Jump to content

christian forums

Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Forums

Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Monarchy - a good thing or a bad thing?

- - - - -

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
7 replies to this topic

#1
OakWood

OakWood

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,356 posts

Just for fun but semi-serious too.

 

Do you think a monarchy is a good thing or a bad thing? In the Bible we frequently hear about 'kings' and other leaders. Now, I'm not talking about tyranny, I'm talking about having a monarch as a head of state but under a constitution that protects the rights of citizens and possibly a democratically elected government. A monarch can be simply a figurehead with no powers at all, or having some powers, or lots of powers.

Do you think a hereditary head of state has a place in today's world or is there no such place for this in today's World?

Would the U.S.A. benefit from a monarch, especially one who has been brought-up to honour Christian values such as justice and chivalry.

Do you think Britain should still retain a monarch or should this notion be abolished?

Should there be a hereditary monarchy or should there be an elected figurehead like some countries have?

Do you think that the U.S.A. could benefit from a living, breathing Uncle Sam who represents all Americans and is politically neutral.

Now I'm an advocate of small government but even if you're an advocate of small government too, do you think there could still be room for some sort of monarch?

 

One of the reasons that I ask this question is because I'm a great fan of history.

 

Thoughts please.



#2
EnochBethany

EnochBethany

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Just for fun but semi-serious too.

 

Do you think a monarchy is a good thing or a bad thing? In the Bible we frequently hear about 'kings' and other leaders. Now, I'm not talking about tyranny, I'm talking about having a monarch as a head of state but under a constitution that protects the rights of citizens and possibly a democratically elected government. A monarch can be simply a figurehead with no powers at all, or having some powers, or lots of powers.

Do you think a hereditary head of state has a place in today's world or is there no such place for this in today's World?

Would the U.S.A. benefit from a monarch, especially one who has been brought-up to honour Christian values such as justice and chivalry.

Do you think Britain should still retain a monarch or should this notion be abolished?

Should there be a hereditary monarchy or should there be an elected figurehead like some countries have?

Do you think that the U.S.A. could benefit from a living, breathing Uncle Sam who represents all Americans and is politically neutral.

Now I'm an advocate of small government but even if you're an advocate of small government too, do you think there could still be room for some sort of monarch?

 

One of the reasons that I ask this question is because I'm a great fan of history.

 

Thoughts please.

IMHO:

 

Polybius has a wonderful section on the Mixed Constitution.  It is his thesis that monarchy degenerates into tyranny.  The US has a monarchical element to its govt, the President.  Are other systems better?  Well, ol Polybius thought that aristocracy was good, but degenerated to oligarchy; democracy was good, but degenerated into ochlocrasy (mob rule).

 

So Polybius speaks about a mixed constitution, which is what the USA has -- the democratic element is the Republic (not really a democracy); the oligarchical element is the SCOTUS (Supreme Court).

 

Biblically, I find no particular system endorsed for the Church Age.  Monarchy was not the original ideal of Israel, but God-directed judges -- God was King. Kings were allowed for & told not to multiply gold, women, or horses -- but kings like Solomon did all three.

 

Democracy would be the people vote on laws themselves; we could do that with the internet or the telephone.  As someone pointed out, democracy fails when the people learn they can vote themselves benefits from the public purse.

 

I don't know where the Bible speaks of "rights" of citizens.  What rights do sinful men have, aside from a right to punishment?  Yet we have the right to become children of God if we trust Christ as Savior.

 

The USA has a constitution, supposedly protecting rights.  But the Constitution is just a piece of paper.  The SCOTUS makes the final laws, because it has appointed itself the interpreter of the Constitution & the people have gone along with that.  The SCOTUS is appointed, not elected, appointed for life, with no provision to remove a justice for legislating from the bench.  The Constitution means no more nor less than what the SCOTUS says it means.  They are like Tom Baker, Dr. Who, over the Key to Time.

 

No matter what form of govt is adopted, if the people & the ruler(s) are totally depraved, you can expect problems.

