Theos-Talk Archives (August 2008 Message tt00105)

Dear Richard and all

My views are:

I cannot really agree with this view. But then again I might misunderstand you.
Here are some examples, which should show you that Israel is not the only democratic country. 

The debate about what the differences are between various Democracies (some with their leaders having extreme amount of power) and various Republics is interesting to consider. Also the possibilities for new political parties to get elected to the parliments in various countries in these days of Media Power and the level of influence of television.


In Central Asia and Asia:
I would call India a democracy and a very important one.
Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Republic of China ('Taiwan'), Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan are democracies. And Kyrgyzstan is a new and coming democracy.

Turkey is a democracy and Egypt is a republic and democracy. 
And Iran is a republic, and is just as much a democracy as Italy with its Vatican is.

A number of socalled western democracies are in fact still monarchies, and other non-western countries operates in a similar manner although a number of western (Christian)scholars would like to color it all in a different manner.



- - -
My view is:
Theosophically speaking we are here dealing with the socalled Alice A. Bailey groups involvement in politics and their heavy tendency to be Christian-conditioned when dealing with politics, and their lack of Middle Eastern objectivity or clear negation of Middle Eastern issues. All this because the Alice A. Bailey books are almost close nothing touching upon the Middle East and Islam and because the Alice A. Bailey books have a heavy tendency to Christian use of terminology and a tendency to promote Christian dogmas.



M. Sufilight


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Richard Semock 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Sunday, August 17, 2008 5:51 AM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Lucis Trust and their Christian Saviour Democracy


  You might be misinterpreting the newsletter in this regard, what they 
  are saying is that without christianity there is no basis for a 
  democratic form of govt so the comparison between eastern & western 
  democracys is impossible because there is no eastern democracy unless 
  you consider Israel 'eastern'. Communist China does not make any 
  pretense at being a democracy, they have merely adopted capitalism to 
  show that it is more successful under the communist banner, beating 
  us at our own game so to speak. If they win at this fools game, they 
  get to keep Tibet, Sikkim, and Bootan.

