Question about democracy

[threeStepfourStep]

I know we have a lot of users from around the world; I wanted to confirm or discover something in regards to how the ethos of democracy is practiced in your country.

Is democracy something of a civic understanding of the nature of its institution, or is it something you follow and cheer for since it's the mode of politics/institution in your own country?

The reason why I'm asking this is because I've really thought hard about how democracy was adopted within my own country of South Korea, and moreover, within Japan as well. To give a short history of it, Japanese democracy was adopted since the 19th century but the current iteration is something the Americans (general McArthur) suggested (*forced) onto to them.

For the Korean populace, democracy was there in structure and theory, but there was a period of dictatorships. It wasn't until the late eighties that we really had democratic reform- but something which I want to argue is that Koreans wanted democracy not because of its institutional or civic ideals, but because of a desire to remove themselves from the shackles of dictatorship. It was oppression that they wanted to get rid of, rather than wanting democracy because of its ideals. Too much civic and labor rights were being abused so that they went into the streets to protest against the government.

I'm more curious as to how Eastern European countries view democracy, since they're relatively newcomers to democracy given the historical past.

 

[Old Things]

From what I know, Democracy just works. That is why I value it.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't value democracy as such. I value what it isn't.

Democracy is the cost of not being an authoritarian shithole. It's slow and indecisive, and sometimes more than a little retarded, but it's better than the concentration of power that occurs in other systems.

I don't consider a country truly democratic unless it's chosen democracy itself.

 

[dr froyd]

people will exchange their rights and freedoms for a little bit of security any day (especially if they can be convinced of the existence of some threat). It's a miracle that democracy survives, tbh, and it's clear this survivability has little to do with what the populace believes in or knows about its mechanisms. It has to do with the constraints and incentives of the established institutions.

 

[Old Things]

people will exchange their rights and freedoms for a little bit of security any day (especially if they can be convinced of the existence of some threat). It's a miracle that democracy survives, tbh, and it's clear this survivability has little to do with what the populace believes in or knows about its mechanisms. It has to do with the constraints and incentives of the established institutions.

These things are currently waving bye-bye, if you ask me. We've made "reason" and end in and of itself, which leads to ridding ourselves of those pesky "old-fashioned" values from the Enlightenment.

 

[fluffy]

The infrastructure was set up for people to do things in a well established economy.

The dutch invented the first modern corporation and then the US following this model made it so everyone who is part of it must function properly. That's to say the shareholders have stakes in it and must be treated right legally. If the legal system of commerce falture so to do the people and what they extabilshed. Therefore the legal system must prevent tyranny of any one entity subsuming another at all levels. Rules are made to that effect among all.

Democracy in essence is the decentralized power structure of the peoples public good.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

From what I know, Democracy just works. That is why I value it.

I agree with the sentiment, but if we crystalize that logic, any well doing elite in a non-democratic function would say the same. Heck, any Chinese person living in mainland China would say that authoritarianism works, because of how the CCP has led the country in the past 30 years. If Americans are proud of their economic power since the end of the Cold War and during the Clinton/Bush eras, China also has gone through that transformation, maybe like x3 times as much. But I do understand the sentiment behind it.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

I don't consider a country truly democratic unless it's chosen democracy itself.

What would you say to the historical detail of democracies emerging only from the suffrage of male voters who owned land? Because most democracies started with only male elites having the vote. The democratic norms we have today kind of evolved overtime.

Also, many countries kind of had elites choose their political functions under the auspices of a greater power which tended to be democratic. Like for example, South Korea only became or 'choose' democracy because it was under US occupation. Japan on the other hand was democratic before WW2, (from the Meiji Restoration) but they didn't provide universal suffrage until 1947, after the Americans came. I guess what I'm trying to say is, they really didn't have a choice, they were kind of forced to upgrade.

Also, I'm kind of curious as to how Australia emerged as a country. I know it's democratic, but I think I've never been taught how it became independent.

people will exchange their rights and freedoms for a little bit of security any day (especially if they can be convinced of the existence of some threat). It's a miracle that democracy survives, tbh, and it's clear this survivability has little to do with what the populace believes in or knows about its mechanisms. It has to do with the constraints and incentives of the established institutions.

Yeah I mean that's the Hobbesian notion that we would trade our rights (our right to force) to a sovereign power for a kind of security.

