Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Ellapennella

Communism , Totalitarianism & Atheism

423 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Jodie.Lynne

@Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Is your Monarch similar to the Queen of England? Is she merely a figurehead, or does she have any actual governmental power?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
Just now, Jodie.Lynne said:

@Noteverythingisaconspiracy

Is your Monarch similar to the Queen of England? Is she merely a figurehead, or does she have any actual governmental power?

In theory she have some power, but in reality she is very much a figurehead. The last time a Danish Monarch tried to overrule parliament was in 1920 and that basically ended with parliament saying that if he ever tried to do that again we would become a republic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_Crisis_of_1920

Since then the monarchs have been carefull to avoid politics.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
3 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

You know something, I would really wish you answered all of my questions to you. I would have thought you would have answered this one to you:

I haven’t gotten to that post yet.  Be patient.  I was eying a few things in it though.  I don’t usually have a lot of time.  Some of us work for a living.  As it is, unless a fire starts, I think I’m going to blow off the rest of the day to answer this portion.  But after saying that, if you think I have not answered a question asked of me, please feel free to bring it up.  Either I haven’t seen it, gotten to it, I’ve answered it elsewhere, or perhaps I just think it’s stupid.  But if you really want an answer, let me know and I will try to honestly answer.  That’s an open invitation.

 

Do you think the bible was written by God, with no human writing down the words to it?

I think that the Bible was inspired by GOD, but most definitely written by the hand of Man.  You can find numerous contradictions in the Bible, yet its message is inerrant.  What do I mean by that?  The Bible is a canon which means that it does not include every scripture ever written.  This canon focuses on the Message of Christ, who he was and his life.  To understand that, you have to know the culture in which he lived and you learn that by including the Old Testament.  The entire Bible as we know it today was completed by the 5th Century.  It includes 66 different books by at least 40 different authors spanning 2000 years.  As the continuity fails in historical or other aspects, it is perfect in its message to Man.  No other work on the planet comes close in agreement between the different books.

 

What proves that it was all God, and not man assuming that God said that?

That’s where the test of time comes in.  The truths in the Bible have been time and time again proved and reproved.  The Bible is a handbook of human behavior.  No single human could write it all and it took a large divided council to piece it together.

 

So, in that mindset, that could be man writing down those morals and rules. 

There is room to examine that.  In the case of Paul, he was a prolific writer.  He was filled with the spirit.  He wasn’t really into writing down law as he was with the application of it in Jesus.  He was xenophobic and that has probably influenced some aspects, but it still does not change the message.  In the time of Moses when the law was being written, the Mitzvah is found in the Pentateuch.  Recent discoveries indicate that there were perhaps 4 authors (Moses being one) and that Moses assembled them together. 

 

You must understand why these laws where all written at this time.  This is when Moses went up Mt Sinai and received the 10 Commandments.  While he was away, the people quickly lost faith and resorted to the old morals and worshiped the Golden Calf.  If the People could not be trusted to behave, then they were not ready to receive GOD’s laws.  The people cried out for guidance to laid down the law because the people were still too immature.  The Jewish people have lived faithfully under the 613 individual commandments (Mosaic Laws) ever since. 

 

So who wrote them, GOD or Man?  At this point, it really doesn’t matter.  This is the period that Israel leaves Egypt.  The people were more Egyptian yet the Mosaic Laws were written for a Israeli people.  Was not Egypt a moral nation?  If Man wrote the laws, it would be similar to Egypt but it wasn’t.  Over half of the Mitzvah does not apply to Gentiles.  Why would Man write such strange laws?  Some are positive commandments and others are negative.  But it is the law that defined the Israelites.  It is this law that leads to understanding Jesus.  Prophecy is based in this law. 

 

And pretty much, man's morals are seemingly based on experience and observation, and seeing how right and wrong plays out in front of them. 

We see as with the Golden Calf how Man’s experience and observation failed.

 

Since I grew up without religion, are you saying I don't know right or wrong? 

Not in the way you think.  As humans we are great impersonators.  We have lived under a derivative form of the Mosaic Laws for thousands of years, so it has become 2nd nature and that was the purpose in the first place.  Again, Man’s law is to “do unto others before they do unto you”.  But that was replaced by sheer repetition.  Today, our conscience tells us what is right or wrong, just out of habit.

