This is a phrase I've seen around with some frequency lately and I'm wondering if people could explain what they mean by it. I get the sneaky suspicion that it's one of those tricky things, like "supporting the troops", that in common use means the opposite of what I personally think it should mean.
To sort of stake out my posiiton, while I respect that the presidency is a terribly difficult and important job and believe that allowances should be made for this, I don't believe that the President is of greater importance or of a higher class than any other American. Furthermore, I believe that because the office of the president is such an important one and one that carries with it so much power (which is at least theoretically derived from the people), the President must necessarily be held to a higher standard than most other people.
To me, respecting the office of the president, comes first from the president himself in his attitude towards the responsibilities inherent in his position and second, from the people, by only accepting people of demonstrably high character and attainment for the office and by expecting responsible and trustworthy behavior from the holders of this office.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I think it means they do not want to be questioned or have their authority questioned, so they tell people to hush and that their legit complaints are disrespectful. but it is such a weak argument. After all, the American way is about the ability to criticize our leaders unlike in other countries where you'd get shot or tortured. So if a person who is president cannot handle criticism and address it in a mature manner without having a bunch of people say, "Respect them" they should not be president in the first place.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, an awful lot of the criticism addressed at the President is neither responsible nor mature. In my more perfect world, these criticisms wouldn't be made, or at least not given the weight that they are. Not so much out of respect for the office, but out of a sense of maturity and responsibility, or failing that, at least a basic sense of shame.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Some, but what about the cricitism that is on the money? How can they address that, address and fix what is wrong without escaping from it. It seems like you need all sides, even extreme ones to understand the full picture. I mostly find myself displeased with his budget, the handling of Iraq and a few other things.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
But Bush IS a poopyhead!
-pH
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think it means calling him "Mr. President" rather than "shrub," and phrasing disagreement as "I disagree" rather than "Bush can go **** himself."
Really, how is this bad? To respect the office, you don't even have to respect the man occupying it. It just means not talking about him in ways you wouldn't want your sainted grandmother to hear.
Posted by gnixing (Member # 768) on :
Respecting the Office does not equate to respecting the man. When a statement or policy is issued from the Office of the President, it should be treated with a level of respect. When the President does or says something that is not from within that jurisdiction, then there are no obligations that should be expected.
When the President is officiating his duties, one should not consider his views lightly. That doesn't imply that criticism or objectivity is tossed out the window, but that we don't say "Bush IS a poopyhead!" :-) unless we are talking about him the man as opposed to the President.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Will, I fail to see how this is an important aspect of the presidency qua the presidency. That is, while I agree that talking this way is not acceptible, I think it's not acceptible in pretty much any case and I don't see how it should apply specifically because someone is the President.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I heard the term “respecting the office of the President” a lot more often during Clinton’s scandals than I do now. I think it comes from a patriarchal view of things in which you respect authority simply because it is an authority. I do not see being an authority as something inherently worthy of additional respect. When that authority is abused, I most definitely lose respect.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Respecting the Office of the President means to respect the Constitution which gave birth to our government. You can hate the man but love the Office...as the Office is part of the USA, just as Congress and the Supreme Court are too. These things form the Republic and America.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think it has to do with the fact that you might disagree with President Bush, you might think his policies are horrible for the country, but regardless of whether he personally deserves respect, the office he holds does.
To use a related example that's clearer: I'm not a fan of my US Representative for a variety of reasons. I certainly didn't vote for him, and I don't agree with a lot of what he does. However, he still represents me. I still have a right (and some would argue a duty) to write to him with my concerns, and he certainly has a duty to take those into account while voting. Who he is has no effect on that. While I personally don't like him, the office that he holds represents me and everyone else in my district.
Now granted, a US Representative is meant to be far more responsive to his district than a President or even a Senator is. Regardless of who the president happens to be at this particular point in time, the office of the President is still my face to the world at large. I might not like my nose, or my chin, but it would still be disrespectful to me to cover it with refuse for that reason. Far more effective would be to use makeup to enhance it.
For me the action of respecting the office of the president is equivalent, although not the same as, being patriotic. I don't agree with everything that happens in this country, I criticize what I think is wrong. But I love this country, I think she's beautiful and I would never want to be anything other than a US citizen.
That probably didn't make any sense at all. I'm sorry.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
gnixing is a poopyhead, too!
-pH
Posted by prolixshore (Member # 4496) on :
I usually only hear this phrase in conjunction with perceived breaches of etiquette. Take, for example, Joakim Noah of the Florida basketball team. When they were received at the White House last week, Noah wore his shirt untucked while entering with his arm around two ladies. The argument I heard was that this sort of behavior is appropriate for certain venues, but not for a meeting with the President of the United States. I tend to agree with this, as if I were meeting the President, no matter which President, I would wear a suit. Things like that, along with things like calling the President names or neglecting to call him a sir, tend to be when I hear this phrase come out. I'm not sure it has much, if anything, to do with criticizing specific policies, which has been a part of the Presidency since the Presidency was created.
--ApostleRadio
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What is and is not in the realm of due respect for the President is a great debate. This argument first came up, in my knowledge, with President Nixon. As President he would often fall back on "respect the President" when anyone would criticize him or protest against his policies. He greatly abused the idea of Presidential Due Respect, and that has still not recovered.
(His relection campaign centered on "Re-electing the President" not Nixon. Hence, to vote for anyone else would be to vote against the office of the President.)
I greatly dislike the current President's policies, and while I believe he is a man of convictions and honor, I also beleive he has certain character flaws that make him a second rate president. I still refer to him as President Bush more often than I say "Bush". Respect for the position, the highest legal position in the United States, a position of law and honor, is important. Respect for the man is secondary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think it means calling him "Mr. President" rather than "shrub..."
That's part of it. But I think our presidents have, by virtue of their lack of obvious dignity and/or carriage, eroded this sort of inherent respect. When Bush gives insulting nicknames to the press corps or heads out to his ranch for "vacation" for most of the year, or when Clinton or Kennedy have sex in the Oval Office, or when Carter puts on a sweater and invites everyone around a chummy fireplace, they deliberately break down walls between "us" and "them" -- and the kind of respect we're talking about here, the kind of respect inherent in a position rather than in a man or his performance of his duties, depends on those perceived walls. It's similar to what's happened to the British monarchy: once you start acting like the common folk to become more popular, to become "celebrities," everyone's going to treat you like a common person who's become a celebrity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
During the last presidential campaign, I found what, to me, was a very weird phenomenon. I talked to a lot of people that, even though they didn't think that the President was doing a good job, thought that, because he was the President, it was disloyal not to vote for him.
I thought that this was just bizarre.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
kmbboots, they tried a similar campaign to re-elect Ray Nagin. There are these huge billboards everywhere with Ray Nagin's face and "OUR MAYOR" in huge letters.
-pH
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: When Bush gives insulting nicknames to the press corps or heads out to his ranch for "vacation" for most of the year, or when Clinton or Kennedy have sex in the Oval Office, or when Carter puts on a sweater and invites everyone around a chummy fireplace
I disagree with your opinion about Carter, by the way. I think his fireside chats did nothing to disgrace the office of the president.