 

As to Christian values, the USA constitution is flawed by not stating directly that Jesus Christ is Lord & the Bible is the Word of God, thought at the end it is dated, "in the year of our Lord," implied that Jesus is Lord.

 

I don't find chivalry as a Christian value.  "Fair sir, wilt thou joust?"

 

It looks to me like the UK ends up with a woman queen instead of a king most of the time; for once a woman gets the throne, she won't die or abdicate to her son.  By the time he gets the throne, he is ready for the grave.  & Now they've gone & made women equal on the inheritance of the throne.

 

As to the British monarchy, I think the idea is great, because it gives the UK this splendid public relations firm, a firm removed from politics largely. So while the PM may be at loggerheads with the Head of Russia, the queen can carry on cordial relationships with the same.  It gives the nation a certain class.  If only the British monarchy would behave itself with dignity & not get photographed in the nude, be an example of morality.

 

The USA has too long a tradition of having no King.  We are all supposed to be on a common level, no superior aristocrats.

 

The fine tuning the USA govt needs is a provision for nullifying SCOTUS decisions that are legislative & for putting up justices for forced recall election when they legislate from the bench. One house of Congress by majority vote should be able to put up a justice for recall election.



#3
OakWood

OakWood

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,356 posts

 

Just for fun but semi-serious too.

 

Do you think a monarchy is a good thing or a bad thing? In the Bible we frequently hear about 'kings' and other leaders. Now, I'm not talking about tyranny, I'm talking about having a monarch as a head of state but under a constitution that protects the rights of citizens and possibly a democratically elected government. A monarch can be simply a figurehead with no powers at all, or having some powers, or lots of powers.

Do you think a hereditary head of state has a place in today's world or is there no such place for this in today's World?

Would the U.S.A. benefit from a monarch, especially one who has been brought-up to honour Christian values such as justice and chivalry.

Do you think Britain should still retain a monarch or should this notion be abolished?

Should there be a hereditary monarchy or should there be an elected figurehead like some countries have?

Do you think that the U.S.A. could benefit from a living, breathing Uncle Sam who represents all Americans and is politically neutral.

Now I'm an advocate of small government but even if you're an advocate of small government too, do you think there could still be room for some sort of monarch?

 

One of the reasons that I ask this question is because I'm a great fan of history.

 

Thoughts please.

IMHO:

 

Polybius has a wonderful section on the Mixed Constitution.  It is his thesis that monarchy degenerates into tyranny.  The US has a monarchical element to its govt, the President.  Are other systems better?  Well, ol Polybius thought that aristocracy was good, but degenerated to oligarchy; democracy was good, but degenerated into ochlocrasy (mob rule).

 

So Polybius speaks about a mixed constitution, which is what the USA has -- the democratic element is the Republic (not really a democracy); the oligarchical element is the SCOTUS (Supreme Court).

 

Biblically, I find no particular system endorsed for the Church Age.  Monarchy was not the original ideal of Israel, but God-directed judges -- God was King. Kings were allowed for & told not to multiply gold, women, or horses -- but kings like Solomon did all three.

 

Democracy would be the people vote on laws themselves; we could do that with the internet or the telephone.  As someone pointed out, democracy fails when the people learn they can vote themselves benefits from the public purse.

 

I don't know where the Bible speaks of "rights" of citizens.  What rights do sinful men have, aside from a right to punishment?  Yet we have the right to become children of God if we trust Christ as Savior.

 

The USA has a constitution, supposedly protecting rights.  But the Constitution is just a piece of paper.  The SCOTUS makes the final laws, because it has appointed itself the interpreter of the Constitution & the people have gone along with that.  The SCOTUS is appointed, not elected, appointed for life, with no provision to remove a justice for legislating from the bench.  The Constitution means no more nor less than what the SCOTUS says it means.  They are like Tom Baker, Dr. Who, over the Key to Time.

 

No matter what form of govt is adopted, if the people & the ruler(s) are totally depraved, you can expect problems.

