why and why not !? yes or no !? Www@QuestionHome@Com
Question: For or against the divine right of kings !? !?
why and why not !? yes or no !? Www@QuestionHome@Com
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:
The role of the king is to serve the people, it does not matter if he got his post by inheritance or election or whatever way; he should serve the people or else there is no need for him (why would you want someone to give you orders unless he was working for your benefit, right!?)!.
The king's mistake is too expensive to allow him to learn by trial and error; his mistake affects everyone, the country, the people, the land and even the animals and plants on the land!. So he MUST be accountable, and if he made a mistake, someone MUST have the authority to tell him so!.
The king is NOT infallible; God does NOT talk to him (even if some presidents claim he does); and God does NOT dictate what he does!. He's human, he makes mistakes that the people are not willing to suffer the consequences of!.
He has to know that someone WILL ask him questions and expect him to answer so that he WILL think a thousand times before, as an example, he decides to send the army to a war in someone else’s land so that he can be richer than he is!.
Against!. Not that I'm aginst monarchies, I actually believe that an enlightened despotism is the best form of government!. How rare are those though!? And no despotism is enlightened if it is persecuting you, eh!?
Divine right is not a paticularly old custom in the west!. Before the Romans killed thier repubilic, and after people stopped looking to rome for leadership, chiefs and kings were 'first among equals' This is part of the reason why Alexander the Great couldn't keep marching into India; His sub chiefs resented him taking on eastern customs!.
Divine Right has lead to alot of ill in the places where it has taken root!. Oftentimes misfits are raised to thrones, who are at best idiots, and at worst criminally depraved!. I remember a Persian king making a noble eat his own son, and all the nobleman could say was 'thy will be done o' great king'!.
And it's not a terribly sound theory of government!. I mean, what does it actually mean!? God will be on the side of whoever wins the civil war!? It's really a cheap ploy to gain loyalty though the people's religion!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
The divine right of kings is the belief that monarchs are appointed by and answerable to only God!. Obviously in this day and age where democracies reign freely with relative success we would not want a monarch!. In addition to the fact that power usually corrupts people, and in the past those who have had power unusual transform into a frantical dictator!. Www@QuestionHome@Com
~For or against in what way!? As a factual matter or as a philosophical, governmental construct!?
As to the former, no!. On cannot base political authority on a fiction!. The idea of divine right is a fiction because it is based on the fiction of the existence of a divinity or deity!.
As a philosophical construct, it made eminently good sense in it's day!. Religion and gods were created by man in no small part as a way to control the masses!. Governments were created to organize and control society!. Social control of some sort is necessary, as the alternative is anarchy!. Given the evolution of government and the general state of the nature of man at the genesis of monarchic government, the monarch needed some justification on which to base his/her claim to leadership and supremacy!. What better ally than the almighty which the superstitions of the people forced them to obey out of fear of reprisal and eternal damnation!. An single guardian angel would afford more protection than a legion of bodyguards against the devout, or even somewhat skeptical, believer!.
The concept of divine right of monarchs is as old as historical civilization itself!. The Sumerian kings (Sumer being accepted as the first organized civilization on earth) claimed to rule by divine right!. So did the Babylonian kings and the Egyptian Pharaohs!. The legends and fables of Nibiru and the Anunnaki were probably created to support the claims!.
Given the evolution of society and of the psychology of mankind, monarchic government was a giant leap forward!. Even today, I dread the thought of government by true democracy, and I am grateful that the US is not one!. I cannot conceive of putting every issue of government to the people for vote!. While I disagree with much of what is spawned in Washington, I am much more comfortable living in a republic than I would be in a democracy, where I could be subject to extinction due to the vote of a single citizen!. Think of the books that could be banned, the social programs that could be eliminated, the racial/racist laws that could be passed, the wars that could be declared, the penal codes and punishments (for thought crimes, even) that could be enacted by the tyranny of the majority (which majority could come down to the vote of a single deranged bigot at the polls) and the reprisals that could be rained down on the minority for their opposition in a pure democracy!.
Governments exist to maintain, organize, regulate and control society!. As often as not, their function is to save us from ourselves!. our ignorance and our stupidity!. If they exist to serve my wants and desires, you had better hope you don't stand in the way of my wants because one of us will be doomed!. [translation: considered the logical consequence of the platitude before giving mindless lip service to it!.] Until mankind has reached a level still so far over the horizon that it cannot be envisioned, let alone perceived, governments are necessary to save us from ourselves!. We have evolved beyond the stage where monarchs should be necessary!. Unfortunately, it seems we have not evolved sufficiently that we can abandon our superstitions and primitive need for belief in a higher being or deity!.
"I contend that we are both atheists!. I just believe in one fewer god than you do!. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours!."
-- Stephen Roberts
It seems our rulers still claim inspiration and guidance from the divine, although they are (most of them, at least) wise enough to have dropped the claim of the right to rule as having been bequeathed from on high!. Anyhow, the gods are apparently to busy helping quarterbacks throw passes and wideouts catch them these days if the jocks are to believed!. I guess the torch of divine right has passed from the halls of governments to football fields, tracks, basketball courts and soccer pitches!. That may be a giant leap for mankind!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
From a philosophical stance, I don't believe in any divine power, so
the claim that ones authority is sanctioned by a god means nothing
From a practical standpoint, there is no way to challenge a monarch's
authority if it is granted from on high!. Not only does he have available
the resources of the state, i!.e!. the military and bureaucracy, but he
can resort to theology to buttress his power!. To much power with too
I am For I just want to control them via intelligent government
Britain would not be as great without the Kings and Queens and it stopped Britain for being invaded for 1000 years there is talk in French about restoring the monarchy
all Monarchs should be retained look at the stability of all the countries that have a monarchy in modern times even the Americans Sorry his Majesty King MacArthur agreed the Japanese emperor should be retained to stabilise Japan after WW2
Biggest advantage No B----- election campaigns costing Millions to elect 1 PersonWww@QuestionHome@Com
for!.!.!. a kid who is destined to become king will be educated properly, he will study history, geography and other VITAL disciplines !.!.!. politicians today barely know anything about history and make their way to the up using propaganda only!.!.!. a child can be shaped into anything, even a good ruler!.!.!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Against!. People should decide who would be elected as the "leader" or"ruler"!. The King/ruler leads a state/nation so let the population of the state, decide upon it e!.g!. via election!.
The idea that God assigned a King to lead a state is superfluous!.Www@QuestionHome@Com
Would have thought history had delivered the verdict on this one!.Www@QuestionHome@Com