And, if I understand correctly, Bush's nicknames for the press corps are not insulting, but are calculated to win them over. It is a feather in your cap to be on a first-name basis with the president, but a nickname basis is even more intimate. Sure, many members of the corps see through this cheap trick, but I believe that there are plenty who are charmed by it.
For me, respecting the office of the president means accepting that as an elected leader of the people, he is entitled to the powers granted by the constitution. Respecting the Office does not, in my mind, include forgiving abuse of those powers, criminal activity, or undignified behavior. I can respect the office without respecting the man, and I can respect the office without becoming an apologist for his misdeeds.
More familiarly, I have had supervisors that were competent and worthy of their positions. I respected them. I have also had supervisors that were incompetent or unethical. I did not respect the person, but I did respect their right to supervise my work, to decide on my compensation, and to make the decisions that are their responsibility to make. I respected the (carpeted, oak-desked) office without respecting the person in it.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
I read this thread title as "Respecting the Orifice of the President," which puts a totally new spin on the discussion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:When a statement or policy is issued from the Office of the President, it should be treated with a level of respect.
See, I strongly disagree with this idea. I don't believe that a statement or policy deserves respect merely because it came from the President. I'm not going to refrain from criticizing - quite harshly if I think it's appropriate - Presidential statements or policies that I think are wrong.
---
And on a different angle, as I said, I don't see the President as eing a higher class of person than anyone else. So I don't know why it would be expected to wear a suit to see him. I don't buy into the "President as royalty" forms of honor and respect. From my view, the President is first and foremost a servant of the people. I believe that forgetting this his led to many problems, both with presidents and with people's reaction to them.
But, then again, I a guy who thinks that the Pledge of Alliegence is directly contrary to the principles our country was founded on.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Actually, it is my deep respect for the office of the president that causes me to criticize the president's policies. If a sitting president is doing or saying something that I believe disgraces the office, it is my duty to say so.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Really, how is this bad? To respect the office, you don't even have to respect the man occupying it. It just means not talking about him in ways you wouldn't want your sainted grandmother to hear.
My grandmother said a lot worse about politicians than I have ever said about President Bush. You should've heard her talk! She also told me that if I ever went into politics, she would hunt me down and kill me. This from a woman who also taught me that there is honor in hard work of ANY kind...
She also threatened to drive her car through the showroom window if they sold her a lemon. Oddly enough, she got great service from the local Chevy dealer. lol.
Tough old bird, my grandmother.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
See, I've only run across the "Respect the office of President" argument whenever I was criticizing his actions, like the war, the No Child Left Behind Act, or the Patriot Act. Never once has it come from my calling him "Bush" instead of "the President." Perhaps it's just my community, but it always comes up when criticisms arise.
My respect for the office of President extends enough to call him Mr. President, instead of "George" or "Bush" or "Bushy" or "The Bushwhacker," were I to ever meet him. Beyond that small courtesy, a President has to earn my respect.
And no, President Bush has not earned mine yet.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
The Office does deserve respect. I remember how empty it made me feel when a teacher removed a calender with pictures of the Presidents from our classroom because it had that "damned Kennedy's" picture on it. You don't have to agree with policys or politics. But, when he/she is acting in an official capacity, decorum/deference is due from the audience. However, the person in the office also has an obligation to respect the office.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
respect is not resorting to cheap name calling when talking about somone. Its your right to complain about whatever you want but try and do it in a constructive was IE I disagree with this policy because... It could be improved by... this is intelligent conversation but just saying Bush Is A Dumb Jack@$$ idiot etc..isnt showing alot of respect.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Will, I fail to see how this is an important aspect of the presidency qua the presidency. That is, while I agree that talking this way is not acceptible, I think it's not acceptible in pretty much any case and I don't see how it should apply specifically because someone is the President.
Maybe we could have a new phrase: "respecting the office of human being."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I thought we already had that. I think it's called "acting like an adult". Unfortunately, it seems to be of much less value in politics than acting in a manner we wouldn't accept in a 12 year old.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
"Libby said that Cheney said that Bush said..."
And they say the White House isn't like High School. Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
So does this apply to all elected officials of the federal government, or only the President? Because I was listening to a certain raving lunatic on the radio today who repeatedly referred to one senator as "Dingy Harry."
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
MrSquicky -- I'm sure in part you are directing this thread at me because I was the one who said something about "respecting the President" in the other thread. You may just be baiting me, however, I'm going to go ahead and answer you honestly anyway.
I have been taught since my childhood to respect authority (not necessarily unquestionably, but respectfully). While some of that may be because my father was in a law enforcement position (which brought about discussions about laws and law enforcers, etc.) more of this thinking was from my spiritual upbringing and my spiritual beliefs.
For instance:
quote:Romans 13:1-2 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
and
quote:Hebrews 13:17 Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.
and
quote:Titus 3: 1-2 Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.
and
quote:I Peter 2:17 Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.
etc. etc.
So while I may not always agree with the leader or leaders, I do feel I should be respectful of authorities over me, as a Christian. I do feel in the overall scheme of things, any power that is given to them is given by design toward an overall plan and purpose, whether or not I see it.
In the book of Samuel (Old Testament), King Saul attempted several times to kill David (after he had been anointed but before he had been proclaimed King to replace Saul) but David never plotted to kill Saul for revenge, nor harm him in any way, even though given the opportunity many many times. (I Sam 24:6, 26:9, II Sam 1:14, 4:11) He felt it was wrong in God's sight to lift his hand toward his king. While David was not a perfect man, the bible does record him as being a person that God was pleased with and whose example we should follow, as far as his heart and attitude.
Farmgirl
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I thought we already had that. I think it's called "acting like an adult". Unfortunately, it seems to be of much less value in politics than acting in a manner we wouldn't accept in a 12 year old.
In *some* circles we have it.
The old media have suggested regulation of Internet; they should be the gatekeepers. What can they do that would earn that role? They could get there first -- but the Internet beats them. They could be more reliable -- but the forged documents scandal, in which every major news organ I've heard of backed Rather, shows they're not up to that. Or they could be more civil. They may actually have an edge there.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Will, I don't really understand what most of that means. Perhaps you could explain your point differently?
The difference between saying "Can we use respectful dialog, like adults do, instead of childish name-calling?" and "You must respect the office of the President." is, to me, a very large one.
---
Farmgirl, I've encountered this in more than few places lately. I suppose one of them was probably when you said it here, but I don't specifically recall it.
I've also said elsewhere that the panglossian divine right of kings you find in Paul that you referenced there has been strongly challenged by modern theologians, for, as I see it, very good reasons.
To pick one of the more blatant ones, not only are you saying with that that the God wanted Adolf Hitler to become the leader of the Germans, but also that it was every good German Christians' divinely commanded duty to obey him.