 

As to Christian values, the USA constitution is flawed by not stating directly that Jesus Christ is Lord & the Bible is the Word of God, thought at the end it is dated, "in the year of our Lord," implied that Jesus is Lord.

 

I don't find chivalry as a Christian value.  "Fair sir, wilt thou joust?"

 

It looks to me like the UK ends up with a woman queen instead of a king most of the time; for once a woman gets the throne, she won't die or abdicate to her son.  By the time he gets the throne, he is ready for the grave.  & Now they've gone & made women equal on the inheritance of the throne.

 

As to the British monarchy, I think the idea is great, because it gives the UK this splendid public relations firm, a firm removed from politics largely. So while the PM may be at loggerheads with the Head of Russia, the queen can carry on cordial relationships with the same.  It gives the nation a certain class.  If only the British monarchy would behave itself with dignity & not get photographed in the nude, be an example of morality.

 

The USA has too long a tradition of having no King.  We are all supposed to be on a common level, no superior aristocrats.

 

The fine tuning the USA govt needs is a provision for nullifying SCOTUS decisions that are legislative & for putting up justices for forced recall election when they legislate from the bench. One house of Congress by majority vote should be able to put up a justice for recall election.

 

 

That's the sort of reply that I'm looking for. That's a great start to this thread. Let the discussion commence.

And just for fun I shall knight you...............

 

Arise Sir EnochBethany. 

 

Man_Being_Knighted_Royalty_Free_Clipart_

 

By the way, I don't know why a monk is performing the knighthood ceremony. It's the best pic I could find at short notice.



#4
EnochBethany

EnochBethany

    Veteran Member

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

 

 

Just for fun but semi-serious too.

 

Do you think a monarchy is a good thing or a bad thing? In the Bible we frequently hear about 'kings' and other leaders. Now, I'm not talking about tyranny, I'm talking about having a monarch as a head of state but under a constitution that protects the rights of citizens and possibly a democratically elected government. A monarch can be simply a figurehead with no powers at all, or having some powers, or lots of powers.

Do you think a hereditary head of state has a place in today's world or is there no such place for this in today's World?

Would the U.S.A. benefit from a monarch, especially one who has been brought-up to honour Christian values such as justice and chivalry.

Do you think Britain should still retain a monarch or should this notion be abolished?

Should there be a hereditary monarchy or should there be an elected figurehead like some countries have?

Do you think that the U.S.A. could benefit from a living, breathing Uncle Sam who represents all Americans and is politically neutral.

Now I'm an advocate of small government but even if you're an advocate of small government too, do you think there could still be room for some sort of monarch?

 

One of the reasons that I ask this question is because I'm a great fan of history.

 

Thoughts please.

IMHO:

 

Polybius has a wonderful section on the Mixed Constitution.  It is his thesis that monarchy degenerates into tyranny.  The US has a monarchical element to its govt, the President.  Are other systems better?  Well, ol Polybius thought that aristocracy was good, but degenerated to oligarchy; democracy was good, but degenerated into ochlocrasy (mob rule).

 

So Polybius speaks about a mixed constitution, which is what the USA has -- the democratic element is the Republic (not really a democracy); the oligarchical element is the SCOTUS (Supreme Court).

 

Biblically, I find no particular system endorsed for the Church Age.  Monarchy was not the original ideal of Israel, but God-directed judges -- God was King. Kings were allowed for & told not to multiply gold, women, or horses -- but kings like Solomon did all three.

 

Democracy would be the people vote on laws themselves; we could do that with the internet or the telephone.  As someone pointed out, democracy fails when the people learn they can vote themselves benefits from the public purse.

 

I don't know where the Bible speaks of "rights" of citizens.  What rights do sinful men have, aside from a right to punishment?  Yet we have the right to become children of God if we trust Christ as Savior.

 

The USA has a constitution, supposedly protecting rights.  But the Constitution is just a piece of paper.  The SCOTUS makes the final laws, because it has appointed itself the interpreter of the Constitution & the people have gone along with that.  The SCOTUS is appointed, not elected, appointed for life, with no provision to remove a justice for legislating from the bench.  The Constitution means no more nor less than what the SCOTUS says it means.  They are like Tom Baker, Dr. Who, over the Key to Time.