I think your point about how its survivability and the people actually knowing its mechanisms is disconnected is true. The US for example is going through a weird phase where some people are exploiting that mechanism for their individual gain, rather than for the common good.

Like, it takes only a certain number of people to be voted into power, especially for the legislative branch.

 

[threeStepfourStep]

The dutch invented the first modern corporation and then the US following this model made it so everyone who is part of it must function properly. That's to say the shareholders have stakes in it and must be treated right legally. If the legal system of commerce falture so to do the people and what they extabilshed. Therefore the legal system must prevent tyranny of any one entity subsuming another at all levels. Rules are made to that effect among all.

That's interesting, I did not know that. I would have assumed the corporate business function would be of a British invention but I guess not.

 

[Hadoblado]

I don't consider a country truly democratic unless it's chosen democracy itself.

What would you say to the historical detail of democracies emerging only from the suffrage of male voters who owned land? Because most democracies started with only male elites having the vote. The democratic norms we have today kind of evolved overtime.

That's cool. Everyone starts somewhere. History is almost universally an ugly business.

Also, many countries kind of had elites choose their political functions under the auspices of a greater power which tended to be democratic. Like for example, South Korea only became or 'choose' democracy because it was under US occupation. Japan on the other hand was democratic before WW2, (from the Meiji Restoration) but they didn't provide universal suffrage until 1947, after the Americans came. I guess what I'm trying to say is, they really didn't have a choice, they were kind of forced to upgrade.

Yep.

Also, I'm kind of curious as to how Australia emerged as a country. I know it's democratic, but I think I've never been taught how it became independent.

Bunch of colonies, took land from aboriginals then federated 1901. Gradually moved towards independence up until mid 1980s where we officially established independence from Britain recognised by both countries. Britain still plays a ceremonial roles in some of our politics but it's in name only.

Our democracy was based (but not entirely C&Ped) from the British Westminster system. There are some difficulties, such as in Tasmania where I live we're struggling to establish local government at all, but overall I think Australia has a relatively healthy democracy.

 

[Old Things]

From what I know, Democracy just works. That is why I value it.

I agree with the sentiment, but if we crystalize that logic, any well doing elite in a non-democratic function would say the same. Heck, any Chinese person living in mainland China would say that authoritarianism works, because of how the CCP has led the country in the past 30 years. If Americans are proud of their economic power since the end of the Cold War and during the Clinton/Bush eras, China also has gone through that transformation, maybe like x3 times as much. But I do understand the sentiment behind it.

I'm not an expert. I've just read that Democracy leads to flourishing. CCP in China is pretty oppressive, and you don't have the freedoms you have in the US.

 

[fluffy]

I know @dr froyd disagrees but I believe universality of human rights came from the Bible as a cultural spreading out where people began to be devoted not to kings but to a cause. The cause of Christianity was universal suffrage meaning God doesn't want injustice to prevail in the world. Before hand in any dictatorships the king was selected based on his position as the top leader because of genetics. You don't become king because of God it is because your family outcompeting the other families genetics the dictator is the strongest person to lead. But in Christian ethos God made it possible that the strongest don't always succeed and that those whom are weakest do sometimes become powerful by virtue. It is rather a combination of the two that virtue can be genetic but also because of cultural we decide that no one is above another as universal. The king and the servant are equal. God makes everyone equal. And this ethos is why democracy can work. Power is not the sole determining factor of society leadership.

 

[fluffy]

In Star Trek and in Gundam the reason earth has so many wars is because of eugenics.

Kings / dictators decided to take over earth in Star Trek based on superior intelligence. And the space colonies in Gundam had superior families fight the earth federation to become independent.

So democracy has a core value, rejects eugenics as a basis for government. Because everyone should be equal.

Even today we may see a break away civilization occur as people move into space.

Yet if you look at it, higher intelligence people form democracies because no one has the top intelligence or ethnic homogeneity. Unless one person takes charge of the moon it's unlikely dictator will emerge because it's more likely those people will not want wars to occur and plan ahead.