Also, again as I mentioned in another thread, the structure of our government is such that, theoretically, all authority ultimately rests in the hands of the entire citizenry. When you consider that, squelching dissent could be seen as directly contrary to the things you quoted. Populist governments present a much more complicated situation, in terms of authority, than the big man calls the shots.
[ April 11, 2006, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I won't get into a deep theological discussion with you MrSquick. But basically I will respect authority as long as that authority is not asking me to do something directly contrary to God. I would consider murder to be contrary to God, and I would not commit murder if told to by authorities. (etc.)
Even throughout the bible, it talks of very bad leaders who were contrary to God, and very good leaders.
You simply asked what I meant when I say "respecting the office of the President" -- and I answered you what I meant -- but I certainly didn't say you had to agree with me, or that you and I would ever agree on this.
FG
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let's get a call from the judges.
----
Nope. It was close, but Goodwin has not been invoked.
But don't worry, folks. It's only a matter of time.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think it's hardly a deep theological discussion to point out the direct implications of
quote:Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
I'm honestly not sure how this statement is relevant to your answer if you don't actually believe what it says.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
I do believe what it says. I simply don't want to get into a discussion/argument/debate with you about it here on this forum.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
The incumbent is personally a poster child for the "Peter Principle" and his predecessor is personally a scum bag. But, when the band plays four ruffles and flurrishes and sixteen bars of "The Evergreen Pine," I will stand up and salute. The rest of you should stand and salute also. The Office of the President deserves that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, I'm not sure you understand Godwin's law.
Farmgirl, If you don't want to discuss it, I certainly can't make you, but I really don't see how you can take a statement that says that anyone in authority has it only because God wants them to and that anyone who rebels against this authority is rebelling against what God has instituted and will be judged as doing wrong and then say "But that only applies when I judge that the authority is not doing the wrong thing." and say you're following what was said.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm not sure you understand Godwin's law.
I am.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
On ceremonial occasions, I can sort of see what you're saying Artemisia. In that instance, the President is representing the nation. But, that's hardly the full scope of how people are using it.
An example that has come up in disucussion - it's not really practical, but it has wider implications - should you feel obligated to let the President ahead of you in line for the bathroom? I say absolutely not.
---
porter, Well, you used it incorrectly up there nonetheless.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Strictly, I did use it incorrectly, since the original version of Godwin's law is "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.", which you did.
But another version of the law says that in any debate/argument/discussion, eventually somebody will compare their opponent to Hitler or the Nazis. This is the version I was using.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, Where was the comparison to Hitler or Nazis that I made?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, again as I mentioned in another thread, the structure of our government is such that, theoretically, all authority ultimately rests in the hands of the entire citizenry. When you consider that, squelching dissent could be seen as directly contrary to the things you quoted. Populist governments present a much more complicated situation, in terms of authority, than the big man calls the shots.
I don't see where this contradicts anything Farmgirl said. Specifically, she hasn't advocated squelching dissent. It seems you hold the premise that that calling for respect for the President squelches dissent. If you do, I strenuously disagree with that premise.
quote:To pick one of the more blatant ones, not only are you saying with that that the God wanted Adolf Hitler to become the leader of the Germans, but also that it was every good German Christians' divinely commanded duty to obey him.
Only because you are ignoring the whole populist government analysis, which would certainly apply to Hitler, and, more importantly, you apparently don't see a difference between not rebelling and doing everything someone commands.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Where was the comparison to Hitler or Nazis that I made?
You didn't make one.
What you did do was make a comparison involving Hitler or the Nazis:
quote:To pick one of the more blatant ones, not only are you saying with that that the God wanted Adolf Hitler to become the leader of the Germans, but also that it was every good German Christians' divinely commanded duty to obey him.
While not a strict comparison, I say it falls well within the spirit of the spirit of the law.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The concept of respecting the President has been used to squelch dissent recently - even to the extent of stopping people from voting against him as in my example.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The concept of [insert_good_thing_here] has been used to [insert_bad_thing_here].
This happens a lot.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Mr S I was answering your original question. That is what "respecting the Office of the President" means. There is no reason why we should conform our opinions, stated or silently held, to his/hers. The "Loyal Opposition" should be, in very fact opposition. The loyal part has to do with the Nation and its institutions, not a person or his politics. (Or even worse, his friends.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, err...there's slightly more to the quote than that.
quote: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Also, I brought up the populist argument as an example of criticisms of the panglossian divine right of kings.
As an additional point, this criticism doesn't apply to the various awful non-populist governments, or, for that matter, the sects of Christianity that rebelled against the established authority of the Catholic Church, one of which I'm pretty sure Farmgirl belongs to.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, That's not a comparison. That's a real world example of the logical extention of the statements made as well as a case where that specific justification was actually used.
Godwin's law does not apply any time anyone says the words "Hitler" or "Nazis". It occurs when someone makes a comparison - generally an overblown one - to Hitler or the Nazis.
In this case, a statement was presented that said that all authority comes from God and it's our duty to submit to this authority. I countered this by pointing out that this would then apply to the most obvious and universally despised example of authority. That's not Godwin's law at all.
---
Artemisia, Fair enough. I agree that in the case you described, respect is warranted.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I understand Godwin's Law, and I can tell that you do as well.
I still stand by my original statment that what you did is awfully close to Godwin's Law.
In other words, I disagree with you.
YMMV.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I have several question here;
1. Those of you who are now arguing that a President deserves respect by virtue of his office, did you feel the same way when Clinton was President. When Rush Limbaugh showed pictures of Chelsea Clinton's face on a dogs body, posted Clinton murder lists, and so forth, did you come to Clinton's defense? When people called Clinton a war criminal for bombing Kosovo, did ask them to respect the office of the President? When people around the country were making crude Monica Lewinsky jokes, did ask them show respect for the President?
Perhaps you did. Many who are now running off at the mouth about showing respect for the President, were the most disrespectful when Clinton was President. Immediately after the US invaded Iraq, I participated in an anti-war rally. A group of war enthusiasts turned out to counter the rally. Among them was a couple literally clothed in the flag holding a sign that said "Support our President". They asked me why I hadn't protested when Clinton bombed Kosovo, I responded that I had. Then I asked them if they had turned out to those protests with a "Support our President" sign. They hadn't. They were angry that I asked.
2. Are there any conditions under which you would not feel compelled to show respect to the President? Are there any conditions under which you would feel it acceptable to disobey the law? Are there conditions under which you would feel justified or even compelled to rebel against a leader?
3. If you could not personally justify rebellion against your government under any circumstances, then how do you feel about George Washington. Does he deserve respect as a President, or derision as a rebel and usurper of power?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Read again. I think you will find that at least some of us are arguing that it is The Office of the President that deserves the respect. That same arguement would have been made for Clinton, or even Nixon! There are many conditions under which I would feel justified or even compelled to strenuously seek changes in unwise or unjust laws. And to reject leadership from persons not fit to lead. That is not rebellion as I would define it. That is my right and duty as a citizen.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag, err...there's slightly more to the quote than that.
quote: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Also, I brought up the populist argument as an example of criticisms of the panglossian divine right of kings.