 

The purpose for Jesus’ coming was to release us from the law (not do away with it).  In the personage of Christ, the law is fulfilled.  In other words, we are still sinners but for every law we break, Jesus takes upon himself the punishment.  What other God have you seen sacrifice themselves for our sake?  There has only been one.  I would say that is the most serious religion.

 

If you analyze the substance of the Mitzvah, you can boil it down to 3 categories.  Respect for yourself, Respect for others, and Respect for GOD.  That is ultimately what GOD originally wanted to do with the 10 Commandments.  But now that Jesus is here, he has merged all of that into a new commandment, that we love one another.  We should be mature enough to understand and accept that message today.  Jesus makes it possible.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
32 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Some of us work for a living. 

Lots of us work for a living. Doesn't make you special.

 

33 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

No other work on the planet comes close in agreement between the different books.

Are you discounting the OT in regards to the NT?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
8 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

You know something, I would really wish you answered all of my questions to you. I would have thought you would have answered this one to you:

I haven’t gotten to that post yet.  Be patient.  I was eying a few things in it though.  I don’t usually have a lot of time.  Some of us work for a living. 

Uh, so do I. I don't know why you would think I didn't. 

Quote

As it is, unless a fire starts, I think I’m going to blow off the rest of the day to answer this portion.  But after saying that, if you think I have not answered a question asked of me, please feel free to bring it up.  Either I haven’t seen it, gotten to it, I’ve answered it elsewhere, or perhaps I just think it’s stupid.  But if you really want an answer, let me know and I will try to honestly answer.  That’s an open invitation.

Thank you for your graciousness. 

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

Do you think the bible was written by God, with no human writing down the words to it?

I think that the Bible was inspired by GOD, but most definitely written by the hand of Man.  You can find numerous contradictions in the Bible, yet its message is inerrant.  What do I mean by that?  The Bible is a canon which means that it does not include every scripture ever written.  This canon focuses on the Message of Christ, who he was and his life.  To understand that, you have to know the culture in which he lived and you learn that by including the Old Testament.  The entire Bible as we know it today was completed by the 5th Century.  It includes 66 different books by at least 40 different authors spanning 2000 years.  As the continuity fails in historical or other aspects, it is perfect in its message to Man.  No other work on the planet comes close in agreement between the different books.

I'm not doubting, in how you see it. You treasure it. I wouldn't want to mess with that. 

Though, for something that is considered the message to man, what makes it any different to other religious books, that I'm assuming also considers them messages to men? 

Plus, it doesn't seem to be mandated in the states, (and other such countries I believe), if it was that much of a message. School is mandated, (well to a certain grade), so, I think it's not that much of a message than. (<==== my point of view on that) 

Now, to me, since it's was written by man, and five centuries later, I sometimes wonder at the legitimacy of it as it being a message from God. 

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

What proves that it was all God, and not man assuming that God said that?

 

That’s where the test of time comes in.  The truths in the Bible have been time and time again proved and reproved.  The Bible is a handbook of human behavior.  No single human could write it all and it took a large divided council to piece it together.

Again, this line of thinking I have here on that. Wouldn't you think it would mandated through out the whole world? And considering it was written eons ago, things have changed. 

And from what I understand, there are things in there, slavery, the treatment of women, eating things on certain days and not on certain days, would you think that a lot of those messages of human behavior for men is outdated? 

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

So, in that mindset, that could be man writing down those morals and rules. 

 

There is room to examine that.  In the case of Paul, he was a prolific writer.  He was filled with the spirit.  He wasn’t really into writing down law as he was with the application of it in Jesus.  He was xenophobic and that has probably influenced some aspects, but it still does not change the message.  In the time of Moses when the law was being written, the Mitzvah is found in the Pentateuch.  Recent discoveries indicate that there were perhaps 4 authors (Moses being one) and that Moses assembled them together. 

I think it would change the message. Like today, a sober person would be trusted more over someone who is drunk when relaying a message, right? 

Quote

You must understand why these laws where all written at this time.  This is when Moses went up Mt Sinai and received the 10 Commandments.  While he was away, the people quickly lost faith and resorted to the old morals and worshiped the Golden Calf.  If the People could not be trusted to behave, then they were not ready to receive GOD’s laws.  The people cried out for guidance to laid down the law because the people were still too immature.  The Jewish people have lived faithfully under the 613 individual commandments (Mosaic Laws) ever since. 

