack off the duties given to them.

---

I know that, but what good are those duties? There are probably other people who can do the job better who have more merit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

more...good? Is this a claim of moral superiority over another?

---

Seeing that we shouldn't have Monarchies, then the work they do is less important than the working class. Also I'm curious if the queen respects the working class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Sounds dangerous to me, probabaly sounded dangerous to alot of thinking Russians before they got ventilated heads.

---

Dangerous to Monarchies of course! (And the last part makes no sense.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

Dangerous to Monarchies of course! (And the last part makes no sense.)

---

Yes it does, such ideas of moral superiority were dangerous not just for aristocrats but for everyone whom disagreed with it, i.e those who think and in many cases in Russia (when communist) these people had their brains splatterd against concrete walls byt those men whom believed that the moral superiority of their class meant they could do no wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Yes it does, such ideas of moral superiority were dangerous not just for aristocrats but for everyone whom disagreed with it, i.e those who think and in many cases in Russia (when communist)

---

It depends, I disagree with the execution of the Tzar's family, I am unsure about the Tzar himself as if he were to be captured by the royalists then it was necessary. I mainly believe that aristocrats be taken out of power and made to be productive like everyone else. Not be killed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

...these people had their brains splatterd against concrete walls byt those men whom believed that the moral superiority of their class meant they could do no wrong.

---

Thats irrelevant because I would generally disagree with that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

It depends, I disagree with the execution of the Tzar's family, I am unsure about the Tzar himself as if he were to be captured by the royalists then it was necessary. I mainly believe that aristocrats be taken out of power and made to be productive like everyone else. Not be killed.
Thats irrelevant because I would generally disagree with that.

---

It does not matter what you may think, that is what Communism does, it is an extremism and those who lead communists revolutions are dangerous ideologues.

BOT:

I agree that the abolishment of the Monarchy by anything than a massive majority would lead to civil unrest, since you are unlikely to get that majority anytime soon. Such an action if undertaken within the next fifty of so years would probably be taken by the current ruling clas, that very unpopular lot in the Commons. They would lack almost any kind of support and I wonder if they would face resistance from the military?

No, an imposition of a Republic upon a U.K similar to today's would be a disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

It does not matter what you may think, that is what Communism does, it is an extremism and those who lead communists revolutions are dangerous ideologues.

---

I have no problem being labeled "extremist". Communism may be "extreme" but that is irrelevant as the cause matters. Why is more important than what.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

I agree that the abolishment of the Monarchy by anything than a massive majority would lead to civil unrest, since you are unlikely to get that majority anytime soon. Such an action if undertaken within the next fifty of so years would probably be taken by the current ruling clas, that very unpopular lot in the Commons. They would lack almost any kind of support and I wonder if they would face resistance from the military?

---

Civil unrest, what would the civil unrest be targeted at and what would it want to achieve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

No, an imposition of a Republic upon a U.K similar to today's would be a disaster.

---

A disaster to who?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

What do they work towards? And we might have to agree to disagree here as well, in my oppinion any member of the working class is far more important or good than any monarch will ever be.

---

you are still spouting rhetoric that was demonstrated to be cretinous nearly twenty years ago, wow.

civil unrest would be directed at whoever tried to make the UK a republic, and rightly so because those who directly wield the cratos would not be reflecting the will of the demos.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

you are still spouting rhetoric that was demonstrated to be cretinous nearly twenty years ago, wow.

---

I was being serious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

civil unrest would be directed at whoever tried to make the UK a republic, and rightly so because those who directly wield the cratos would not be reflecting the will of the demos.

---

I'm not interested in the fact that most people would like the monarchy, but that the people who don't want one (and I don't blame them) shouldn't have to put up with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

I'm not interested in the fact that most people would like the monarchy, but that the people who don't want one (and I don't blame them) shouldn't have to put up with it.

---

???

Wait, are you saying that the minority which agrees with your ideals, the right ones, it more important than the mass of people whom disagree with you?
Haven't you just been arguing for Democracy? Or rather, the democracy of the workers? The workers who in the u.k are the greatest support base for the Monarchy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Wait, are you saying that the minority which agrees with your ideals, the right ones, it more important than the mass of people whom disagree with you?
Haven't you just been arguing for Democracy? Or rather, the democracy of the workers? The workers who in the u.k are the greatest support base for the Monarchy?

