Does the entire world deserve democracy?

[Karpatsky]

A liberal, atomized, constitutional democracy founded in universal human rights and modern secularism is the only acceptable form of government anywhere and everywhere.

To guarantee the rights granted us by our Creator, presumably.

To claim that human rights are derived solely from a culturally-defined deity which comes in any of a million different forms is to surrender to particularism at best and theocracy at worst.

“Religious views are culturally-derived, but human rights are not.”

Sure they are, but the honest subjectivism of secularism is preferable to the dogmatic pretenses of near all religions.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

A liberal, atomized, constitutional democracy founded in universal human rights and modern secularism is the only acceptable form of government anywhere and everywhere.

To guarantee the rights granted us by our Creator, presumably.

To claim that human rights are derived solely from a culturally-defined deity which comes in any of a million different forms is to surrender to particularism at best and theocracy at worst.

“Religious views are culturally-derived, but human rights are not.”

Sure they are, but the honest subjectivism of secularism is preferable to the dogmatic pretenses of near all religions.

“Honest subjectivism”, “only acceptable”.

[Karpatsky]

A liberal, atomized, constitutional democracy founded in universal human rights and modern secularism is the only acceptable form of government anywhere and everywhere.

To guarantee the rights granted us by our Creator, presumably.

To claim that human rights are derived solely from a culturally-defined deity which comes in any of a million different forms is to surrender to particularism at best and theocracy at worst.

“Religious views are culturally-derived, but human rights are not.”

Sure they are, but the honest subjectivism of secularism is preferable to the dogmatic pretenses of near all religions.

“Honest subjectivism”, “only acceptable”.

Moral subjectivism is not the same thing as nihilism. Are you not secure enough in your moral beliefs to stand with them without needing to feel like the universe was created for their benefit?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It would seem odd to trust the universal applicability of my own conclusions on topics not generally agreed upon.

[Karpatsky]

It would seem odd to trust the universal applicability of my own conclusions on topics not generally agreed upon.

But that's my point - you do, don't you? It's just that you base your particular conclusions on a dogmatic religious belief, which is not reasonable to apply to a global scale - it is not feasible or acceptable, for instance, to advocate for democracy in non-Christian countries on the grounds that the Christian god says they should have it, unless you are also advocating for universal conversion - hence, particularism or theocracy.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It would seem odd to trust the universal applicability of my own conclusions on topics not generally agreed upon.

But that's my point - you do, don't you? It's just that you base your particular conclusions on a dogmatic religious belief, which is not reasonable to apply to a global scale - it is not feasible or acceptable, for instance, to advocate for democracy in non-Christian countries on the grounds that the Christian god says they should have it, unless you are also advocating for universal conversion - hence, particularism or theocracy.

Incorrect and bad faith.

And “dogmatic” is not how I would self-identify.

[Karpatsky]

It would seem odd to trust the universal applicability of my own conclusions on topics not generally agreed upon.

But that's my point - you do, don't you? It's just that you base your particular conclusions on a dogmatic religious belief, which is not reasonable to apply to a global scale - it is not feasible or acceptable, for instance, to advocate for democracy in non-Christian countries on the grounds that the Christian god says they should have it, unless you are also advocating for universal conversion - hence, particularism or theocracy.

Incorrect and bad faith.

And “dogmatic” is not how I would self-identify.

I apologize, maybe I misunderstood your point - the way I understood it, you agreed with the post I originally quoted, on the grounds that the moral basis of it was guaranteeing the rights granted by God - is this not correct?

[DC Al Fine]

It would seem odd to trust the universal applicability of my own conclusions on topics not generally agreed upon.

But that's my point - you do, don't you? It's just that you base your particular conclusions on a dogmatic religious belief, which is not reasonable to apply to a global scale - it is not feasible or acceptable, for instance, to advocate for democracy in non-Christian countries on the grounds that the Christian god says they should have it, unless you are also advocating for universal conversion - hence, particularism or theocracy.

Incorrect and bad faith.

And “dogmatic” is not how I would self-identify.

I apologize, maybe I misunderstood your point - the way I understood it, you agreed with the post I originally quoted, on the grounds that the moral basis of it was guaranteeing the rights granted by God - is this not correct?

Have to agree with Cath here. The jump from "human rights are derived from the triune God" to theocracy is quite the stretch.

[Karpatsky]

It would seem odd to trust the universal applicability of my own conclusions on topics not generally agreed upon.

But that's my point - you do, don't you? It's just that you base your particular conclusions on a dogmatic religious belief, which is not reasonable to apply to a global scale - it is not feasible or acceptable, for instance, to advocate for democracy in non-Christian countries on the grounds that the Christian god says they should have it, unless you are also advocating for universal conversion - hence, particularism or theocracy.