As an additional point, this criticism doesn't apply to the various awful non-populist governments, or, for that matter, the sects of Christianity that rebelled against the established authority of the Catholic Church, one of which I'm pretty sure Farmgirl belongs to.
"Submit himself" does not mean obey every command.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:See, I strongly disagree with this idea. I don't believe that a statement or policy deserves respect merely because it came from the President. I'm not going to refrain from criticizing - quite harshly if I think it's appropriate - Presidential statements or policies that I think are wrong.
Criticizing a policy - even quite harshly - does not mean that one is not respecting it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag,
quote:"Submit himself" does not mean obey every command.
Who said it did?
quote:Criticizing a policy - even quite harshly - does not mean that one is not respecting it.
It doesn't mean one is either. And my main thrust in that point was that I think that the idea that a statement or policy is worthy of respect for the sole reason that it was made by the President is a bad one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Dag,
quote:"Submit himself" does not mean obey every command.
Who said it did?
Perhaps, then, you could explain the relevance of bolding "submit himself" in response to "you apparently don't see a difference between not rebelling and doing everything someone commands."
quote:It doesn't mean one is either. And my main thrust in that point was that I think that the idea that a statement or policy is worthy of respect for the sole reason that it was made by the President is a bad one.
*shrug* You seemed to equate the two in the section I quoted.
You seen intent on interpreting the idea of respect for the president with "squelching dissent" or not criticizing him.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
For me to respect something, there must be trust. I have not "trusted" the President of the United States to do the right and honorable things in the world since Jimmy Carter left office.
The men who have held that office have, IMO, been seriously lacking in a common sense of morality.
I believe there's a fundamental flaw in our system of Government and that the office of President is the chief example of what that flaw is -- concentration of power into the hands of a single person.
It not only leaves us exposed to human foibles small and large, but it also has the undesirable effect of see-sawing public agency policies as Administrations change. The inefficiencies in government are not just a little related to the impact of these periodic course reversals.
It's not just the current Administration, either. They all do it. Some are just more inept than others, or pick the wrong people to lead key agencies.
While I respect much about our history and our government institutions, I do think that its probably time to rethink the office of President, and it's probably also time to review how we elect people to the House and Senate -- or at least take a look at the rules governing who has access to those people during decision making processes, and how open their deliberations should be.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I think it boils down to this:
The Office of the President is a part of the basic underlying agreement that makes our democracy work. We agree, as citizens of the united states, to follow the lawful process to determine who will be the leader of our country. We agree that whoever holds that office has been elected by the will of the people, even if it is not our own personal choice, it is a choice that has been made. We must respect that choice, and that position, as a fundamental part of our society or we cease to be a society.
If we cease to respect the Office of the President, or the Office of Senator, Representative, Justice, or Judge, we cease to respect that fundamental agreement that allows our society and our democracy to exist.
That does not mean such respect overwrites the other rules of our democracy, especially the ability if not the responsibility to question, protest, disagree and remove the people who hold those positions when they or their policies are not worthy of our respect.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
Well said, Dan_raven.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Perhaps, then, you could explain the relevance of bolding "submit himself" in response to "you apparently don't see a difference between not rebelling and doing everything someone commands."
Sure. You were mischaracterizing the statement as just being about not rebelling, when in fact it was much more extensive than that.
In return, I wonder, considering your vigorous if somewhat terse defense, if you could explain what you think the range of possibilities are that are open to a true believer of the quoted Biblical admonitions to submit oneself to the authority that can only come from God who lived in NAzi Germany or, even better, under one of tha many absolute monarchs whose rule was approximate to Nazi Germany? And also, did Hitler and these kings gain their power because God wanted them to have it, or do you have a different interpretation of that passage?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You're plenty smart enough to understand how the different possible interpretations of that verse that don't require one to support Hitler or think God brought him to power. For one, he specifically circumvented authority to gain his power.
I don't have sufficient trust that you are engaging in this in goof faith, to invest any signficant effort in this.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sure. You were mischaracterizing the statement as just being about not rebelling, when in fact it was much more extensive than that.
Just in case you need an example of why I don't think you're acting good faith. I didn't characterize the statement as being only about rebelling. I said the statement didn't require one to obey all commands from an authority and pointed to the specfic command against rebellion.
You then highlighted another phrase, which I also responded to ("'Submit himself' does not mean obey every command.")
You claim that you don't think "submit himself" requires obeying every command from the authority. Is there another phrase your going to bold in an attempt to support your extension of Farmgirl's statements into "it was every good German Christians' divinely commanded duty to obey [Hitler]."
Are you now acknowledging that the statement did not require all good Christian Germans to obey Hitler?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I am engaging in good faith and I specifically expanded beyond Hitler to the absolute monachs who weren't any better. For that matter, how Hitler gained authority (and that he did so is indisputable) is basically irrelevant to that quote. Based on what I can see as the only way to read it, Hitler would only be able to gain authority if God wanted him to.
I am plenty smart, but that's a more or less black and white quote that I can't see any way around. This quote was the central argument in the theological case for the divine right of kings. The only criticisms I've ever seen of it haven't provided interpretations that disagree with my characterization, but rather made the supposition that Paul was talking in and about a very limited set of circumstances.
I understand that this is a difficult question. If you don't want to answer, you can just say so, without making a personal attack.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Are you now acknowledging that the statement did not require all good Christian Germans to obey Hitler?
According to that statement, of course it was their duty, so long as he was acting within the bounds of his authority. Such authority could only be established by God's wish and they were instructed to submit themselves to it. Submission is a pretty specific Biblical term without much wiggle room, at least as far as I understand it. Which is why I've asked for your interpretation, which you seem unwilling to give for some reason.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Not while you are misrepresnting me and the conversation so far.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I have to admit, I'm having problems believing that it's my personal faults that are keeping you from posting a response that'll show everyone how wrong I am.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Whatever you have to tell yourself, Squick.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Here's what you claimed you said:
quote:I said the statement didn't require one to obey all commands from an authority and pointed to the specfic command against rebellion.
Here's what you said:
quote:you apparently don't see a difference between not rebelling and doing everything someone commands
I don't see how those statements reconcile or point to me (who was using the entire statement to say that, according to it, German Christians were supposd to obey Hitler - never saying that they had to obey any command - and that Hitler couldn't obtain authority unless God wanted him to) as not being in good faith.
What I saw was you seeming to claim that the statement provided merely said that Christians were not supposed to rebel (or at least that I thought it was only about not rebelling), which, I'm sure you'll agree, is not at all true to the entire statement.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:German Christians were supposd to obey Hitler - never saying that they had to obey any command
So you think the statement says that Christian Germans were supposed to obey some of Hitler's commands, not all?
quote:What I saw was you seeming to claim that the statement provided merely said that Christians were not supposed to rebel (or at least that I thought it was only about not rebelling), which, I'm sure you'll agree, is not at all true to the entire statement.