---

If all the workers supported the monarchy then I wold leave them alone. But rightiousness is one of the most selective things there is. I wasn't arguing for democracy, I'm mostly against Democracy (at least western Democracy). I was mostly arguing for anti-monarchism as well as Socialism. Some workers don't like the monarchy, and seeing that nobody should have to put up with a monarchy I would stand up for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

???

Wait, are you saying that the minority which agrees with your ideals, the right ones, it more important than the mass of people whom disagree with you?
Haven't you just been arguing for Democracy? Or rather, the democracy of the workers? The workers who in the u.k are the greatest support base for the Monarchy?

---

I said it before, but I'll happily say it again:

If the people loves their king so much, the solution is obvious to us living in a democracy: ELECT HIM!

The lack of hereditary rule is one of the top reasons why democracy is better than other systems. In a democracy, people come to power because of their abilities. If the King/Queen is so loved, then it shouldn't be a problem getting them elected. So, that a people wants to keep their monarchy isn't a reason to keep the monarchy at all, in fact its a good reason to abolish it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I said it before, but I'll happily say it again:

If the people loves their king so much, the solution is obvious to us living in a democracy: ELECT HIM!

The lack of hereditary rule is one of the top reasons why democracy is better than other systems. In a democracy, people come to power because of their abilities. If the King/Queen is so loved, then it shouldn't be a problem getting them elected. So, that a people wants to keep their monarchy isn't a reason to keep the monarchy at all, in fact its a good reason to abolish it.

---

Oh dear, lack of understanding about what love for monarchy means I think. Also a lack of understanding about the U.K's government, we do get to vote in a Parliament y'know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Oh dear, lack of understanding about what love for monarchy means I think. Also a lack of understanding about the U.K's government, we do get to vote in a Parliament y'know?

---

But you don't vote for your monarch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

lolwut ?

While Louis XVI was actually a decent king, and probably did not deserve to be shortened the way he was, his familly was on a general basis and by all accounts, a bunch of inbred morons responsible for most of the wars that plagued Europe for centuries.
If anything, the Restauration (1815-1830) shown us that the royal family was nothing but a lot of idiots.

I mean, you can admire the Sun King's military and political achievements. That doesn't change the fact he caused thousands of deaths. He probably killed as many people as Napoleon, yet he did not bring with him the ideas of equality, freedom and republic.
And I'm not even talking about Louis XVIII, Charles X, and the rest of the gang.

So yeah, I'm glad we got rid of them all. I'd take Napoleon or Robespierre over any of them at any time.

---

Both Napoleon and Robespierre were dictators. Napoleon was also an absolute monarchist. How are they better? Just because they aren't Caputs?

"Both Napoleon and Robespierre were dictators. Napoleon was also an absolute monarchist. How are they better? Just because they aren't Caputs?"

Napoleon was not a monarchist. By definition.:beam:

How they wrere better: They never pretended it was a right by God's will...

Caputs? or Kaput?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

But you don't vote for your monarch.

---

Is that a problem if no better form of governance exists?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brenus

"Both Napoleon and Robespierre were dictators. Napoleon was also an absolute monarchist. How are they better? Just because they aren't Caputs?"

Napoleon was not a monarchist. By definition.:beam:

How they wrere better: They never pretended it was a right by God's will...

Caputs? or Kaput?

---

How was Napoleon not a Monarch?

He was the sole (mono) ruler (arche) of France. He saw himself as a Roman Emperor and he made his brother of king of Spain!

He got as many Frenchmen killed as any of your kings, and he wanted his son to suceed him.

I think this discussion is pointless. You can have absolute monarches, lame duck monarchs, and everything inbetween. The same goes for whatever other person/group of people might be in charge, whether they are populist dictators, oligarchs, or whoever.

The real question is whether or not the hereditary asepct of monarchy is of any value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Oh dear, lack of understanding about what love for monarchy means I think. Also a lack of understanding about the U.K's government, we do get to vote in a Parliament y'know?