 

[dr froyd]

I know @dr froyd disagrees but I believe universality of human rights came from the Bible as a cultural spreading out where people began to be devoted not to kings but to a cause. The cause of Christianity was universal suffrage meaning God doesn't want injustice to prevail in the world. Before hand in any dictatorships the king was selected based on his position as the top leader because of genetics. You don't become king because of God it is because your family outcompeting the other families genetics the dictator is the strongest person to lead. But in Christian ethos God made it possible that the strongest don't always succeed and that those whom are weakest do sometimes become powerful by virtue. It is rather a combination of the two that virtue can be genetic but also because of cultural we decide that no one is above another as universal. The king and the servant are equal. God makes everyone equal. And this ethos is why democracy can work. Power is not the sole determining factor of society leadership.

the tyrannical feudalist system that persisted for about a thousand years in europe was facilitated by the cronyist interaction between the church, the monarchs and nobility. It persisted until the church was forcibly kicked out of power via separation of church and state, e.g. the french revolution.

it's one of those cases where what's on paper is radically different from what is reality. The idea of last-shall-be-first is not reality, it's a fantasy in the minds of the powerless, and one that serves the powerful because it eliminates any incentive for the powerless to do anything about the situation

 

[dr froyd]

people will exchange their rights and freedoms for a little bit of security any day (especially if they can be convinced of the existence of some threat). It's a miracle that democracy survives, tbh, and it's clear this survivability has little to do with what the populace believes in or knows about its mechanisms. It has to do with the constraints and incentives of the established institutions.

These things are currently waving bye-bye, if you ask me. We've made "reason" and end in and of itself, which leads to ridding ourselves of those pesky "old-fashioned" values from the Enlightenment.

hard to understand exactly what you mean, but if you're talking about the anti-traditionalist tendencies of the modern political left, it would be a great misunderstanding to say that pro-reason is anti-enlightenment; because the ideology of the New Left is based on anti-reason. The old critical-theorists considered things like logic, math, and science as bourgeois instruments of oppression (which is why these people never make any sense)

 

[Old Things]

people will exchange their rights and freedoms for a little bit of security any day (especially if they can be convinced of the existence of some threat). It's a miracle that democracy survives, tbh, and it's clear this survivability has little to do with what the populace believes in or knows about its mechanisms. It has to do with the constraints and incentives of the established institutions.

These things are currently waving bye-bye, if you ask me. We've made "reason" and end in and of itself, which leads to ridding ourselves of those pesky "old-fashioned" values from the Enlightenment.

hard to understand exactly what you mean, but if you're talking about the anti-traditionalist tendencies of the modern political left, it would be a great misunderstanding to say that pro-reason is anti-enlightenment; because the ideology of the New Left is based on anti-reason. The old critical-theorists considered things like logic, math, and science as bourgeois instruments of oppression (which is why these people never make any sense)

I'm simply talking about the endless pontification and their #reasons, which is not the same thing as logic or believing in an objective Truth.

 

[fluffy]

I know @dr froyd disagrees but I believe universality of human rights came from the Bible as a cultural spreading out where people began to be devoted not to kings but to a cause. The cause of Christianity was universal suffrage meaning God doesn't want injustice to prevail in the world. Before hand in any dictatorships the king was selected based on his position as the top leader because of genetics. You don't become king because of God it is because your family outcompeting the other families genetics the dictator is the strongest person to lead. But in Christian ethos God made it possible that the strongest don't always succeed and that those whom are weakest do sometimes become powerful by virtue. It is rather a combination of the two that virtue can be genetic but also because of cultural we decide that no one is above another as universal. The king and the servant are equal. God makes everyone equal. And this ethos is why democracy can work. Power is not the sole determining factor of society leadership.

the tyrannical feudalist system that persisted for about a thousand years in europe was facilitated by the cronyist interaction between the church, the monarchs and nobility. It persisted until the church was forcibly kicked out of power via separation of church and state, e.g. the french revolution.

it's one of those cases where what's on paper is radically different from what is reality. The idea of last-shall-be-first is not reality, it's a fantasy in the minds of the powerless, and one that serves the powerful because it eliminates any incentive for the powerless to do anything about the situation

A thousand years is a long time but then it's good the printing press came about because when people had access to the bible they saw what was hidden from them.

Yours assessment only works if you consider the Catholic church as the only legitimate authority and not the bible itself. Because people could read the Bible they saw that morality was more that what "the church" said it was. I suppose you don't consider the printer a good thing but as the bible spread so to did enlightenment values.