Incorrect and bad faith.

And “dogmatic” is not how I would self-identify.

I apologize, maybe I misunderstood your point - the way I understood it, you agreed with the post I originally quoted, on the grounds that the moral basis of it was guaranteeing the rights granted by God - is this not correct?

Have to agree with Cath here. The jump from "human rights are derived from the triune God" to theocracy is quite the stretch.

Sure, and I said explicitly it was the worst case scenario. That said, I would like to hear back exactly what part of what I said Cath considered in bad faith - if one defines the desirable kind of democracy as one which defends human rights as defined by Christian belief, then one is either arguing against the universalization of such a government or for the universalization of Christian belief.

[All Along The Watchtower]

go ahead man, it's your thread

Will do. Later. I procrastinate. Sorry.

dude!

I promise nothing and my promises are empty regardless.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I can't stand the postmodern indictments of democracy that actually are disguised reactionary sentiments.

[Orser67]

All people deserve at least some form of self-rule, though that self-rule needs to be tempered by prohibitions against stripping the rights of minorities (through a constitution and judicial system) or attacking other countries (through international intervention, if necessary).

In the very long term, I think only democracy provides an acceptable level of self-rule. In the short and medium term, some states might be better off with some form of mixed government, where a body elected by the people shares power with some sort of oligarchy.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

A liberal, atomized, constitutional democracy founded in universal human rights and modern secularism is the only acceptable form of government anywhere and everywhere.

I didn't know people used the word "atomized" as an ostensibly positive thing.

[DC Al Fine]

It would seem odd to trust the universal applicability of my own conclusions on topics not generally agreed upon.

But that's my point - you do, don't you? It's just that you base your particular conclusions on a dogmatic religious belief, which is not reasonable to apply to a global scale - it is not feasible or acceptable, for instance, to advocate for democracy in non-Christian countries on the grounds that the Christian god says they should have it, unless you are also advocating for universal conversion - hence, particularism or theocracy.

Incorrect and bad faith.

And “dogmatic” is not how I would self-identify.

I apologize, maybe I misunderstood your point - the way I understood it, you agreed with the post I originally quoted, on the grounds that the moral basis of it was guaranteeing the rights granted by God - is this not correct?

Have to agree with Cath here. The jump from "human rights are derived from the triune God" to theocracy is quite the stretch.

Sure, and I said explicitly it was the worst case scenario. That said, I would like to hear back exactly what part of what I said Cath considered in bad faith - if one defines the desirable kind of democracy as one which defends human rights as defined by Christian belief, then one is either arguing against the universalization of such a government or for the universalization of Christian belief.

I'm not Cath, but...

You are simultaneously asserting that

a) Christianity is unacceptable as a basis for human rights and democracy because it is derived from a particular cultural context.

b) "A liberal, atomized, constitutional democracy founded in universal human rights and modern secularism (DC edit: Which also derives from a particular cultural context)is the only acceptable form of government anywhere and everywhere."

For example: Suppose we both travelled to Saudi Arabia to argue for the legalization of alcohol. The Saudi authorities would be just as deaf to your secular language of human rights and choice that you would base your argument upon, as they would to my language of the Bible. Why? Because secular, small l liberalism developed in particular times and places just like every other worldview did. The Saudi authorities in this case, have no cultural background in it, and would therefore (by the logic of your critique earlier) require "conversion" to secular liberalism, just as they would to my Christianity.

Hence the common religious critique of secularism as 'false neutrality'

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Sorry for mumness; been busy. Will hopefully put actual post up at some point.

[Karpatsky]

It would seem odd to trust the universal applicability of my own conclusions on topics not generally agreed upon.

But that's my point - you do, don't you? It's just that you base your particular conclusions on a dogmatic religious belief, which is not reasonable to apply to a global scale - it is not feasible or acceptable, for instance, to advocate for democracy in non-Christian countries on the grounds that the Christian god says they should have it, unless you are also advocating for universal conversion - hence, particularism or theocracy.

Incorrect and bad faith.

And “dogmatic” is not how I would self-identify.

I apologize, maybe I misunderstood your point - the way I understood it, you agreed with the post I originally quoted, on the grounds that the moral basis of it was guaranteeing the rights granted by God - is this not correct?

Have to agree with Cath here. The jump from "human rights are derived from the triune God" to theocracy is quite the stretch.