---

So.... In other words, you favour forcing your own will upon the rest of us. Nobody but you should have a say in your system. Nice.

speaking as a brit to a norwegian; no you shouldn't.

you can comment, but to have a say is to imply to have some effect of change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So.... In other words, you favour forcing your own will upon the rest of us. Nobody but you should have a say in your system. Nice.

---

That's the essence of the state - forcing your will on others. Autocrats and democrats alike follow that model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

So.... In other words, you favour forcing your own will upon the rest of us. Nobody but you should have a say in your system. Nice.

---

WTF?
What do you not understand about the popularity of our monarchy and the structure of constitutional monarchy?

No crap we don;t get a vote in terms of who is monarch! It is a :daisy: monarchy! Stop acting as if you cannot comprehend any other form of government which does not require people to vote in a bunch of idiots into parliament.

Quote:

---

But you don't vote for your monarch.

---

Correct, that is why it is a monarchy...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

So Britian would be as instable like Rwanda if we tried to remove the head of state ?!

We have a functioning first world democracy, removing the monarchy would cause neither revolution nor instability, infact i suspect the country would function pretty much along the same lines... the Queen is a figure head... no more than that...

---

I'm not sure about chaos and civil war but do remember this, the members of the armed services take an oath to Her Majesty, Her heirs and successors, not the government of the day. They also take this oath very seriously.

We are where we are after a thousand years and we have become one of the most stable countries in the world. Like I said in my earlier post, I'd rather have Brenda as head of state than an oily politician* any day of the week.

*Apologies to those members here who have oily politicians as thier head of state. :sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

speaking as a brit to a norwegian; no you shouldn't.

you can comment, but to have a say is to imply to have some effect of change.

---

Uhm.... I'm pretty sure everyone else understood that I didn't mean myself when I said "the rest of us", it should be blindingly obvious that I was referring to the general population.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

That's the essence of the state - forcing your will on others. Autocrats and democrats alike follow that model.

---

Not quite. In a democracy, you get to choose who's enforcing their will. Having someone in charge without electing them is the direct opposite of what a democracy is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

WTF?
What do you not understand about the popularity of our monarchy and the structure of constitutional monarchy?

---

If he's so popular, then a vote shouldn't change a thing. So, I honestly can't understand why a vote will hurt. If he's popular, nothing changes. If he's not, well, what happens then is the will of the people, and that's what democracy is all about, right?

@InsaneApache: we do the same thing in our military. I'll happily swap sides as I please, however, no way am I going to fight and die for an inbred dolt I don't agree with...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Is that a problem if no better form of governance exists?

---

There are many better forms of governments. A goverment that has the potential to let an idiot become a leader has a problem, whether there is no better goverment or not. Such a major problem has to be fixed. Why not have a republic (Not necessarily reffering to Democracy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Correct, that is why it is a monarchy...

---

But why have a monarchy then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

There are many better forms of governments. A goverment that has the potential to let an idiot become a leader has a problem, whether there is no better goverment or not. Such a major problem has to be fixed. Why not have a republic (Not necessarily reffering to Democracy).



But why have a monarchy then?

---

show me a more successful form of governance as exhibited by any other other country which compares favourably to Britain, when outcomes for the population are taken into consideration. and quantify those more favourable outcomes.

i await with no little anticipation.............................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

show me a more successful form of governance as exhibited by any other other country which compares favourably to Britain, when outcomes for the population are taken into consideration. and quantify those more favourable outcomes.

i await with no little anticipation.............................

---

Democracy.

So much better than a constitutional monarchy. Evidence: France and Germany.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Democracy.

So much better than a constitutional monarchy. Evidence: France and Germany.

---

True, but there are many different forms of Republics... Like a Socialist one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lenin96

True, but there are many different forms of Republics... Like a Socialist one.

---

I said democracy, not republic. And the great thing about it, is that there is no need to specify whether a democracy is socialist, religious, capitalist, liberal, conservative or whatever. It can be any of them, and change between them peacefully.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I said democracy, not republic. And the great thing about it, is that there is no need to specify whether a democracy is socialist, religious, capitalist, liberal, conservative or whatever. It can be any of them, and change between them peacefully.