 

No matter what form of govt is adopted, if the people & the ruler(s) are totally depraved, you can expect problems.

 

As to Christian values, the USA constitution is flawed by not stating directly that Jesus Christ is Lord & the Bible is the Word of God, thought at the end it is dated, "in the year of our Lord," implied that Jesus is Lord.

 

I don't find chivalry as a Christian value.  "Fair sir, wilt thou joust?"

 

It looks to me like the UK ends up with a woman queen instead of a king most of the time; for once a woman gets the throne, she won't die or abdicate to her son.  By the time he gets the throne, he is ready for the grave.  & Now they've gone & made women equal on the inheritance of the throne.

 

As to the British monarchy, I think the idea is great, because it gives the UK this splendid public relations firm, a firm removed from politics largely. So while the PM may be at loggerheads with the Head of Russia, the queen can carry on cordial relationships with the same.  It gives the nation a certain class.  If only the British monarchy would behave itself with dignity & not get photographed in the nude, be an example of morality.

 

The USA has too long a tradition of having no King.  We are all supposed to be on a common level, no superior aristocrats.

 

The fine tuning the USA govt needs is a provision for nullifying SCOTUS decisions that are legislative & for putting up justices for forced recall election when they legislate from the bench. One house of Congress by majority vote should be able to put up a justice for recall election.

 

 

That's the sort of reply that I'm looking for. That's a great start to this thread. Let the discussion commence.

And just for fun I shall knight you...............

 

Arise Sir EnochBethany. 

 

Man_Being_Knighted_Royalty_Free_Clipart_

 

By the way, I don't know why a monk is performing the knighthood ceremony. It's the best pic I could find at short notice.

 

Thanks a lot.  Can you send me an order of fish and chips as a prize?  I miss them from my U M/ch days



#5
OakWood

OakWood

    Royal Member

  • Royal Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,356 posts

 

 

 

Just for fun but semi-serious too.

 

Do you think a monarchy is a good thing or a bad thing? In the Bible we frequently hear about 'kings' and other leaders. Now, I'm not talking about tyranny, I'm talking about having a monarch as a head of state but under a constitution that protects the rights of citizens and possibly a democratically elected government. A monarch can be simply a figurehead with no powers at all, or having some powers, or lots of powers.

Do you think a hereditary head of state has a place in today's world or is there no such place for this in today's World?

Would the U.S.A. benefit from a monarch, especially one who has been brought-up to honour Christian values such as justice and chivalry.

Do you think Britain should still retain a monarch or should this notion be abolished?

Should there be a hereditary monarchy or should there be an elected figurehead like some countries have?

Do you think that the U.S.A. could benefit from a living, breathing Uncle Sam who represents all Americans and is politically neutral.

Now I'm an advocate of small government but even if you're an advocate of small government too, do you think there could still be room for some sort of monarch?

 

One of the reasons that I ask this question is because I'm a great fan of history.

 

Thoughts please.

IMHO:

 

Polybius has a wonderful section on the Mixed Constitution.  It is his thesis that monarchy degenerates into tyranny.  The US has a monarchical element to its govt, the President.  Are other systems better?  Well, ol Polybius thought that aristocracy was good, but degenerated to oligarchy; democracy was good, but degenerated into ochlocrasy (mob rule).

 

So Polybius speaks about a mixed constitution, which is what the USA has -- the democratic element is the Republic (not really a democracy); the oligarchical element is the SCOTUS (Supreme Court).

 

Biblically, I find no particular system endorsed for the Church Age.  Monarchy was not the original ideal of Israel, but God-directed judges -- God was King. Kings were allowed for & told not to multiply gold, women, or horses -- but kings like Solomon did all three.

 

Democracy would be the people vote on laws themselves; we could do that with the internet or the telephone.  As someone pointed out, democracy fails when the people learn they can vote themselves benefits from the public purse.