And I later addressed the other portion of the phrase you highlighted about submitting. Submitting doesn't mean obeying every command either, but now it seems like you agree with that.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes.
I never said anything about obeying every command. The only person to mention that was you.
Why don't you tell me what you think Dag, keeping in mind we're not talking merely about Hitler, but about every really horrible leader in the history of Christendom?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why don't you tell me what you think Dag?
Because I don't enjoy those discussions with you Squick. They're annoying and you don't listen.
quote:Yes.
I never said anything about obeying every command. The only person to mention that was you.
Then how is your question about obeying Hitler even relevant? You now acknowledge that the statement leaves room for selecting which commands to obey.
You told Farmgirl that she was saying "that it was every good German Christians' divinely commanded duty to obey" Hitler.
She said the verse didn't mean that she had to obey commands contrary to God's law, and then you said she therefore didn't believe the statement.
How is what Farmgirl said incompatible with what you've now acknowledged, that the verse does not require obeying all of an authority's commands?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:we're not talking merely about Hitler, but about every really horrible leader in the history of Christendom?
No, we're not. I'm discussing horrible misrepresentations you've made of Farmgirl's statements.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Come on, Dag, we're having this discussion right now. You're just not making any concrete statements and then blaming this on me. It is often your style to make criticisms but assert few or no statements of your own. I don't think that serves here.
I didn't acknowledge that it leaves room for selecting which commands to obey nor did I say that the commands you didn't have to obey were those contrary to God's law. The statement does not grant latitude to the individual to decide which commands they're going to follow based on that standard.
Or so I can only see it and so it was seen for the multitude of centuries that the Christian authorities endorsed the divine right of kings. Perhaps you have a different, concrete interpretation to offer?
---
The only way what I said are horrible misrepresentations is if there exists some different compelling interpretation to what I and the established theological authorities think of the statements Farmgirl quoted. If you can't provide such an interpretation, I think you're making a baseless accusation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Come on, Dag, we're having this discussion right now. You're just not making any concrete statements and then blaming this on me. It is often your style to make criticisms but assert few or no statements of your own. I don't think that serves here.
Sure it does. It serves my purpose to not let you put words in others mouths.
quote:I didn't acknowledge that it leaves room for selecting which commands to obey nor did I say that the commands you didn't have to obey were those contrary to God's law. The statement does not grant latitude to the individual to decide which commands they're going to follow based on that standard.
You just said that the verse does not require obeying all of Hitler's commands. Therefore it allows not obeying some commands. If the statement doesn't give "latitude to the individual to decide which commands they're going to follow based on that standard" but allows them not to obey some of them, then what standard does the statement let them use?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
One that doesn't allow them to decide to obey or not based on whether or not they think the commands fit with God's laws and I'm hardly alone in this, as I have the support of some pretty big heavy weights in Christian theology.
What standard do you think it uses? Or for that matter, what standard do you think I think it uses, as you don't seem to be shy about putting words in my mouth?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:One that doesn't allow them to decide to obey or not based on whether or not they think the commands fit with God's laws.
So they can choose not to obey a particular command because...
quote:Or for that matter, what standard do you think I think it uses
I don't know. Hence, I asked.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I never said they could choose to obey a particular command or not.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The I apologize for misintepreting the following exchange:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:German Christians were supposd to obey Hitler - never saying that they had to obey any command
So you think the statement says that Christian Germans were supposed to obey some of Hitler's commands, not all?
quote:What I saw was you seeming to claim that the statement provided merely said that Christians were not supposed to rebel (or at least that I thought it was only about not rebelling), which, I'm sure you'll agree, is not at all true to the entire statement.
And I later addressed the other portion of the phrase you highlighted about submitting. Submitting doesn't mean obeying every command either, but now it seems like you agree with that.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Yes.
I never said anything about obeying every command. The only person to mention that was you.
Why don't you tell me what you think Dag, keeping in mind we're not talking merely about Hitler, but about every really horrible leader in the history of Christendom?
So I ask for explicit clarification: does the statement require obeying every command of an authority? If not, which commands do not have to be obeyed?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, it doesn't require obeying every command of an authority. The commands that don't fit that statement don't have to be followed.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which commands don't fit this statement?
quote: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Those that don't involve failure to submit oneself to the governing authorities or rebelling against the authorities.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And, as Farmgirl alluded to, it's very common Christian theology that obeying God's commands does not amount to failure to submit to or rebelling against lower authority, just like disobeying an unconstitutional law means one isn't committing a criminal act. Basic stuff.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, it's not and in fact, as I've constantly alluded to in this thread the theological authorities have, based on that statement, not acknowledged that people have the faciltiy to disobey based on what they think God's commands are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, it is.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, The interpretation of that statement is clear. The rulers have the authority to issue those commands pursuiant to their authority because God wants them to and expects people to obey them. There is no provision made for "Well, I don't think that's right." Their authority comes from God, not from lower sources.
Augustine was quite clear on this. I'm not sure what specific branch of protestantism Farmgirl belongs to, but both Luther and Calvin specifically endorsed this view as well.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. I'm confused. I think I am having trouble with:
a) What does "submit" mean? One definition is to surrender oneself for control, another is to cease or abstain from resistance. In the second case, one might not have to actively obey the hypothetical horrible ruler, but wouldn't be able to do anything to oppose him (or her). Is there another possibility?
b) Does the passage from Romans mean (as it seems to) that if someone is a ruler God must have ordained it? That the fact of their being in charge is sufficient evidence that they are supposed to be in charge?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, it's not and in fact, as I've constantly alluded to in this thread the theological authorities have, based on that statement, not acknowledged that people have the faciltiy to disobey based on what they think God's commands are.
Since you expanded, I'll point out a few things you've apparently missed.
Pre-Christian: Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego refusing to eat pork.
Christians killed by the Romans for failing to worship the gods of the state were considered martyrs - an implicit approval of their actions.
St. Thomas stated that laws are for the common good. There has been lots of debate over whether this was definitional or descriptive. Whether the descriptive advocates won or not (I don't think they did, but I don't care a whole lot at this point), it was certainly common for the definitional advocates to make their case.
I think I'll let St. Augustine have the last word (in paraphrase): "An unjust law is no law at all."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
a) In biblical language, the second meaning of submit is, as far as I know, never used. It's always the first.
And b) yes, that's exactly what it's been taken to mean.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And b) yes, that's exactly what it's been taken to mean.
No, that's what some have taken it to mean.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
And yet, in The City of God, Augustine said (quoted from wikipedia):
quote:While the City of Man and the City of God may stand at cross-purposes, both of them have been instituted by God and served His ultimate will. Even though the City of Man – the world of secular government – may seem ungodly and be governed by sinners, even so, it has been placed on Earth for the protection of the City of God. Therefore, monarchs have been placed on their thrones for God's purpose, and to question their authority is to question God.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Do you have an alternative explanation? You keep seem to be hinting that you do, but never seem to actually state it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, Do you have an alternative explanation? You keep seem to be hinting that you do, but never seem to actually state it.