Uh, where are the laws of the land? The governments, the kingdoms, that usually would be the main rulers? Why wait until someone had a message from something they didn't see? 

Quote

o who wrote them, GOD or Man?  At this point, it really doesn’t matter.  This is the period that Israel leaves Egypt.  The people were more Egyptian yet the Mosaic Laws were written for a Israeli people.  Was not Egypt a moral nation?  If Man wrote the laws, it would be similar to Egypt but it wasn’t.  Over half of the Mitzvah does not apply to Gentiles.  Why would Man write such strange laws? 

Why would they be strange in the first place? 

Quote

Some are positive commandments and others are negative.  But it is the law that defined the Israelites.  It is this law that leads to understanding Jesus.  Prophecy is based in this law. 

:huh:  

Do we go by prophecy today? 

I don't think that would work. Who would adhere to it seriously? This is why I wonder at how this message for man, seems to not be right for the times today. And, it was a long time ago. With anything dealing with history, there wasn't much to record, and what is, sometimes has to be translated, and sometimes translated wrong. 

I just don't think I could depend on that. I think it was man, thinking it was spiritual, (which is fine, I guess) but I really think that expecting everyone to believe in this, is not seriously something to expect. 

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

And pretty much, man's morals are seemingly based on experience and observation, and seeing how right and wrong plays out in front of them. 

 

We see as with the Golden Calf how Man’s experience and observation failed.

I do not really know, what you mean, or understand this Golden Calf thing. Remember, I was not educated and experienced in religious things growing up. 

So, you use this Golden Calf thing, and I use what I have read and seen of history and of people now. We differ in opinion here. 

And that's that. 

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:
Quote

Since I grew up without religion, are you saying I don't know right or wrong? 

 

Not in the way you think. 

But, it looks like you are saying it. 

Quote

As humans we are great impersonators. 

Uh, no. Not everyone. Some of us actually be ourselves. It does happen. 

Quote

We have lived under a derivative form of the Mosaic Laws for thousands of years, so it has become 2nd nature and that was the purpose in the first place.  Again, Man’s law is to “do unto others before they do unto you”. 

And, you're getting this where? 

Not everyone is like that. I know people, and I try to aspire to be that, who don't feel that. They care and help, and pretty much learn from what is done to them. So, I don't get how you can just label everyone's behavior in one thing, and negatively as that. I don't believe that is true for all. 

Quote

But that was replaced by sheer repetition.  Today, our conscience tells us what is right or wrong, just out of habit.

Where are you getting that? 

We're taught by our parents, our elders, and we're taught that through experiences, and what we see as making people happy, and how there is the mistake of making people sad or angry. We learn from mistakes what is right, and what is wrong. 

Quote

The purpose for Jesus’ coming was to release us from the law (not do away with it).  In the personage of Christ, the law is fulfilled.  In other words, we are still sinners but for every law we break, Jesus takes upon himself the punishment.  What other God have you seen sacrifice themselves for our sake?  There has only been one.  I would say that is the most serious religion.

Uh, secular raised person here. I didn't see anyone do that. Pretty much of your Christian speak here, really makes me :huh: And, I could never understood that thing about Jesus dying for our sins. And I have said this before here, I don't understand this use of sin, and it's meaning. And it really gets me :wacko: about describing all of us as 'sinners'. Seriously, that's just labeling something that is human nature. And again, it's learning from mistakes and learning to control what is human nature. 

Quote

If you analyze the substance of the Mitzvah, you can boil it down to 3 categories. 

The what? Seriously, don't you realize I haven't read orthodox religious books, and I not only don't plan to, but I don't have to. That's understandable. 

Quote

Respect for yourself, Respect for others, 

I grew up learning that from family, from school, from my experiences in life. 

Quote

and Respect for GOD.  That is ultimately what GOD originally wanted to do with the 10 Commandments.  But now that Jesus is here, he has merged all of that into a new commandment, that we love one another.  We should be mature enough to understand and accept that message today.  Jesus makes it possible.

You see, this still makes me wonder if you could just come right out and say yes or no to my yes or no question. 