---

I would discuss further on that but then we would get off topic. It could be an interesting discussion, maybe a separate thread?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Democracy.

So much better than a constitutional monarchy. Evidence: France and Germany.

---

so how are they better?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

so how are they better?

---

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

---

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: :laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

---

Oh dear.... Do we have another Tribesman?

Except the old Tribesman usually have some solid argument beneath the surface...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Oh dear.... Do we have another Tribesman?

Except the old Tribesman usually have some solid argument beneath the surface...

---

Nope I have no good argument, I just point at yours' and almost die of laughter, that was such an awsome post HoreTore:2thumbsup:

Phew, ok...

It was an erroneous distinction HoreTore, it was great, you were levelling the accusation of corruption against a specific form of government as if it was some great evil which demonstrated clearly the ill sof constitutional monarchy. I laughed because corruption is an institution of all governments, no matter their contruct, tbh the idea that a gut may buy his way into the Lords is alot less frightening than people being elected Senator because of fat manila enevlope changing hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

It was an erroneous distinction HoreTore, it was great, you were levelling the accusation of corruption against a specific form of government as if it was some great evil which demonstrated clearly the ill sof constitutional monarchy.

---

Uhm, no. A fail on every front.

Try again.

As your doctor, however, I'm authorized to give you a bottle of these "makes me understand irony, sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek-comments and humour in general"-pills :yes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

---

Are you taking the piss?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Uhm, no. A fail on every front.

Try again.

As your doctor, however, I'm authorized to give you a bottle of these "makes me understand irony, sarcasm, tongue-in-cheek-comments and humour in general"-pills :yes:

---

Oh I see it was one of those, oh bugger that was wrong but I'll just paint it a different shade of red and no one will notice, type things was it?

Yes, you were levelling the accusation of corruption at a specific form of government, bribing in exchange for titles, is corruption. They do very similar things in Italy I'm told they also tried to do it in the U.S not too long ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Default the Magyar

Yes, you were levelling the accusation of corruption at a specific form of government, bribing in exchange for titles, is corruption. They do very similar things in Italy I'm told they also tried to do it in the U.S not too long ago.

---

Can't bribe someone for a noble title without the government being a monarchy, hence that will not happen in countries without a monarchy.

I wasn't talking about corruption in general, I was talking about a very specific form of it you will never see outside monarchies.

Irrelevant? Oh my yes. But that was kind of the point, aye?

You are aware that it is politicians not the monarch who doles out awards and suchlike. Seems as though you're arguing against elected politicians here HoreTore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Seems as though you're arguing against elected politicians here HoreTore.

---

That's the joy of living in a democracy, you know ~;)

But no, without the monarchy, they wouldn't have any hereditary titles to give out.

Just lots of cash instead. :dizzy2:

Happy queensday http://www.breakingtweets.com/2009/0...ueens-day.html

4 dead many wounded, head on a plate please, thx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

For starters, it would be impossible to corrupt your politicians by bribing them in exchange for titles...

---

let me be the third person to roll on the floor laughing my behind off.

but back to the figures, is there any facts or figures you would like to bring to the table regarding types of government and corruption, perhaps using western europe as a typical sample set?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

let me be the third person to roll on the floor laughing my behind off.

but back to the figures, is there any facts or figures you would like to bring to the table regarding types of government and corruption, perhaps using western europe as a typical sample set?

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That's the joy of living in a democracy, you know ~;)

But no, without the monarchy, they wouldn't have any hereditary titles to give out.

---

France, Italy, and Germany (with all their hereditary counts, dukes, and princes) and Sweden (with none) would like to have a word with you....


Also democracy has nothing to do with the construction of government. Ancient Athens had a king/emperor don't forget.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Are you taking the piss?

---

I hope he is otherwise he's gone completely off the rez. If you know what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

France, Italy, and Germany (with all their hereditary counts, dukes, and princes) and Sweden (with none) would like to have a word with you....


Also democracy has nothing to do with the construction of government. Ancient Athens had a king/emperor don't forget.


I hope he is otherwise he's gone completely off the rez. If you know what I mean.

---

Sweden has no nobility? Well that's pretty wrong, they have lots of them... Or were you referring to us, Norway? In which case you would be almost correct, outside the royal family, we've only got one noble...