I've given it. Farmgirl's given hers. As I said above, you don't listen.
quote:And yet, in The City of God, Augustine said (quoted from wikipedia):
Yep. He did say that. And, he also said, "An unjust law is no law at all."
I haven't argued at all that no one ever used that statement to defend the doctrine of the divine rights of kings. I've simply said that there is abundant Christian theology that states otherwise. And it's heritage traces back very far.
I note you haven't addressed the martyrs. Clearly, martys are understood to have done the right thing by refusing to worship the state Gods. And this tradition dates back to the Apostles.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Augustine would never accept that the individual had the right or ability to decide that a law passed by an established authority was an unjust one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And the martyrs?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
The theology I've read explaned that the martyrs were following Jesus' division of the law, which places religion out of secular authority.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that you are both saying that there is abundant theology and that there is historical precedence for both sides. What I can't tell from either of you is what you think is right.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kate, I am specifically not discussing that with Squicky. I am merely trying to counteract his insistence that the statement from Romans Farmgirl originally quoted would require her to obey unjust commands of Hitler.
Squick's interpretation - one shared by some Christian theologists - would require that. Neither Farmgirl's nor mine nor that of other Christian theologists would.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Perhaps you can point out your alternative explanation to the statement "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." meaning that if someone is a ruler it means that God wills it. I seem to have missed it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Saul was a ruler. God clearly willed it. Yet not everything Saul ordered was just.
David was a ruler. God clearly willed it. Yet not everything David ordered was just.
David fled from Saul, even though Saul wanted him dead.
I think it's ridiculously easy to say that "God wills X to rule Y" without leaping to the conclusion "Therefore everything X orders is just and must be obeyed."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots, I think Paul was a smart guy who wrote for his times, fully expecting that the end of the world was right around the corner. I don't believe that women should not be permitted to teach men. I don't believe that salvation comes only from grace, this being specifically contradicted by Jesus' teachings. And I don't believe in the divine right of kings.
I also think the idea that "This is the best of all possible worlds because God must make it so." is a terribly stupid and ultimately immoral one.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But that does not in any way change the black and white wording of Paul's statement, nor does it change that Augustine would never advocate that a subject of David or Saul choosing not to obey the commands that came from their authority because the subject thought that they were unjust.
For Augustine in the context of the "just law", it's not a matter of whether or not it's ultimately unjust, but who can make that determination. He reserves that for...wait for it...people in authority. His just law was a reconciliation between the City of Man and City of God authorities. Incidentally, this made it into the widespread divine right of kings thinking, where the Church excommunicating you meant that you no longer had the right to rule anything.
In terms of authority, Paul's statement admits no caveats. Nor for that matter does Augustine. Authority can only be acheived because God wants it and it is the subjects duty to submit to that authority.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree that it is difficult to understand how that passage in Romans can allow us to actively dissent when we feel that a ruler is wrong. It does seem like it says that we must submit. Certainly, though, there are good examples of people clearly doing God's will by not submitting.
I, personally, reconcile this by my belief that Paul did not always get it right and that he was writing to a specific audience at a particular time. Not to mention a time when Roman authorities were likely to be reading his letters to the congregation in Rome.
I, personally, would be interested in other opinions.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In terms of authority, Paul's statement admits no caveats.
Only to people who don't admit that "authority" and "submission" are very complex words, or that Paul's statement exists within the context of an enormous set of teachings.
It's basic statutory construction that when something can be read not to contradict something else from the same or higher authority, then that is the more likely reading. The same principle can easily be applied here, with "Scripture and Tradition" being the relevant same and higher authorities.
Paul's statement read as narrowly as you read it leaves no room for the martyrs to have done what they did and still have it be called "good." To reconcile the very common Christian idea that the martyr's were acting morally and correctly in refusing to obey a particular order from the state authorities, you state they adopted a particular exception from Christ's words.
Very good. If you can do that in the face of the bald language of the statement (or, if you're not doing that, if Augustine could), then others can - and did - read other exceptions into that statement. As I said, it's common Christian theology. It's just not universal.
MLK, Jr. had a few things to say on the subject as well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I, personally, reconcile this by my belief that Paul did not always get it right and that he was writing to a specific audience at a particular time. Not to mention a time when Roman authorities were likely to be reading his letters to the congregation in Rome.
I, personally, would be interested in other opinions.
My interpretation is that Paul undersood the reader to be able to supply context. Just as we might say, "Citizens must obey laws passed by Congress"* without adding "unless those laws are unconstitutional," so could Paul say that we must submit to authority without adding "unless such submission would be contrary to other teachings."
Any non-trivial moral decision requires weighing different moral principles that are in tension and sometimes are directly competing with each other. We don't have to explain all the possible tensions and balancing rules when stating an individual moral principle, and neither did Paul.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah. Cross-posting!
I think we are on the same page. I don't thing that St. Augustine always got it right either. For example, while I am forever grateful for his writings on the Paschal Mystery, I think he messed us up big time in the sex department.
And I think that, generally, people in power are going to use whatever tools they have to consolidate their power. That Christianity has been used to this purpose so often, is one our great tragedies.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
An addition to my previous post: To give an example of the complexity of the language, mere passage by Congress isn't enough to make a law - it requires either presidential signature or super-passage. Yet we are comfortable saying "laws passed by Congress" to mean "laws passed by Congress and either signed by the President or repassed by 2/3 of each house and that haven't been repealed by similar action or declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court."
Paul was writing a letter and it is unreasonable to expect full specificity when the context clearly doesn't support it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I fail to see how you can change "there is no authority except that which God has established" and "The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted" in such a way that makes it so Hitler did not acheive his authority because God wanted him to.
Or, for that matter, in such a way that Germans who tried to overthrow Hitler would be doing the right thing.
---
Now, you've claimed that you've already demonstrated the first part, and that me not seeing it is a case of me not listening, but I honestly haven't seen it, even on rereading.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So how do we, today, apply that passage to whether or not we respect the President of the Office of the President? Since we have to make up our own minds as to whether what the President wills is contrary to a higher authority, we end up following our own consciences anyway.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, if the letter was meant to say "You should submit to authority, except when you think they're wrong." I don't understand what the purpose of that statement is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I fail to see how you can change "there is no authority except that which God has established" and "The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted" in such a way that makes it so Hitler did not acheive his authority because God wanted him to.
Because authority is not the same thing as power, and because Hitler circumvented the authority which was in place to obtain his power.
quote:Now, you've claimed that you've already demonstrated the first part,
No, I demonstrated why a Christian German would not have to obey all of Hitler's commands.
quote:So how do we, today, apply that passage to whether or not we respect the President of the Office of the President? Since we have to make up our own minds as to whether what the President wills is contrary to a higher authority, we end up following our own consciences anyway.
I'm curious as to where this conflation of "respect" with "thinks is doing the right thing" comes from.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Also, if the letter was meant to say "You should submit to authority, except when you think they're wrong." I don't understand what the purpose of that statement is.