The only objection I can see is the the printer was developed under mercantilism which was highly of influenced by free masonry. You don't consider them Christian but they had many features of influence of the culture.

I just ask, why didn't Christianity not disappear if the kings are gone, why not get rid of the Bible as you say it's based on oppression? You seem not to integrate the history of technology or anything else of importance into why. Take for instance the Romans, why didn't they invent the car and train. What oppression prevented them? No you simply need to look at history. Rome was the first European empire not the Catholics who had little political influence to suppress technology. You cannot explain what has happened without understanding the systems in place. You know very little history.

 

[fluffy]

The French revolution happened because some guy horded the food supply and the public was informed because a famine was occuring at that time.

The problem with your view @dr froyd is that this is happening all the time in the past. In roman times in Greece in all sorts of places. Yet no cars were invented or steam engines.

This is why I don't take you seriously. You don't look at the context. You have this preconceived notion of how things have happened because you dislike religion and so you don't want to consider Christianity has had any influence on history or democracy. It's either ignorance or prejudice. You don't make arguments for why things happen you just say that "religon bad".

The fact is that whether region is true or false you are discounting it's impact on history. Verifiable history. Not some Dawkinesk narrative of it will suffice. I am not stupid knowing when people avoid the truth and I will tell you that I know my facts.

 

[dr froyd]

@fluffy im not sure what you actually mean. To be clear, the romans were insanely technologically advanced for their time. While Jesus and his disciples were running around covered in dirt in the desert, the romans had cities with aqueducts, sewage systems, and even gyms were people worked out. Before that, the old greeks laid the groundwork for all our tools of reason we use to this day - in science, logic, morality, politics (they even came up with the word "democracy"). There's a reason the christianity-dominated period between the roman empire and the enlightenment is called the "dark ages" - it was a period of decline and stagnation.

i don't dispute the role of religion in history, im just laying out the basic facts of history vis a vis the narrative that civil rights somehow came from christianity. If anything, it seems to have done a pretty good job at preventing people from gaining civil rights

 

[fluffy]

@fluffy im not sure what you actually mean. To be clear, the romans were insanely technologically advanced for their time. While Jesus and his disciples were running around covered in dirt in the desert, the romans had cities with aqueducts, sewage systems, and even gyms were people worked out. Before that, the old greeks laid the groundwork for all our tools of reason we use to this day - in science, logic, morality, politics (they even came up with the word "democracy"). There's a reason the christianity-dominated period between the roman empire and the enlightenment is called the "dark ages" - it was a period of decline and stagnation.

i don't dispute the role of religion in history, im just laying out the basic facts of history in light of the narrative that civil rights somehow came from christianity. If anything, it seems to have done a pretty good job at preventing people from gaining civil rights

Why do you believe crucifixion was a good thing? Because when Christians took over they stopped thinking it was good.

And why do you believe slavery was abandoned only after the economy was set up by the British. Why not the Romans?

You may think that we don't have morals influenced by the bible but then you deny it was popular. If science and technology were not influenced by morality then you have a hard time explaining it with the places it existed in. Christianity has important impacts on natural philosophy and if Christianity were stupid we'd have cars by 500 AD because people would reject the ideas. Why would people accept stupid ideas about people in dirt and mud? Why did this stop cars being invented by the Romans?

My view is that history has times an places where people get existential about existence. The Chinese invented the printing press but it was not mass producible it used wood not metal. And the Chinese could have colonize America in 500AD. We cannot say why they don't invent things before the Romans other than the philosophy held them back. Christianity created the philosophy of the enlightenment so I can't see where you get that technology just emerges from nowhere. Even the Babylonians could have created cars 4,000 years ago. Why not? The philosophy did not exist. Christianity changes how people think. You do not understand that.

 

[fluffy]

@dr froyd

Tell me if I am getting this right:

The Romans had a fully functional society that gave us modern democracy. They were smart. Yet these same people adopted the stupid mud and dirt religion of Christianity that gave us a thousand years of darkness. Then the descendants somehow became smart enough to see it was stupid presumably it takes a thousand of years to see it and adapt the roman system again.

What exactly do you think is happening that allowed all that in your mind? Why did the Romans suddenly become mentally deficient and then regain there mental faculties? Stupidity does not just happen for no reason? Was it genetic, because that would mean tens of millions of people had to have had the same defects at the same time I don't think is possible.