France, Italy and Germany's nobility are a leftover from their days as monarchies.

And no, I wasn't being serious ~;)

I've heard some people say the monarchy will protect us if the Commons becomes too despotic, but I just can't see it happening tbh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Both Napoleon and Robespierre were dictators. Napoleon was also an absolute monarchist. How are they better? Just because they aren't Caputs?

---

Because, I don't know ? They cared about the whole nation rather than only for a few people that supported their rule ?

Robespierre and Napoleon were indeed dictators (Robespierre being probably the forefather of Lenin, Stalin and other left-wing nutjobs), but they are not in any way similar to the inbreed dynasty that ruled France for so long.

Napoleon took power through sheer political skill, not because he was supposedly chosen by god (and the same applies for Napoleon III). He then tried to secure France's position in Europe, while - more or less - protecting the principles that emerged during the Revolution (as long as it did not oppose his rule).

Robespierre was at first elected by the people, and that gives him more legitimacy than any of our kings ever had (lol@ "A King is proclaimed by the people and rules through consent" btw). He killed people not to increase his prestige, or to be remembered, but because he believed in the ideals of the Revolution and did everything he could to protect them (even though he ended up betraying these same ideals).

And Sarmatian, France is - or was a few years ago - the most visited country in the world. You certainly don't need a monarchy to attract tourists.

Now, something bothers me. People are opposing Democracy and Monarchy, while both terms may work together. The UK is a Democratic Monarchy. People get to vote, and the monarchs are mostly here for the show.

If anything, monarchy should be opposed to republic, not to democracy.

I think Nappy rather thought he was chosen for the job as did old Robeysspear, it is constant among dictators, The Chosen One!

Both of them killed far more Frenchmen, indeed far more men, than any Capet, Valois or Bourbon ever managed to do in a lifetime, utterly horrid little men.

Napoleone didn't give a toss for France, he gave every toss for himself, the idiot bled France white and left it crushed for about 25 years thereafter.

Quote:

---

He then tried to secure France's position in Europe, while - more or less - protecting the principles that emerged during the Revolution (as long as it did not oppose his rule).

---

So basically he didn't care for the Revolution but was perfectly willing to keep whatever parts did not conflict with his Dictatorial rule, and his wars brought about the largest death toll ever seen in Europe until WWI.

Wut ?

Quote:

---

Both of them killed far more Frenchmen, indeed far more men, than any Capet, Valois or Bourbon ever managed to do in a lifetime, utterly horrid little men.

---

That is actually quite wrong. The Terror (caused not only by Robespierre but by a whole bunch of radicals) deathtoll is estimated at around 50k.
Louis XIV killed much more than that through his several wars, and I'm not even talking about the people who died indirectly through the various famines and riots his reign caused in the kingdom (I would have to find the estimates, but IIRC it was ranging from 100K to 600K).

To put things into perspective, the War in Vendée (started by the Royalists, while Robespierre was a minor politician), widely considered as the bloodiest part of the Revolution, caused between 100k and 450K deaths (both sides). Probably still less than what happened during Louis XIV's reign.

Quote:

---

Napoleone didn't give a toss for France, he gave every toss for himself, the idiot bled France white and left it crushed for about 25 years thereafter.

---

Typical anglo-saxon perspective. Too bad it lacks any support. The vast majority of historians, whether they worship or despise Napoleon, would disagree with you.
Napoleon cared about France probably just as much as the French royal family did. The difference was that Napoleon never used up to 25% of the treasury for his own fame (Louis XIV effectively bankrupted the kingdom for the next century by using that amount of money to build Versailles).

And though I don't think Napoléon was "teh awesome" (he certainly was ambitious, selfish, and sent a whole lot of people to their death), he quite frankly does not qualify as an idiot. Or if he does, all his contemporaries should be called complete retards.

Quote:

---

I think Nappy rather thought he was chosen for the job as did old Robeysspear, it is constant among dictators, The Chosen One!

---

Once again, you think wrong. Show me one proof, one source supporting this claim, whether it is for Robespierre, Napoléon, Lenin, or any other dictator and I might reconsider your opinion as somewhat valid.