Let me tell you something, this secular raised person grew up loving people, and being respectful to people, and pretty much not breaking the law, and doing things as close to right as she can. Barring my slight learning disability, I try very hard. I try never to be late for things. I make sure I am committed to people, so they can trust me. I have been that since birth, (with help from actual people), and not by a religious aspect, (because it wasn't illegal to not do it) 

I do things right, and try not to do wrong. So has my parents, my siblings, my spouse, my kids, not one member of my secular family has been criminal at all. And we have been there for each other. Without the help of orthodox religions and traditions. 

I know a lot of people who have been pretty much the same life as I do, and they have done things more right than wrong. 

I work in retail, have been all my adult life, and let me tell you, the amount of some deeply religious people as opposed to those who aren't, and I catch the one's who are, being pretty much very wrong to others. I have waited on people you would think was Satan inspired, but have given, helped, been kind, and it gets me, how some think the good behavior can only happen if they believe in God and go to church and read the bible. 

I have seen in my whole life, that always doesn't play out like you think it does. 

So, you really think I don't know right from wrong, because of my non-religious upbringing, I'm to say right now, 

You're wrong.  

I've done pretty well, rightly, without it.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
12 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Uh, so do I. I don't know why you would think I didn't.

How else do you think I would respond with that kind of reply?  And I’m replying to this to let you know I am working on the rest.  I see a lot to respond to but there’s a lot of noise as well and I want to cut it down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
9 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:
13 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Uh, so do I. I don't know why you would think I didn't.

How else do you think I would respond with that kind of reply? 

If you are talking about my point of some questions of mine, you haven't answered, keep in mind, I tend to get avoidance of these particular questions. (In which, there are good questions, I believe, to ask, when I see claims are made about people who should be knowing of religions, but are in countries that are legal to not be educated.) 

I wanted to make sure you answered the one I reposted, because I find it very important to confront something I might see as a wrong judgment call. When I asked this type of questions to others here, when there are judgmental statements about non-believers, there tends to be an................................ avoidance of answering. 

I also find it interesting, that you don't know how to reply to it. 

Also, this: 

Quote

I haven’t gotten to that post yet.  Be patient.  I was eying a few things in it though.  I don’t usually have a lot of time.  Some of us work for a living. 

As I have stated, I too, work for a living, I do manage to answer, (most of the time) posts. 

Right now, I feel it's important to cut to the chase here. As I see that we're going to go back and forth on who wrote the bible, and how it was with society at the time of Christ and when the bible is written, I think we have wrapped that up, with you and your point of view, and me with mine. I have stated, that I counter with it being how I look at it, and not as claims. And still as in my opinion, even when I find sources and links to back up my ................................ opinion ;)  (and I see you post some sources, .............. wait! Do you? ) 

I want to deal with the statement of only God can teach right and wrong, and knowing I grew up without anything associated with God and/or other religions. What do you think, what conclusion one would assume is being said about them, when they fall into the category of not being raised in a world with God? 

I told you of my life, and those around me in the same situation, do you believe I got this far without knowing right from wrong? 

Do you believe, that I knew it without the help of God and religion? 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
On 2/24/2019 at 6:49 AM, Ellapennella said:

 Communism & Totalitarianism are one in the same. 

When Atheist argue that they do not want religion , what do they think they will get ? 

This statement is only true if you don't know what any of those words mean. In practice the two are very linked, but in concept the two things are totally different. You can have totalitarianism without Communism, and you can have Communism without Totalitarianism. Educate yourself before you say random stuff.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
4 minutes ago, Podo said:

This statement is only true if you don't know what any of those words mean. In practice the two are very linked, but in concept the two things are totally different. You can have totalitarianism without Communism, and you can have Communism without Totalitarianism. Educate yourself before you say random stuff.

And how are they ‘very linked’?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
On 2/26/2019 at 9:10 AM, RabidMongoose said:

Just out of interest can I ask how many of you atheists here are Communisms or Socialists?

I would imagine most of us, at least on these forums. In meatspace, however, the spread is a loooot more varied. Athiesm's only common ground is a lack of belief in deities, which really doesn't have any inherent bias towards political leanings.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

And how are they ‘very linked’?

Most widespread Communist regimes in modern history have also been totalitarian. Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Castro's Cuba all come to mind. Cuba is currently less totalitarian than it used to be, which is good, and China (while not a model of democracy) is slowly lowering its totalitarianism, but none of them are known for their freedoms. The two concepts need not be linked, but unfortunately in recent history they seem to go hand in hand.