 

[dr froyd]

@fluffy you've lost me completely at this point. You're making so many different assertions im not sure what to respond to.

in the big picture, i'm not the one attributing turns of history to single events. If anything that was your original position, namely that christianity was somehow an anti-tyrannical force that counteracted the dictatorships of kings as you put it. My stance is that a quick glance at history shows that if anything, the opposite is true.

my point is that there's a very big problem with your theory, namely that the christian "age of faith" - the middle ages - coincided with 1000 years of feudalist tyranny and civilizational decline. Its beginning marked the end of antiquity (a period of monumental civilizational progress), and its end marked the start of the enlightenment (another period of civilizational progress). How do you explain that?

 

[ZenRaiden]

I know we have a lot of users from around the world; I wanted to confirm or discover something in regards to how the ethos of democracy is practiced in your country.

I don't know what exactly is meant by ethos.
The democratic way of thinking, and constitution in my country was mainly drafted with regards to how US had it, but if minor corrections to fit the needs of a small, but very different country.
I don't think its bad, but it could be improved.
Namely the whole freedom thing is a joke in many ways.

I'm more curious as to how Eastern European countries view democracy, since they're relatively newcomers to democracy given the historical past.

At first there was big euphoria and optimism, but as democracy rolled around people realized the were projecting insanely unrealistic dreams onto democracy.

So after big downward economic spiral after velvet revolution, people realized they have to work real hard to make things work again, and basically a time to sober up came, when corruption, mafia ties to politics, and bad policies were the norm, that cost country untold millions.

Some changes were so bad, that many people still want communism bad, the younger generation is more optimistic, but the economy is not looking too good at the moment.

The entire idea of democracy was freedom to do what people want, which came in many new forms, but ultimately the voting system is kind of stuck between voting the lesser evil, and the dynamic of the whole system is pretty terrible.

I think that democracy is not at fault tho, I think its just my country has people that are particularly bad at following best policies.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Christianity created the philosophy of the enlightenment so I can't see where you get that technology just emerges from nowhere.

This is false.

What is it with Christians trying to monopolize things under Jesus.
Its like if I was inventor and patented wet water.
Thats not how things work.

 

[Bluehalite]

I know nobody asked about American Democracy, but this book is very helpful for understanding how democracy is supposed to work, and how it actually works as a Plutocracy.

Democracy for the Few : Michael Parenti : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

(FREE DOWNLOAD)

archive.org

Anyway, I asked Chat gpt to summarize Michael Parentis book Democracy for the Few:

ChatGPT said:​

Here’s a summary of Democracy for the Few by Michael Parenti:

---

Overview & Core Argument​

Michael Parenti’s Democracy for the Few, first published in 1974 and now in its multiple editions, critically examines the United States political system. Parenti argues that despite democratic structures and rhetoric, the U.S. functions as a plutocracy—a system where a wealthy, unelected elite wields disproportionate power over political and social institutions Wikipediaconnexions.org.
At its core, the book contends that democracy is not just about procedures like voting but about substantive outcomes—and that in a system driven by capitalism, the interests of the majority are routinely sidelined connexions.org.

---

Historical Lens: “A Constitution for the Few”​

Parenti traces how early U.S. political institutions were deliberately shaped to serve elite interests. From restricting suffrage to white male property owners to ongoing barriers for marginalized groups, the political system has historically prioritized elite power under the guise of democracy Organic Consumersconnexions.org.

---

Corporate Power & Economic Inequality​

The book charts how corporate influence, from lobbying to media ownership, reinforces a system skewed toward the affluent. Key statistics highlight the growing inequality—CEOs’ pay exploded from about 24 times the average worker’s pay in 1965 to an astonishing 431 times by 2004 Organic ConsumersZNetwork.
Parenti argues that institutions like Congress, the presidency, the media, and regulatory agencies systematically serve elite interests, perpetuating the status quo connexions.orgCountercurrentsOboolo.

---

The System vs. Democratic Aspirations​

While underlining this critique, Parenti also acknowledges the possibility of democratic gains via popular struggle. He refuses to dismiss reforms outright but insists they’re often wrested from the system rather than granted by it EuvolutionBookeyThe Michael Parenti Political Archive.
He explores how capitalism’s structural dynamics—shrinking public services, subordination of labor rights, militarism, and systemic repression—undermine democracy in practice Countercurrentsconnexions.org.