Sure, and I said explicitly it was the worst case scenario. That said, I would like to hear back exactly what part of what I said Cath considered in bad faith - if one defines the desirable kind of democracy as one which defends human rights as defined by Christian belief, then one is either arguing against the universalization of such a government or for the universalization of Christian belief.

I'm not Cath, but...

You are simultaneously asserting that

a) Christianity is unacceptable as a basis for human rights and democracy because it is derived from a particular cultural context.

b) "A liberal, atomized, constitutional democracy founded in universal human rights and modern secularism (DC edit: Which also derives from a particular cultural context)is the only acceptable form of government anywhere and everywhere."

For example: Suppose we both travelled to Saudi Arabia to argue for the legalization of alcohol. The Saudi authorities would be just as deaf to your secular language of human rights and choice that you would base your argument upon, as they would to my language of the Bible. Why? Because secular, small l liberalism developed in particular times and places just like every other worldview did. The Saudi authorities in this case, have no cultural background in it, and would therefore (by the logic of your critique earlier) require "conversion" to secular liberalism, just as they would to my Christianity.

Hence the common religious critique of secularism as 'false neutrality'

I don't disagree with anything in this post. I do think universal 'conversion' to secular liberalism is desirable, as is universalization of democracy. I would say it is incorrect to compare it to some sort of third religion - secularism is not incompatible with religious belief, and what dogmatic principles it requires - namely, respect for human dignity - is much more compatible with any given global culture and easier to 'sell' than those required by most all religions.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I hope no right winger who agrees with the idea that some people don't deserve democracy ever seriously accuses anyone else of "cultural relativism".

[Associate Justice PiT]

It would seem odd to trust the universal applicability of my own conclusions on topics not generally agreed upon.

But that's my point - you do, don't you? It's just that you base your particular conclusions on a dogmatic religious belief, which is not reasonable to apply to a global scale - it is not feasible or acceptable, for instance, to advocate for democracy in non-Christian countries on the grounds that the Christian god says they should have it, unless you are also advocating for universal conversion - hence, particularism or theocracy.

Incorrect and bad faith.

And “dogmatic” is not how I would self-identify.

I apologize, maybe I misunderstood your point - the way I understood it, you agreed with the post I originally quoted, on the grounds that the moral basis of it was guaranteeing the rights granted by God - is this not correct?

Have to agree with Cath here. The jump from "human rights are derived from the triune God" to theocracy is quite the stretch.

Sure, and I said explicitly it was the worst case scenario. That said, I would like to hear back exactly what part of what I said Cath considered in bad faith - if one defines the desirable kind of democracy as one which defends human rights as defined by Christian belief, then one is either arguing against the universalization of such a government or for the universalization of Christian belief.

I'm not Cath, but...

You are simultaneously asserting that

a) Christianity is unacceptable as a basis for human rights and democracy because it is derived from a particular cultural context.

b) "A liberal, atomized, constitutional democracy founded in universal human rights and modern secularism (DC edit: Which also derives from a particular cultural context)is the only acceptable form of government anywhere and everywhere."

For example: Suppose we both travelled to Saudi Arabia to argue for the legalization of alcohol. The Saudi authorities would be just as deaf to your secular language of human rights and choice that you would base your argument upon, as they would to my language of the Bible. Why? Because secular, small l liberalism developed in particular times and places just like every other worldview did. The Saudi authorities in this case, have no cultural background in it, and would therefore (by the logic of your critique earlier) require "conversion" to secular liberalism, just as they would to my Christianity.

Hence the common religious critique of secularism as 'false neutrality'

I don't disagree with anything in this post. I do think universal 'conversion' to secular liberalism is desirable, as is universalization of democracy. I would say it is incorrect to compare it to some sort of third religion - secularism is not incompatible with religious belief, and what dogmatic principles it requires - namely, respect for human dignity - is much more compatible with any given global culture and easier to 'sell' than those required by most all religions.

     The secular worldview is one apart from those promulgated by organized religions, and one that seriously religious persons cannot accept for all of the secular talking points (e.g. "keep religion out of politics") that betray a fundamental dismissal of the religious perspective. These talking points fall apart quickly if you actually entertain the possibility that the Bible or the Koran is true and work out the logical consequences of that possibility, so the supposition that secularism should be perfectly amenable to the religiously inclined is ultimately little more than presumptuous arrogance.

     It is false neutrality because it implicitly rejects all viewpoints apart from its own on the terms that they set for themselves, relegating them to the status of mere opinions and cultural practices within its context.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

But that's my point - you do, don't you? It's just that you base your particular conclusions on a dogmatic religious belief, which is not reasonable to apply to a global scale - it is not feasible or acceptable, for instance, to advocate for democracy in non-Christian countries on the grounds that the Christian god says they should have it, unless you are also advocating for universal conversion - hence, particularism or theocracy.