I say this as a registered member of the Canadian Communist party, too. Totalitarianism baaaaaad.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
4 minutes ago, Podo said:

Most widespread Communist regimes in modern history have also been totalitarian. Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Castro's Cuba all come to mind. Cuba is currently less totalitarian than it used to be, which is good, and China (while not a model of democracy) is slowly lowering its totalitarianism, but none of them are known for their freedoms. The two concepts need not be linked, but unfortunately in recent history they seem to go hand in hand.

I say this as a registered member of the Canadian Communist party, too. Totalitarianism baaaaaad.

What other forms of government would you say are ‘very linked’?  Would you consider a Constitutional Representative Republic a Totalitarian form?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
1 minute ago, RavenHawk said:

What other forms of government would you say are ‘very linked’?  Would you consider a Constitutional Representative Republic a Totalitarian form?

I do not think so, but it would depend on how the republic actually did its business. A regime can be totalitarian in practice without being totalitarian in name. The actual operation of the governing body is more important to me than the actual name that the body goes by. North Korea calls itself a "People's Republic," remember, and it is as totalitarian as they come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 minute ago, Podo said:

I do not think so, but it would depend on how the republic actually did its business. A regime can be totalitarian in practice without being totalitarian in name. The actual operation of the governing body is more important to me than the actual name that the body goes by. North Korea calls itself a "People's Republic," remember, and it is as totalitarian as they come.

And from this point on, I refer to how it is practiced.  The ‘in name’ is merely for convention sake.  I.e. Marxism is or can be Totalitarian.  Does it matter if it is Totalitarian or Authoritarian?  How ‘bout a Monarchy or even a pure Democracy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
20 minutes ago, Podo said:

Most widespread Communist regimes in modern history have also been totalitarian. Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, and Castro's Cuba all come to mind. Cuba is currently less totalitarian than it used to be, which is good, and China (while not a model of democracy) is slowly lowering its totalitarianism, but none of them are known for their freedoms. The two concepts need not be linked, but unfortunately in recent history they seem to go hand in hand.

I say this as a registered member of the Canadian Communist party, too. Totalitarianism baaaaaad.

China bans new Winnie the Pooh film amid President Xi comparisons

 

Image result for shi xin ping winnie the pooh

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
4 minutes ago, Imaginarynumber1 said:

China bans new Winnie the Pooh film amid President Xi comparisons

 

Image result for shi xin ping winnie the pooh

Yeah it isn't good. All I was trying to say is that they are slooooowly improving compared to the Mao days, I was in no way attempting to defend their government, which I have no love of. I speak Mandarin and have spent much time in China. It's a weird mix of "nobody gives a toss" and "if you say that you'll disappear forever."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
10 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And from this point on, I refer to how it is practiced.  The ‘in name’ is merely for convention sake.  I.e. Marxism is or can be Totalitarian.  Does it matter if it is Totalitarian or Authoritarian?  How ‘bout a Monarchy or even a pure Democracy?

Not trying to dodge the question, but I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Are you asking my opinion on Monarchy/Democracy/Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imaginarynumber1
Just now, Podo said:

Yeah it isn't good. All I was trying to say is that they are slooooowly improving compared to the Mao days, I was in no way attempting to defend their government, which I have no love of. I speak Mandarin and have spent much time in China. It's a weird mix of "nobody gives a toss" and "if you say that you'll disappear forever."

Image result for shi chi ping winnie the pooh

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 minute ago, Podo said:

Not trying to dodge the question, but I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. Are you asking my opinion on Monarchy/Democracy/Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism?

I’m not necessarily asking for your opinion about them, but would you consider these ‘very linked’?  What wouldn’t be ‘very linked’ to these?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
On 26.2.2019 at 6:10 PM, RabidMongoose said:

Just out of interest can I ask how many of you atheists here are Communisms or Socialists?

I'm a capitalist atheist. I think there should be some limits on capitalism, but as a basic economic system I think its the best we got. What we have in my neck of the woods seems about right to me.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

I’m not necessarily asking for your opinion about them, but would you consider these ‘very linked’?  What wouldn’t be ‘very linked’ to these?