---

Media, Elections, and Political Control​

Parenti dissects the role of media as an instrument of ideological control—where ownership concentration stifles dissent, shapes public opinion, and marginalizes alternative voices connexions.orgThe Michael Parenti Political Archive.
He’s equally critical of the electoral process, pointing to the two-party system’s dominance, voter suppression tactics, gerrymandering, and campaign finance woes that skew political outcomes toward elite interests The Michael Parenti Political ArchiveBookeyconnexions.org.

---

Paths Forward: What Parenti Recommends​

Although cautious, Parenti doesn’t leave readers without hope. In later chapters, he advocates for:

• Campaign finance reform
• Media diversification and independence
• Bottom-up civic engagement and activism
• Structural overhaul to address systemic inequalities of class, race, and gender Bookey

---

Voices of Readers​

A reader from Reddit reflects:

“It's a critical analysis of inherent inequalities present in the American political system… The realities of foreign policy in the US, the brilliant use of grass-root level activism to bring about a political change… and the influence of the wealthy elite on decision making.” Reddit

---

Summary Table​

Theme	Insight
Plutocratic Reality	U.S. political system serves elite interests over the majority.
Historical Roots	Institutions shaped by and for powerful interests, not equitable democracy.
Economic Inequality	Stark wealth disparities maintain elite dominance.
Institutional Power	Media, elections, Congress, presidency, bureaucracy—tools of elite control.
Democratic Potential	Wins occur under pressure; not through systemic benevolence.
Path to Reform	Focused on structural changes, activism, media reform, and financial transparency.

---

Final Thoughts​

Parenti’s Democracy for the Few offers a searing critique of American governance: democracy in structure, plutocracy in substance. He urges readers to recognize the systemic interplay between capitalism and political power—and the critical importance of organized resistance and reform in reclaiming democratic ideals.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I think our democracy works for the few as well, plus the huge gap between poor and wealthy is inherently not reflecting any merit.

 

[Old Things]

Delete.

 

[fluffy]

@fluffy you've lost me completely at this point. You're making so many different assertions im not sure what to respond to.

Well you don't seem to be making any sense in the big picture or the specific events that happen in history involving Christianity.

in the big picture, i'm not the one attributing turns of history to single events. If anything that was your original position, namely that christianity was somehow an anti-tyrannical force that counteracted the dictatorships of kings as you put it. My stance is that a quick glance at history shows that if anything, the opposite is true.

This is after the printing press.

You don't understand that before the printer no one had access to the Bible as the public level of education.

my point is that there's a very big problem with your theory, namely that the christian "age of faith" - the middle ages - coincided with 1000 years of feudalist tyranny and civilizational decline. Its beginning marked the end of antiquity (a period of monumental civilizational progress), and its end marked the start of the enlightenment (another period of civilizational progress). How do you explain that?

Again why do you believe the Romans were stupid enough to adopt the religion if you believe they were smarter that you claimed Jesus was in the mud doing nothing well the Romans were so advanced.

You either must accept that Catholicism is the only Christian system that defines Christianity or you must actually look at why people became Christians in the first place independently of the authority at either times.

Just because someone monopolized the system doesn't make it untrue the people became Christian because it had good ideas and in society acted on them to try and make things better. Those good ideas influenced people to become more moral and if you don't recognize it I don't know what your point is.

 

[fluffy]

Christianity created the philosophy of the enlightenment so I can't see where you get that technology just emerges from nowhere.

This is false.

What is it with Christians trying to monopolize things under Jesus.
Its like if I was inventor and patented wet water.
Thats not how things work.

Who created the philosophy then, martians?

The enlightened happened because people debated the ideas. Moral ideas, science ideas all in the context of the religion Christianity. Not Buddhism or anything else that much.

 

[ZenRaiden]

The enlightened happened because people debated the ideas. Moral ideas, science ideas all in the context of the religion Christianity. Not Buddhism or anything else that much.