Incorrect and bad faith.

And “dogmatic” is not how I would self-identify.

I apologize, maybe I misunderstood your point - the way I understood it, you agreed with the post I originally quoted, on the grounds that the moral basis of it was guaranteeing the rights granted by God - is this not correct?

Have to agree with Cath here. The jump from "human rights are derived from the triune God" to theocracy is quite the stretch.

Sure, and I said explicitly it was the worst case scenario. That said, I would like to hear back exactly what part of what I said Cath considered in bad faith - if one defines the desirable kind of democracy as one which defends human rights as defined by Christian belief, then one is either arguing against the universalization of such a government or for the universalization of Christian belief.

So, hoping to chime in here. I'll try to keep everything short.

1. My original point was primarily snark and was intended to draw out some argument based on absurdities. In my book, I succeeded. I do support democracy, though the terms "secular" and "only acceptable" turn me off.

2. This is a personal point, but for much of my youth, I had thought of human rights as a conservative thing within the sphere of the "inalienable rights" we are all told we have guaranteed by our Creator. This was, of course, in a context where American liberals were championing national sovereignty, but you get my point.

3. Regarding my apparently Christian-specific comment of univesally-guaranteed rights, let's not forget that liberal historians have told us for decades that the man who authored these timeless words was a deist.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

4. [Substantial shortening here] I find it in bad faith to assume Christians who believe in democracy or human rights based on their beliefs do so as part of some sort of international conversion program. It is certainly in bad faith to assume that of me. Moreover, anyone that bothered expounding upon a typically American-Christian view of God and rights would balk at being told that, having just explained the importance of freedom of conscience, such a right does not belong to a Muslim. You are proposing a false dichotomy that has never existed in my mind throughout a variety of periods of piety, and one that I never (or, if not, rarely) heard expounded on in my Christian, exurban youth.

To clarify, I am a practicing Catholic whose concrete theological views are hard to define or non-existent. Moreover, I've done my share of ideological drifting over the years as older posters can probably tell, so I wouldn't call myself dogmatic.

Do I believe it is impossible, or wrong, to attempt to hash out a set of rules and beliefs irrespective of religion to allow us to live together? No, but we would be romantics if we attempted to label these rules as "human rights". It's a mutual survival pact. And one born of particular cultural and historical circumstances.

We can try to find common unifying themes about what is evil and what is good, but I don't think we do so at the negation of our different beliefs.

[All Along The Watchtower]

So someone give me a non-reactionary/racist reason for why the residents of certain parts of the world deserve something that isn't democracy.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

So someone give me a non-reactionary/racist reason for why the residents of certain parts of the world deserve something that isn't democracy.

It's not that they don't deserve democracy, it's just that their social order is simply antagonistic to wishy washy western liberalism that rich bougie Democrats Manhattan think they can impart on places like Waziristan.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

So someone give me a non-reactionary/racist reason for why the residents of certain parts of the world deserve something that isn't democracy.

It's not that they don't deserve democracy, it's just that their social order is simply antagonistic to wishy washy western liberalism that rich bougie Democrats Manhattan think they can impart on places like Waziristan.

Just a personal take, but there are those that believe it is in the interests of both those in places like Waziristan and the rest of the world to try to bring them into the community of politically-engaged citizens of the world. That said, *both sides* (ugh) tend to disregard that the path towards even successful democratization is almost always a contentious one that may be frought with terrorism, civil war, repression, and upheaval (England, the United States, France, to name a few classic examples).

This isn't to say that I have an immediate policy prescription for such an issue, mind you, which is why the phrase "only acceptable" as seen above sounds dangerous at best.

[Proto]

The question implies that there are nations that deserve democracy and nations that don't deserve it. The former are some privileged peoples that enjoy all advantages of democracy and the latter  are outcasts that are not able to do that. This reasoning is false because the premise is false. And this premise is that democracy is the best political system, which is implied by the meaning of the word "deserve". Actually, this isn't the case. Democracy is the best political system.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The question implies that there are nations that deserve democracy and nations that don't deserve it. The former are some privileged peoples that enjoy all advantages of democracy and the latter  are outcasts that are not able to do that. This reasoning is false because the premise is false. And this premise is that democracy is the best political system, which is implied by the meaning of the word "deserve". Actually, this isn't the case. Democracy is the best political system.

I'm a bit confused by what you're saying here.  Is Democracy the best political system or not?

[Wazza [INACTIVE]]

No. What a cruelty that would be. The world is mainly good people.