I think that Monarchy and Totalitarianism is often linked, historically. Not so much in the modern days, as there are "monarchies" that are really just democracies with a figurehead monarch at the head of state, with no real political power. Democracies can be totalitarian, though, since China for example does have limited democracy, since you vote for your local representatives, but nobody would make the logical argument that China is a democracy. Like I said earlier, I think a better judge of most political systems is to look at specific cases, since humans can find a lot of ways to express various things. I'm not entire sure that answers your question, since I'm still not entirely certain what you're asking (sorry!) so if this isn't what you're looking for, I'll keep trying ^_^

Edited by Podo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
1 minute ago, Podo said:

I think that Monarchy and Totalitarianism is often linked, historically. Not so much in the modern days, as there are "monarchies" that are really just democracies with a figurehead monarch at the head of state, with no real political power. Democracies can be totalitarian, though, since China for example does have limited democracy, since you vote for your local representatives, but nobody would make the logical argument that China is a democracy. Like I said earlier, I think a better judge of most political systems is to look at specific cases, since humans can find a lot of ways to express various things.

Sorry for being terse, just don’t want to put words in your mouth.  So let me backup and ask you this.  What forms of government would be linked to Totalitarianism and which ones would not?  Don't get too much into the weeds.

 

I highly agree with your last point there that humans can name their form of government anything they like, it depends on how they practice it.  The method of “practice” is usually incorporated in its category.

 

If you look at a political spectrum where 0% government control is at one end and 100% government control is at the other, I think you would agree that Totalitarianism is at the 100% end.  Where would you consider the demark between Totalitarian and non-Totalitarian government is?  A Totalitarian form of government is one that either does not protect the rights of the individual or grants rights to the individual.  A non-Totalitarian government is one that is limited and protects the rights of the individual.  For argument’s sake, I would put it that any government that above 30% on this spectrum is Totalitarian.  Where would you place the general forms of government on this spectrum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Podo
21 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

Sorry for being terse, just don’t want to put words in your mouth.  So let me backup and ask you this.  What forms of government would be linked to Totalitarianism and which ones would not?  Don't get too much into the weeds.

Historically I would say that Monarchy, Communism, Fascism are linked pretty spectacularly to totalitarianism, in practice. Democracy less so, though I will point out that democracies often fail, crumble, and become something ugly if given enough time and moisture.

1 hour ago, RavenHawk said:

If you look at a political spectrum where 0% government control is at one end and 100% government control is at the other, I think you would agree that Totalitarianism is at the 100% end.  Where would you consider the demark between Totalitarian and non-Totalitarian government is?  A Totalitarian form of government is one that either does not protect the rights of the individual or grants rights to the individual.  A non-Totalitarian government is one that is limited and protects the rights of the individual.  For argument’s sake, I would put it that any government that above 30% on this spectrum is Totalitarian.  Where would you place the general forms of government on this spectrum?

Oh boy, that's the question of the day, isn't it? I say this genuinely because it is my true opinion, and not at all an attempt to wiggle away: I do not think there is an easy answer. If I had to give a number, I'd put it much higher than yours, nearer to 60-70%. That being said, I also think it would depend on how the government in question is using that percentage of control as to whether it was a positive or negative influence on the citizens. If the society was happy and prosperous, I'd say it is a good thing. If everyone is unhappy, that's a bad thing. At the end of the day, the governing body should serve to reflect the will of the people, so if the people want X restriction or X regulation, that's not inherently a bad thing, provided that such restrictions can once more be removed should the majority deem it necessary.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
On 25/02/2019 at 1:19 AM, Ellapennella said:

 Communism & Totalitarianism are one in the same. 

When Atheist argue that they do not want religion , what do they think they will get ? 

I would like to think we might get secular humanism (or even just humanism) in a democratic governance.

That is basically what Australia  has now, despite attachments to religion in our constitution and customs  

As long as the majority of a democratic country want religion ( or religious values)  included in their government, they will get it, because the y will throw out any govt which tries to deprive them of it  

  

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ellapennella
12 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

I would like to think we might get secular humanism (or even just humanism) in a democratic governance.

That is basically what Australia  has now, despite attachments to religion in our constitution and customs  

As long as the majority of a democratic country want religion ( or religious values)  included in their government, they will get it, because the y will throw out any govt which tries to deprive them of it  

  

But Mr. Walker,  not everyone shares in the same human values. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.