I don't know what the purpose of that statement would be if that were the interpretation. That's certainly not what I've said it means. I've said it means that one does not have to obey a law from such an authority that contradicts God's law, which leaves plenty of meaning and purpose in that statement.
For example, it means that the martyrs were correct to refuse to follow the order to worship the state gods but would not have been correct to use that as an excuse to disobey other certain Roman laws that the martyr might think wrong for other reasons. (BTW, you haven't addressed why the martyr exception which isn't present in Paul's language is OK but not the just law exception.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I'm curious as to where this conflation of "respect" with "thinks is doing the right thing" comes from.
"Submit to" then? I was going back to the original question. The Romans passage suggests (problematically) submission, which I consider goes even further than "respect".
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Kate, our current authority allows a lot of dissent and specifically limits the President's authority. There's a lot of room to move against the President while still submitting to the authority of the government.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Because authority is not the same thing as power, and because Hitler circumvented the authority which was in place to obtain his power.
Hitler had indisputable secular authority recognized by his own people and, for that matter, the Catholic Church. For that matter, while his rise to power was not without irregularities, I'm not sure how you're saying it was completely illigitmate. What is your criteria for determining between power and authority?
And, what about all the other Hitler-like rulers who achieved their positions through the incident free operation of established succession?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That makes sense. I guess I am still uncertain about why it made sense to post the passage in this discussion. I suppose that Farmgirl would be the right person to ask.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure how you're saying it was completely illigitmate
That would be because I'm not saying it was "completely illegitimate."
You haven't addressed why the martyr exception which isn't present in Paul's language is OK but not the just law exception.
Either the rule has to be taken as it reads on its face or weighing it with other commands is allowed. If weighing it with other commands is allowed, what principle makes the other commands you've allowed OK and the ones I've allowed not OK?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I wasn't aware I needed to establish why the martyrs thing was not an exception. Jesus took religion out of the scope of secular authority. There is no contradiction between what he said and what Paul said.
Now, not only is Augustine not Jesus, but, using the rather extreme intrepretation of his just law thing that he himself wouldn't agree with, you've introdced a direct conflict. You are saying "Paul didn't mean that. This is what he really meant, which was submit to authority except in these cases." Paul makes no exceptions in his black and white worded statement. Nor does any authority of Paul's stature or greater.
Paul (and Augustine) clearly establish the principle that all authority, no matter what, must necessarily come from God because he so desires it. The command is made to submit to this authority, and, as I've said, submission in the Bible is only used in a very strong, precise sense. Likewise, we're talking about Roman times. Jesus himself recognized the Caesers' legitimate authority, though Julius' rise to power was far more irregular and contrary to the laws of the land than Hitler's. I don't think your "That's not authority. That's just power." criticism is at all valid.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: Read again. I think you will find that at least some of us are arguing that it is The Office of the President that deserves the respect. That same arguement would have been made for Clinton, or even Nixon!
I understood that from the beginning Artemisia and my question still stands. For those of you who are currently arguing that one should respect the Office of the President, did you feel this way under Clinton? If you didn't, what resulted in your change of heart?
These are important questions. You are asking me to respect a Man who I believe is grossly immoral and dangerous simply because of the office he holds. So I'm asking, were you able to do the same thing when the office was held by someone you thought was immoral?
If you couldn't, clearly you've changed your mind. What has lead you to change your mind?
If the next President is someone you see as an immoral person, what will you do to respect that individual?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: I guess I am still uncertain about why it made sense to post the passage in this discussion.
I posted it only in response to the direct question of why I chose to respect the office of the President of the United States, or those who have authority over me (from my boss on up). It was not an attempt to say anyone else had to agree with me -- I was simply saying that is (in part) my guidance (within context, as Dag says) - or IMHO.
You are certainly free to have your own opinions.
FG
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That would be because I'm not saying it was "completely illegitimate."
You made an implicit claim that Hitler had power but not authority. I took that to mean that Hitler's claim to authority was without legitimacy. Are you saying that he was a legitimate authority?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote:If the next President is someone you see as an immoral person, what will you do to respect that individual?
I considered President Clinton to be an immoral person, yet I still respected the fact that he was our elected and chosen President, and should be treated with respect. That does not mean I agreed with his morals.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I wasn't aware I needed to establish why the martyrs thing was not an exception. Jesus took religion out of the scope of secular authority. There is no contradiction between what he said and what Paul said.
Exactly. And there is no contradiction between Paul's statement and weighing the many other commandments Christians are supposed to follow. "What is God's" from the passage you have alluded to can easily be interpreted to mean all the duites we owe God.
I see you aren't going to address my interpretation, including the context and the rather simple idea that one doesn't have to state every exception to a general principle when stating that general principle.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You made an implicit claim that Hitler had power but not authority. I took that to mean that Hitler's claim to authority was without legitimacy. Are you saying that he was a legitimate authority?
You seem to have forgotten the word "complete" in your earlier attempt to restate my position.
He was not a legitimate authority. That does not mean he had no legitimacy whatsoever.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kudos to Farmgirl, for being rationally consistent. (I knew she was anyway.)
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, there is a direct contradiction between a clearly worded statement to submit to the authorities and you saying that he didn't mean you had to submit to the authorities. Jesus established that secular authorities did not have authority over what is God's. Thus, there were different classes of authority.
Such is not the case with what you are presenting. It is not the individual's place to decide. The authority only has that authority because God established it for them. If you go against that authority, if you don't submit to it, you are going against what God established, you are not submitting to God's design.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, there is a direct contradiction between a clearly worded statement to submit to the authorities and you saying that he didn't mean you had to submit to the authorities. Jesus established that secular authorities did not have authority over what is God's.
And what I'm saying is that "what is God's" is not as limited as you say it is.
quote:Such is not the case with what you are presenting. It is not the individual's place to decide. The authority only has that authority because God established it for them. If you go against that authority, if you don't submit to it, you are going against what God established, you are not submitting to God's design.
Except you already said that authority does not have authority over "what is God's."
Do you honestly think that "what is God's" is so easily defined that individual interpretation isn't necessary?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I'm not sure I understand. To me it's a binary situation. Either Hitler had the divinely established authority that he exercised over the German state or he didn't and merely had power (what I consider a false distinction anyway). I don't see how this is a partial thing.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: and you saying that he didn't mean you had to submit to the authorities.
And once again, for crying out loud, I HAVEN'T SAID HE DIDN'T MEAN YOU HAD TO SUBMIT TO AUTHORITIES.
I have said there is a set of commands that cannot be overriden in submitting to authorities. Something you agree with for commands to worship state gods.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Do you honestly think that "what is God's" is so easily defined that individual interpretation isn't necessary?
In Paul's time, you better believe it. The latitude in the Biblical use of submission that you're positing didn't exist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag, I'm not sure I understand. To me it's a binary situation. Either Hitler had the divinely established authority that he exercised over the German state or he didn't and merely had power (what I consider a false distinction anyway). I don't see how this is a partial thing.