They got many ideas from the East, and literature that was imported via commerce from the orient. Including things like Fibonacci sequence.
The boom in science was not inspired by the bible. Bible is spiritual book, it literally says nothing of science, medicine, or astronomy or anything about geometry or math.
Meanwhile huge loads of books imported from the east dating back to golden age of Islam is literally full of philosophy, logic, math, sciences.
Also the reason why philosophy or any type of thinking was done by Christian priests is because they were the ones reading the books.
No one else was so well read until later, when literacy spread among lesser people, but in general even high nobles were illiterate for some time in some ways.
When these books became common, and spread around they also spread ideas around and hence there was new wave of interest in thinking.
Meanwhile Church was persecuting thinkers and often jailing them or calling them heretics, or burning witches.

Where exactly do you think ideas come from anyway? Or do you think Jordano Bruno just woke up one day and read the bible and somehow invented all the shit he did?
Sources also include antiquity and trade with books was very important part of renaissance and even way before.
Books were collected and often replicated and sold to people who had the means to buy them. The Monks were the ones who replicated them and did the book binding so they were the ones who were most educated in this stuff and hence the first ones to know the things these books had.

I could read the bible all day, but Id never come across logic or math or philosophy or medicine, or astronomy.

 

[fluffy]

The enlightened happened because people debated the ideas. Moral ideas, science ideas all in the context of the religion Christianity. Not Buddhism or anything else that much.

They got many ideas from the East, and literature that was imported via commerce from the orient. Including things like Fibonacci sequence.
The boom in science was not inspired by the bible. Bible is spiritual book, it literally says nothing of science, medicine, or astronomy or anything about geometry or math.
Meanwhile huge loads of books imported from the east dating back to golden age of Islam is literally full of philosophy, logic, math, sciences.
Also the reason why philosophy or any type of thinking was done by Christian priests is because they were the ones reading the books.
No one else was so well read until later, when literacy spread among lesser people, but in general even high nobles were illiterate for some time in some ways.
When these books became common, and spread around they also spread ideas around and hence there was new wave of interest in thinking.
Meanwhile Church was persecuting thinkers and often jailing them or calling them heretics, or burning witches.

Where exactly do you think ideas come from anyway? Or do you think Jordano Bruno just woke up one day and read the bible and somehow invented all the shit he did?
Sources also include antiquity and trade with books was very important part of renaissance and even way before.
Books were collected and often replicated and sold to people who had the means to buy them. The Monks were the ones who replicated them and did the book binding so they were the ones who were most educated in this stuff and hence the first ones to know the things these books had.

I could read the bible all day, but Id never come across logic or math or philosophy or medicine, or astronomy.

Most of those thinkers being persecuted were Christian.

It's why so many moved to America.

A democracy the says in its founding documents human rights come from God.

You believe no one in America was Christian, that the founders didn't include it morals from a Christian perspective? They did because everyone read the Bible in the colonies. And is why our democracy exists.

Europe was a hell hole for people that wanted to be independent Christians.

 

[Hadoblado]

I think Fluffy has the right idea in making a second thread to contain the Christianity/enlightenment derail. @Old Things if you're holding back from speaking about Christianity's role in the enlightenment, go nuts in the beginnings of enlightenment thread that Fluffy made.

 

[fluffy]

The thing about elites taking over the system:

Yes we have power in the hands of the few but if you look at what the foundation documents say about how to change the system you must first understand you have human rights.

Without understanding your rights you cannot know what to do. Education was then the purpose of the people who were in America after it's founding to become educated and not fooled by the powerful.

Education is harder when misinformation exists but then we all need to become media literate.

I dislike it when people say America is bad because some people only want its downfall and so try to spread propaganda as a way to destabilize it. All my life I have seen on tv that some other groups are trying to lie to the public foreign and domestic and I think this is bad and why critical thinking is good.

 

[ZenRaiden]

Most of those thinkers being persecuted were Christian.

By whom?

It's why so many moved to America.

Religious freedom, was proposed by whom?

A democracy the says in its founding documents human rights come from God.

Yes they do. We know long since then that is not true. But that was the way they phrased it back then, because most of people were Christians.

You believe no one in America was Christian, that the founders didn't include it morals from a Christian perspective? They did because everyone read the Bible in the colonies. And is why our democracy exists.

Europe was a hell hole for people that wanted to be independent Christians.

I was talking about science, not morals.

 

[Old Things]

Yes they do. We know long since then that is not true. But that was the way they phrased it back then, because most of people were Christians.

What do you base human rights in?

