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?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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
Those that don't involve failure to submit oneself to the governing authorities or rebelling against the authorities.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Dag, Do you have an alternative explanation? You keep seem to be hinting that you do, but never seem to actually state it.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The theology I've read explaned that the martyrs were following Jesus' division of the law, which places religion out of secular authority.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