 

I don't know where the Bible speaks of "rights" of citizens.  What rights do sinful men have, aside from a right to punishment?  Yet we have the right to become children of God if we trust Christ as Savior.

 

The USA has a constitution, supposedly protecting rights.  But the Constitution is just a piece of paper.  The SCOTUS makes the final laws, because it has appointed itself the interpreter of the Constitution & the people have gone along with that.  The SCOTUS is appointed, not elected, appointed for life, with no provision to remove a justice for legislating from the bench.  The Constitution means no more nor less than what the SCOTUS says it means.  They are like Tom Baker, Dr. Who, over the Key to Time.

 

No matter what form of govt is adopted, if the people & the ruler(s) are totally depraved, you can expect problems.

 

As to Christian values, the USA constitution is flawed by not stating directly that Jesus Christ is Lord & the Bible is the Word of God, thought at the end it is dated, "in the year of our Lord," implied that Jesus is Lord.

 

I don't find chivalry as a Christian value.  "Fair sir, wilt thou joust?"

 

It looks to me like the UK ends up with a woman queen instead of a king most of the time; for once a woman gets the throne, she won't die or abdicate to her son.  By the time he gets the throne, he is ready for the grave.  & Now they've gone & made women equal on the inheritance of the throne.

 

As to the British monarchy, I think the idea is great, because it gives the UK this splendid public relations firm, a firm removed from politics largely. So while the PM may be at loggerheads with the Head of Russia, the queen can carry on cordial relationships with the same.  It gives the nation a certain class.  If only the British monarchy would behave itself with dignity & not get photographed in the nude, be an example of morality.

 

The USA has too long a tradition of having no King.  We are all supposed to be on a common level, no superior aristocrats.

 

The fine tuning the USA govt needs is a provision for nullifying SCOTUS decisions that are legislative & for putting up justices for forced recall election when they legislate from the bench. One house of Congress by majority vote should be able to put up a justice for recall election.

 

 

That's the sort of reply that I'm looking for. That's a great start to this thread. Let the discussion commence.

And just for fun I shall knight you...............

 

Arise Sir EnochBethany. 

 

Man_Being_Knighted_Royalty_Free_Clipart_

 

By the way, I don't know why a monk is performing the knighthood ceremony. It's the best pic I could find at short notice.

 

Thanks a lot.  Can you send me an order of fish and chips as a prize?  I miss them from my U M/ch days

 

 

biggar-fish-and-chips.jpg



#6
Guest_HisG_*

Guest_HisG_*
  • Guests
I looove fish and chips!!!


Btw, I think the days of the monarchy are over - apart from generating a lot of money for the country via tourism (British monarchy in mind - thanks to Diana), the original need for them has expired.

Guys I haven't read yet what you two have written so I hope I didn't repeat anything lol!

I love history too - we really should have a history section on Worthy - ancient/modern.

#7
Guest_HisG_*

Guest_HisG_*
  • Guests
Btw - 2 direct heirs to the throne are travelling on the same plane!!!!! Shock horror!

Gorgeous George and William when they fly out to Aus :)

#8
chloe_fantastic

chloe_fantastic

    Senior Member

  • Worthy Watchman
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,276 posts

I think it depends on the people of each country as to what sort of government it should have. I've talked to some people from Canada who think that America should be just like them and adopt the same sort of approach to government. They can't for the life of them understand why what works for them shouldn't work as equally well for us. I believe it's a mistake to assume that what works well in one country, one nation, for one people, should work well for all. The mindset of people are different. We value different things, and the things we value in common are often in a differing order.

 

Then there's also the issue of what the people actually want. When Saddam Hussein was deposed, I know Americans who were shocked when many Iraqis called for a more theocracy type government, like what Iran has, than one more democratically leaning like Israel or us. They didn't understand that since the majority of these people are Muslim, and Islam calls for a theocracy type government, of course that's what some would want.






Worthy Christian Forums - Christian Message Boards - 1999-2014 part of the Worthy Network