Your insistence on hard-line distinctions that aren't supported by the text is the root of the disagreement.
And, to be clear, I really don't give a damn how you interpret it. I just resent the hell out of you telling me and Farmgirl that we can't interpret it a different way.
Clearly we can. Clearly there are rational reasons for doing so. If you can't admit that at this point I am done with this.
Provided you don't misstate what I'm claiming again, of course.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I have said there is a set of commands that cannot be overriden in submitting to authorities.
Submission involves, among other things, giving up personal judgement. Explicit in the command is that people could not judge for themselves the rightness or wrongness of God's established authorities on a case by case basis.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In Paul's time, you better believe it. The latitude in the Biblical use of submission that you're positing didn't exist.
Wrong. Quite simply wrong.
You still haven't explained why this exception (again, not supported by the direct language of the statement in any way) is OK other than Jesus said so.
Jesus also said to feed the hungry. If Congress did pass a law making it a felony to feed hungry illegal aliens, I would submit there is no requirement to follow that law arising out of Paul's statement.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Can we at least get Romans 13 in context???? I think much is actually explained in the context of the passage. The government is clearly portrayed as a protector of the good and punisher of the lawless. Obviously if it isn't doing that, as in verse 3 there are issues.
quote: Romans 12:18-13:10 (NAS)
18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.
19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord.
20 "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD."
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."
10 Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Submission involves, among other things, giving up personal judgement. Explicit in the command is that people could not judge for themselves the rightness or wrongness of God's established authorities on a case by case basis.
In YOUR interpretation. One shared by others, but not the only one.
Why the hell can't you acknowledge that other intelligent people can read what you're reading and reach a different conclusion?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
So Squick -- when Christ said,
quote: Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
-- you think He was advocating giving up all personal judgment?
You're more confused than I thought.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Banna, Paul's statement is declarative, not conditional. One could say it's almost definitional.
It's not rulers should be good or they're not rulers. It's rulers -> good.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
According to verse five, your conscience is the higher authority than the government's judgement. Obviously if you can't in good conscience follow the government's laws, then the government is not a legitimate godly authority, because all True Authority, for punishing evildoers and encouraging good is from God.
AJ
The context of the passage is that personal vengance is clearly discouraged whatever the reason. And vengance will be paid back by God to those in the authority if those in authority are evil, whether here or in the afterlife.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If it's definitional then "Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;" supports my view quite extensively, because anyone who causes fear for doing good would not be an authority.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Farmgirl, You may notice that the quote commanding submission comes not from Jesus, but from Paul and it is limited to a specific case, namely dealing with the rulers.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You're reading it backwards. Submission is not predicated on conscience. Conscience is predicated on submission. Paul has already established that people can't have authority except that God allows them to have it. Thus, not submitting to them is not submitting to God's plan, which should trouble your conscience.
By your reading, you have the individual conscience trumping God's plan.
---
Paul's basic assumption is the "best of all worlds" panglossian one. He is saying that because God has established these things, they can't be wrong. I think this is obviously wrong, but that's what he is saying.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Read verse 18, if that doesn't mean conscience exists before submission I don't know what does.
"If possible, so far as it depends on you" as a caveat at the very beginning, means that there are going to be times when it is going to be impossible in good conscience, to leave peacably with all men.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Squick it seems like what you are really arguing is the greater question "if god is good, why does evil happen to good people."
But that's not what everyone else is trying to deal with here. (nor what you asked to begin with) This discourse proves your initial question was not asked in good faith. Otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time attacking people that disagree with you.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Banna, I'm not arguing that question, but that was sort of Paul's starting point. To him, established by God = good and all authority = established by God. Therefore, it is not possible for them to not carry out God's plan and thus you can use them as a reliable determiner of the behavior that is in line with what God wants. To submit to them is to submit to God's plan. To rebel against them is to rebel against God's plan and you are promised condemnation for it.
Also, conscience exists independent of submission. Paul does not preclude the individual conscience. What he says is that your conscience should be clear when you submit to authority and troubled when you don't. He's positing a moral metric.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
It also means that unless the government authorities are impeding your conscience and/or worship of god, you should respect them and their offices as lawful bodies existing for the maintenance of society.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I honestly don't see what says that. Are you talking 12:18 or 13:5 or something else? I don't see Paul making any provision for the disobeyance of those in authority.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. ..... For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil.
I don't know what kind of reasoning it is it may be more inductive than you would like. But if you take these statements and the rest of the passage here is my logic:
If rulers cause those with good behavior and clean consciences to fear, and do not punish evil
Then, the authority of those rulers is not from God.
Otherwise, it is a just authority established by God, and worthy of respect even if those in the ruling offices are human and flawed like the rest of us.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
But there can be no authority except from God. No one can become a ruler unless God wants them to.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
In the greater sense, if you believe in the omnipotence of god, yes, god does allow evil rulers to exist.
However, what I believe the passage means specifically is that there can be no just authority except from God. If the authority is unjust then it isn't from God.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You're turning the passage into a call for rebellion, which, though a lovely idea, is the exact opposite of what Paul was trying to do, especially when taken in context.
---
The people Paul is talking about are identified. They are the "governing authorities". The authorities that exist were established by God. They are the rulers. No provision is made as to "just" rulers or "legitimate" governors. Merely those who govern, those who rule.
And, as I said, Jesus himself identified the Caesers as the legitimate secular authority
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
So, to bring it back around "respecting the office of the president" to some (although I don't want to put words in Farmgirl's mouth) means "the system is still just"
If someone is inconsistent like Rabbit says, then yes, the statement is coming from a different skewed motiviation. However many of the fundamentalists I was raised around, still believed that the office of the president deserved respect even if they felt Clinton was dishonoring the office by his behavior. Most of the same sort of people felt that Nixon showed respect to the office of the Presidency by resigning once impeached (even if he surely would have been convicted by the senate also)
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I think the passage *clearly* makes a provision for "just" rulers, as outlined by "the causing fear for evil behaviour" bit, even while acknowledging the general omnipotence of God.
So I guess that's where we disagree.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't see that at all. To me, that is clearly a progression from Paul saying that all governing authorities were established by God to setting up those authorities as a moral metric.
Do you think Paul was calling for rebellion than? That interpretation would seem to have Paul calling most authorities the people he was writing to were subject to illegitimate.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I don't think Paul was calling for rebellion. In general he was calling for submission to legitimate governmental authorities.
I do think he allowed enough leeway in his statements, that while a last resort, rebellion can be legitimate, if the government does not comply with the goal of "punishing evildoers".
I also think that non-violent protest may be more in line with the "no personal vengance" and general intent of the passage, rather than "rebellion" persay.
Most of the Christians didn't fight, when martyred in the arena, in keeping with Paul's instructions.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I tried. I can't see that interpretation. I'm also left wondering why Augustine, Luther, or Calvin didn't see it either. Or for that matter, if it's so clear, why this passage was the central argument for the divine right of kings theology?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)