God and Democracy

[Mr Spinkles]

Some people, especially conservative Christians, argue that belief in God and "Judeo-Christian" principles is the necessary foundation for Democratic principles. Is this true?

In my opinion, all of the best arguments for democratic government have nothing to do with God whatsoever. I'm not saying democratic principles are in conflict with theism or religion, only that they do not require theism or religion, in the least. Consider that historically, the most notable examples of democracy occurred in pagan Greece, Italy, Gaul and Britain. We then had over one thousand years during which "Judeo-Christian principles" did not establish in anyone's minds the importance of democracy. Then we had the Enlightenment philosophers, who continued the ideas of Athens and Rome without the need to quote Christian or Jewish scripture.

Below I quote from Thomas Paine's essay Common Sense, which was influential during the American Revolution. Notice that, like the pagan and atheist Greeks and Romans before him, he does not need "Judeo-Christian principles" to explain the advantages or reasonableness of democratic government:

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
...
In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest; they will then represent the first peopling of any country, or of the world. In this state of natural liberty, society will be their first thought. A thousand motives will excite them thereto; the strength of one man is so unequal to his wants, and his mind so unfitted for perpetual solitude, that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same. Four or five united would be able to raise a tolerable dwelling in the midst of a wilderness, but one man might labour out the common period of life without accomplishing any thing;
...
Thus necessity, like a gravitating power, would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supersede, and render the obligations of law and government unnecessary while they remained perfectly just to each other; but as nothing but Heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in proportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue.

Some convenient tree will afford them a State House, under the branches of which the whole Colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of Regulations and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man by natural right will have a seat.

But as the Colony encreases, the public concerns will encrease likewise, and the distance at which the members may be separated, will render it too inconvenient for all of them to meet on every occasion as at first, when their number was small, their habitations near, and the public concerns few and trifling. This will point out the convenience of their consenting to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number chosen from the whole body, who are supposed to have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present.

Now it is true that people like Thomas Paine were deists. But how/when/why Nature was created in the beginning is immaterial to Paine's argument about the proper forms of government. His reasoning above is just as persuasive whether Nature was created by a deist God or not. The material advantages of living in a society vs. trying to survive alone in the wilderness are just as real with or without an Author behind it all. In other words, Paine's philosophy is like this:

God --> Nature --> Democratic values

But even if we remove the "God" part, the rest of the argument is still intact:

Nature --> Democratic values

What is really ironic to me, is that conservative talking-heads like Glenn Beck appeal to "Judeo-Christian principles" and American revolutionaries like Thomas Paine in the same breath. In fact, it seems to me that the philosophy of today's atheists (who support democracy) is a very close cousin of Paine's philosophy.

Another quote from Paine's essay:

...neither can any power, WHICH NEEDS CHECKING, be from God; yet the provision which the [English] constitution makes supposes such a power to exist.

That's why checks and balances are part of the U.S. Constitution. Because it is assumed government is not from God.

It seems to me Paine's philosophy could not be further from the conservative Christian philosophy in this country, which views American Democracy as God's gift or charge to humanity. I have not even bothered to quote his extremely harsh criticisms of religion and Christianity. The disagreement between the Enlightenment Deists and atheists about how Nature was created in the first place, I think, is a trifling difference, when compared to the deep political differences between guys like Paine and the American religious Right, which nevertheless claims to be inspired by him.

[Sunstone]

I could be wrong, but I don't think John Locke relies on Judeo-Christian values in developing his social contract theory. Locke, of course, was a key influence on Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson, among others.

[dmgdnooc]

I prefer T Jacobsen's take on primitive democracy.
It appears, from the earliest records, that democratic government, of a sort, expressed in a bicameral legislature was the original political paradigm for civilised life.
　
Examples could be multiplied but episodes from the Epic of Gilgamesh illustrate the point.
Gilgamesh, the King, must repeatedly consult with the Council of Elders and the Assembly of the Young Men. He cannot act alone but needs the support of one or both of these bodies to legitimise the action that he takes.
From the settings it appears that the Council of Elders has the higher authority, it is consulted first. While the Assembly of Young Men is subordinate in precedence it is able to make decisions independently from, and contrary to, the decisions of the Elder body.
　
The Epic comes from a time when Kingship was a firmly established institution but had not yet acquired the iron grasp on society that is associated with its later manifestations.
Kingship was originally a temporary office, filled for a limited time when current events, usually war, threatened the entire community. The King was appointed from the Assembly of Young Men (the men of martial age) by consent, in a joint session of both bodies.
And when the emergency had passed the office of King became vacant once again, leaving the Council and Assembly to govern the affairs of the community.
The Epic recalls a time when Kingship was in transition from its original temporary and subordinate state to its later supreme authority; Gilgamesh remains King even when there is no current emergency but must consult with and heed the directions of the Council and Assembly.
　
I am certain that Judeo-Christian principles had no bearing on the political life of ancient Sumer as expressed in the Council and Assembly that governed it. Though it is perfectly conceivable that the reverse applies.
And modern concepts of democracy are firmlly rooted in ancient Greek thought and practice which likewise owes nothing to Judeo-Christianity.
So I think that conservative Christians are barking up the wrong tree (or perhaps the metaphor should be circle-wanking) when they imagine that the principles of their religion are the necessary foundation for Democratic principles.
　
What prompts them to say such things?
I can't imagine where they are getting that idea from.

[Klaufi_Wodensson]

The Scandinavian countries had a form of democracy before they had Kings. And they weren't Christians at that time, so they didn't base their democracy on "Judeo-Christian" principles.

[Imperative]

Originally Posted by Mr Spinkles

Some people, especially conservative Christians, argue that belief in God and "Judeo-Christian" principles is the necessary foundation for Democratic principles. Is this true?

No. I would say that Judeo-Christian faith is not necessary for anything at all. However, now that I think about it, both systems--the abrahamic and the democratic--do seem to have several similarities. For example, democracy is based on the idea that the collective ignorance of a population is somehow equivalent to wisdom. Abrahamic faith is based on the idea that wisdom comes from the collected ignorance of generations.

[Egyptian Phoenix]

Modern Democracy is a Deist value

[bobhikes]

I see Democracy as a weaking of Religious beliefs. If religious beliefs are strong the states will adopt the beliefs and there will be no democracy only if the beliefs are weak(varied is a weakness) can a democracy and will a democracy form.

As I understand the Greeks at the time of there democracy belief in their Gods was wanning.

[infamousjovian]

In my view, democracy is not incompatible with faith in the existence of God. If anything, freedom of speech (which is a cornerstone of democracy) insures that all individuals have the right to worship and practice their beliefs without fear of persecution.

[Imperative]

Both systems--the abrahamic and the democratic--set forth to govern the world we live in while damning the rights of the governed. No, there can be no individual rights under such systems. The faithful forfeit their autonomy to a celestial dictator just as every citizen of a democracy forfeits his or hers to the outcome of a public poll. In either case, a presumably “all-knowing”, faceless entity (either a god or a mob) is placed above rational thought and given free rein to devour the very same fools who have exalted it.

Remember: America is not a democracy, it is a [federal] constitutional republic.

[Revoltingest]

Well, this thread is hardly worthy of any response. Of course, democracy rests upon Christian values.
Just look at the famous Christians credited with its origination.....Plato, Solon, Pericles, etc.