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen" <global-
  theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > To all readers
  > 
  > My views are:
  > 
  > I just thought, that It might be a good idea to e-mail the latest 
  official online Newsletter from Lucis Trust. 
  > 
  > - My view is, that in this Newsletter - in the below - we witness a 
  clear tendency to support the view that a Western Democracy are 
  SUPERIOR to other kinds of democracies. This is being done while one 
  admits, that Religions and other factors have a strong tendency to 
  undermine a great number of democracies.
  > 
  > My question is, how can a Western Democracy be said to be SUPERIOR 
  to other kinds of democracies and political systems, when it so clear 
  and visibly almost always is based on the Christian religious 
  worldview and outlook upon the world???
  > 
  > There is a great tendency in the various Alice A. Bailey circles to 
  show ignorance about how much the Christian religion influences the 
  western democracies. And also a - huge non-compassionate - tendency 
  to ignore the Christian influence upon Lucis Trust themselves and 
  their promotion of the Alice A. Bailey books, with their heavy use of 
  Christian vocabulary and their - huge non-compassionate - deepfreeze 
  attitude towards mentioning anything Middle Eastern or Islamic - at 
  all - and even esoteric Sufi teachings.
  > 
  > 
  > Any comments?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > >>>The Newsletter: 2008 #2 - The Meaning of Democracy <<<
  > "Alice Bailey proposes that the universality of democracy is 
  humanity's response - inaccurate as yet - to the pure energy of Love, 
  and suggests that a true democracy will become possible "through a 
  right use of the systems of education and by a steady training of the 
  people to recognise the finer values, the more correct point of view, 
  the higher idealism, and the spirit of synthesis and of cooperative 
  unity." To move towards this true democracy, she indicates that what 
  is needed is a greater number of truly awakened people; and when this 
  is so, "we shall see a purification of the political field taking 
  place, and a cleansing of our processes of representation instituted, 
  as well as a more exacting accounting required from the people of 
  those whom they have chosen to put in authority. There must 
  eventually be a closer tie-up between the educational system, the 
  legal system and the government, but it will all be directed to an 
  effort to work out the best ideals of the thinkers of the day."(The 
  Externalisation of the Hierarchy pp. 52-3)1 When this is so, ".people 
  will not tolerate authoritarianism in any church, or totalitarianism 
  in any political system or government; they will not accept or permit 
  the rule of any body of men who undertake to tell them what they must 
  believe in order to be saved, or what government they must accept." 
  (op. cit. p.618) 
  > Although democracy appears in a wide variety of forms, there are 
  certain core features that most share. These are: that all who are 
  competent to decide on how they should be led must have a regular say 
  in how those leaders are chosen - hence a regular electoral cycle; 
  that the vote of every citizen, from the richest to the poorest, 
  should count the same in that process - hence the need for secret 
  ballots;2 and that every citizen is completely free to decide how 
  that vote should be cast, without intimidation or bribery - hence the 
  need for a non-politicised police force and army. In addition, every 
  citizen should have access to information about those who aspire to 
  lead them - so the media should be free to provide full and unbiased 
  coverage of all involved in an electoral process. 
  > 
  > Indeed, when most people think of democracy, what they really mean 
  is liberal democracy - i.e. the combination of democracy as a means 
  of selecting a government, with constitutional liberalism, namely, 
  the protection of an individual's autonomy and dignity against any 
  form of coercion, whether from the state, the church or society. Each 
  tends to reinforce the other, for a state can only be truly 
  democratic if its citizens are free, and can thus choose their rulers 
  freely; and these freedoms should be best guaranteed by rulers chosen 
  in this way. However, the commentator Fareed Zakaria notes that 
  democratic elections can bring to power rulers who suppress 
  freedoms.3 This he names 'illiberal democracy'.4 He also observes 
  that democracy is not a necessary condition for the existence of high 
  levels of constitutional liberalism. So, for example, a state might 
  have a fully independent judiciary (one of the main institutions that 
  guarantee constitutional liberalism), but the electorate might play 
  no part in its selection. 
  > 
  > In fact, this is one example of a more general suggestion that 
  Zakaria makes, namely that too much democracy may not be a good 
  thing. In a complex modern nation-state, the electorate is unlikely 
  to have sufficient knowledge to judge on the suitability of every 
  state official, particularly those in very specialised fields, and so 
  may choose to delegate this selection process to the leaders they 
  have elected. And in any case, voting directly on every body that 
  influences the conduct of politics in a democratic state is 
  impossible, as governments must also pay attention to the input of 
  leaders in business and religion, and, increasingly, to other non-
  governmental organisations that have been set up by groups of 
  citizens concerned about specific issues. The degree of influence 
  that these 'special interest' groups have over the conduct of 
  government represents a challenge - too much, and it might be argued 
  that democracy is weakened to the point of oligarchy (the rule of 
  elites); too little, and the culture of justified challenge to 
  governmental excesses that characterises most democracies is 
  neutered. 
  > 
  > In the articles which follow, we reflect on some of the issues that 
  arise when considering liberal democracy: what are the qualifications 
  of the democratic politician, and how did this role arise? Do the 
  citizens of democracies have special responsibilities to protect and 
  nurture them, and if so, what are these responsibilities? And what is 
  the deeper meaning of 'freedom'? 
  > 
  > There is perhaps a tendency in the West to regard democracy as a 
  panacea for the difficulties that any society faces as it attempts to 
  modernise. Yet if democracy represents a certain phase of national 
  consciousness, which can only be reached after other phases have been 
  explored, then it may be that the attempted imposition of democracy 
  on a nation which isn't psychologically ready for it would be counter-
  productive. There are a number of supposed democracies around the 
  world that are plainly dysfunctional in various degrees. This is not 
  to suggest that individuals, groups and nations should not aspire to 
  conditions of increased freedom; but societies, like individuals, go 
  through an evolutionary process of maturing, and it would be naïve to 
  suggest that the Western model of democracy, arrived at through 
  centuries of struggle, could - or should - be simply transplanted 
  into countries with different histories and cultural norms. In this 
  sense, a fully democratic society has to be developed by a people 
  through experience. And just as no-one would claim that every 
  individual is now resonating strongly with the pure energy of Love, 
  the same claim would seem equally misguided with respect to nations. 
  Where does this leave a person of goodwill? With the difficult but 
  necessary task of investigating a little more deeply whenever it is 
  proposed that the solution to a country's ills is "more democracy". 
  The expansion of freedom must and should be supported at all times - 
  but the path of each nation to this exalted goal is unique, and no 
  nation can claim to have reached the end. Liberal democracy is not a 
  machine that can be cranked up whenever needed, but a subtle and 
  continuous negotiation between a people and their leaders. Reflection 
  on its deeper psychological dimensions may help make us more 
  circumspect about recommending it in all circumstances. 
  > 
  > 1. The Externalisation of the Hierarchy is available here. 
  > 
  > 2. Which should be auditable, explaining the mounting unease about 
  electronic voting with no paper trail. 
  > 
  > 3. Hitler, for example. 
  > 
  > 4. Fareed Zakaria, The Future of Freedom. W W Norton & Co, 2004. "
  > 
  http://www.lucistrust.org/en/service_activities/world_goodwill__1/news
  letter/recent_issues/2008_2_the_meaning_of_democracy
  > *******
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > Any comments?
  > 
  > 
  > 
  > M. Sufilight
  > 
  > 
  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
  >



   

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]