 

[ZenRaiden]

Yes they do. We know long since then that is not true. But that was the way they phrased it back then, because most of people were Christians.

What do you base human rights in?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is an international document adopted by the United Nations General Assembly that enshrines the rights and freedoms of all human beings. Drafted by a United Nations (UN) committee chaired by Eleanor Roosevelt, it was accepted by the General Assembly as Resolution 217 during its third session on 10 December 1948 at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, France.[1] Of the 58 members of the UN at the time, 48 voted in favour, none against, eight abstained, and two did not vote.[2]

A foundational text in the history of human and civil rights, the Declaration consists of 30 articles detailing an individual's "basic rights and fundamental freedoms" and affirming their universal character as inherent, inalienable, and applicable to all human beings.[1] Adopted as a "common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations", the UDHR commits nations to recognize all humans as being "born free and equal in dignity and rights" regardless of "nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status".[3]

The Declaration is generally considered to be a milestone document for its universalist language, which makes no reference to a particular culture, political system, or religion.[4][5] It directly inspired the development of international human rights law, and was the first step in the formulation of the International Bill of Human Rights, which was completed in 1966 and came into force in 1976. Although not legally binding, the contents of the UDHR have been elaborated and incorporated into subsequent international treaties, regional human rights instruments, and national constitutions and legal codes.[6][7][8]

 

[fluffy]

Most of those thinkers being persecuted were Christian.

By whom?

It's why so many moved to America.

Religious freedom, was proposed by whom?

People who disagreed they were following Christianity properly.

Those who wanted freedom to practice religion as they wanted to.

A democracy the says in its founding documents human rights come from God.

Yes they do. We know long since then that is not true. But that was the way they phrased it back then, because most of people were Christians.

You know for a fact it's not true?

You believe no one in America was Christian, that the founders didn't include it morals from a Christian perspective? They did because everyone read the Bible in the colonies. And is why our democracy exists.

Europe was a hell hole for people that wanted to be independent Christians.

I was talking about science, not morals.

I think from what you said that this proves Christianity influenced democracy as that was my point. You were trying to say my point was wrong but then said "most of people were Christian"

 

[ZenRaiden]

You know for a fact it's not true?

Look ideas can exist independently out of religion. The fact they are included in religion does not make them sourced from religion.

If I look at the bible, all I see is few rules, with very nebulous context and hard to understand implications.

For example if you want something more advanced look at Roman law, which is used today, and was used by Christianity through out.

Roman law is extremely advanced set of rules and regulations preceding and succeeding Christianity.

Bible was just a spiritual book, a kind of explanation for some esoteric ideas, even the idea that democracy is somewhat sourced from bible is dumb one, because the idea existed well before Christ even was born.

The whole point I am making is that political understanding could not be rooted in the bible.

Sure bible has some good ideas, but they are not refined, and even from spiritual point of view Christianity is pretty simplistic and not very developed theology.

Compare that to Gnostics take, or Greek mythology, or other religions that had quite a bit of range and theory.

It would however be wrong to say Christianity had no impact.

 

[Old Things]

You know for a fact it's not true?

Look ideas can exist independently out of religion. The fact they are included in religion does not make them sourced from religion.

If I look at the bible, all I see is few rules, with very nebulous context and hard to understand implications.

For example if you want something more advanced look at Roman law, which is used today, and was used by Christianity through out.

Roman law is extremely advanced set of rules and regulations preceding and succeeding Christianity.

Bible was just a spiritual book, a kind of explanation for some esoteric ideas, even the idea that democracy is somewhat sourced from bible is dumb one, because the idea existed well before Christ even was born.

The whole point I am making is that political understanding could not be rooted in the bible.

Sure bible has some good ideas, but they are not refined, and even from spiritual point of view Christianity is pretty simplistic and not very developed theology.

Compare that to Gnostics take, or Greek mythology, or other religions that had quite a bit of range and theory.

It would however be wrong to say Christianity had no impact.

I find it... odd... that you say the ideas are found in the religious books of the Bible, but they don't come from Christianity.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I find it... odd... that you say the ideas are found in the religious books of the Bible, but they don't come from Christianity.

Thats not what I meant. I said some ideas are included under religion.
Ergo Christian architecture is pretty heavily influenced by Christianity, but architecture as such exists independent of Christianity everywhere on Earth.