Quote:
yeah thats better for non-enlightened people who are not able to act responsible...
......
I dont get how islam would halt self-destruction, you mean we need religious police to control your every second? It is not even proven that any religion would save you from self destruction.
|
Aaaah now i understand what you and Dalzi mean. Your conjoining Monarchies with beligerent religious foundations. Very wrong.
Actually in order for a monarchy to properly function it needs but the sole, unprovoqued authority of the king to guide it. While religion can be used by the King to propagate civil unity, it does not mean that being religious is a necessity. Yet i do admit that such principles and such state of being is not very logical. Because when establishing a monarchy a king needs an instrument with which to guide the local populace and to tame it. That instrument is religion. Yet the monarchy im talking about leaves the populace free to handle its everyday life with the exception of political decisions regarding the state and its security and its handling off limits. To acquire this, you need either one of two things:
-Force(quick)
-Social breeding, through appropriate educational facilities(takes a long time)
This system of rule is not only constrained to guiding simple minded folks. Remind yourselves that even Aristotle bested it as the appropriate system of rule. It is a system which safeguards the state under an enlightened and qualified despot, and preserves its integrity and maintains its defences in confrontation of external threats. Remind yourselves that the encyclopedists and the "L'age des lumieres" all blossomed under despots. Even the most ardent of the encyclopedists argued against the revolution and for the institution of an enlightened despot.