F Rosa Rubicondior: Democracy
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts

Sunday 1 September 2013

Impressions of Paris - Sacré-Cœur

We spent our last few hours killing time in Paris before our train to Londres left Gare du Nord, by visiting the Sacré-Cœur, the large white basilica which stands on the highest point of the city - Butte Montmatre. The Sacré-Cœur can be seen from miles away and dominates central Paris like a malignant menace ready to wreak revenge on a truculent people, should they have the temerity to step out of line again.

The story of the Sacré-Cœur is illustrative of the struggle between the forces of democracy and the power of the Christian (in this case Catholic) Church which has invariably sided with the forces of autocracy and repression of the lower orders in society. It starts with the socialist-led uprising in Paris in 1871 following the French defeat in the Franco-Prussian war.

The war itself had been fought largely because it suited both sides at the time to have a war. The Machaevelian Otto von Bismark for Prussia had wanted an excuse to unify the multitude of autonomous German states and statelettes under Prussian dominance, and the French Emperor, Napoleon III, had wanted a foreign victory to emulate those of his uncle, Napoleon I, and so bring France to heel under his autocratic rule. He had been elected president by popular vote in 1848 and mounted a coup d'état in 1851 to avoid all the unpleasantness and inconvenience of facing another election. He then had himself crowned Emperor and effectively restored the French monarchy in 1852.

In the event it was Napoleon III who had badly miscalculated and German troops were able to lay siege to Paris for four months during which the aristocracy and much of the middle class fled the city and poor peasants from the surrounding countryside came in to escape the Germans. France had clearly lost the war.

Following a series of strikes and demonstrations in Paris mostly demanding the overthrow of the Emperor and the restoration of a republic, it became clear that the feared mob was gaining the upper hand and the government panicked and fled to nearby Versailles, taking with them what troops and police who would still obey orders, and who hadn't yet shot their officers, elected new ones and defected to the insurrection, as they could round up. The socialists' leaders occupied the Hôtel de Ville (Town Hall) and proclaimed the Government of National Defense and sued for peace with the besieging Germans. A condition of the armistice was that a token German occupation force would be allowed to enter Paris.

It had long been a grievance of Parisians that, unlike other French cities, Paris did not have its own local government but was ruled directly by the national government. The Communards were so-called because they were demanding their own Commune, or local government. So the Paris Commune emerged from the power vacuum and chaos in Paris which followed the war with Prussia. Provision of services and the restoration of orderly government fell to the Communards by default, the government having deserted the city. It should not be confused with a Communist uprising. The term 'Commune' owes more to the word 'community' than to the Communist commune. The French still refer to the area controlled by a local council as a Commune. Communism was to come later, drawing on some of the lessons and demands of the Communards from the Paris Commune. Marx and Engles drew extensively on the experience (and mistakes) of the Communards.

The success of the uprising caused panic and consternation to the ruling classes who had naturally thrown in their lot with the autocrats and who wanted nothing more than a compliant and obedient urban proletariat and rural working class. What enraged them was the demands they made for the government of all France, not just of Paris. There was some confusion over whether they had overthrown the national government and so could lay claim to be the legal government of all France, or were merely in charge of Paris - which had not heretofore had its own government. In any case they decided they were at least a rival national government to the one now reorganizing and regrouping in Versailles.

The decrees they issued for Paris, and which clearly they wished to extend to the whole of France included:

  • the separation of church and state;
  • the remission of rents owed for the entire period of the siege (during which, payment had been suspended);
  • the abolition of night work in the hundreds of Paris bakeries;
  • the granting of pensions to the unmarried companions and children of National Guards killed on active service;
  • the free return, by the city pawnshops, of all workmen's tools and household items valued up to 20 francs, pledged during the siege; the Commune was concerned that skilled workers had been forced to pawn their tools during the war;
  • the postponement of commercial debt obligations, and the abolition of interest on the debts; and
  • the right of employees to take over and run an enterprise if it were deserted by its owner; the Commune, nonetheless, recognized the previous owner's right to compensation.

Apart from this assault on the right of the middle classes to screw the poor for everything they could wring out of them and to put private greed above social need, and the demand for workers' rights, what really panicked the church was the first clause, a direct copy from the American constitution, for the abolition of the church's political power and influence. The decree separated the church from the state, appropriated all church property to public property, and excluded the practice of religion from schools. The people understood full well how the church aided and supported the anti-democratic forces and how the ruling elite uses the church to control the people in a mutual benefit society where the clergy supports and sanctifies the ruling elite in return for the state's protection and the granting of privileges to the clergy.

Like the American revolutionaries of 1776, the Paris Communards understood that they could never have a proper democracy with government of the people, by the people and for the people if the church-ruling elite mutual benefit society were allowed to continue.

In the event, the Communards failed to extend their influence to other French cities and especially the countryside where the food was produced. They also stupidly failed to take control of the French national bank in Paris which was able to transfer its billions of francs to Versailles where it was used to finance the government army. After "La Semaine ensanglante" (the bloody week) the Paris Commune was brutally supressed by French regular troops... and the church could exact its revenge.

So we come to the building of the Sacré Cœur, officially as an act of atonement for the Paris Commune; in reality as a reminder to working class Parisians that the Church rules. Okay! The official account says:
The inspiration for Sacré Cœur's design originated on September 4, 1870, the day of the proclamation of the Third Republic, with a speech by Bishop Fournier attributing the defeat of France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870 to a divine punishment after "a century of moral decline" since the French Revolution, in the wake of the division in French society that arose in the decades following that revolution, between devout Catholics and legitimist royalists on one side, and democrats, secularists, socialists and radicals on the other. This schism became particularly pronounced after the Franco-Prussian War and the ensuing uprising of the Paris Commune of 1870-71. Though today the Basilica is asserted to be dedicated in honor of the 58,000 who lost their lives during the war, the decree of the Assemblée nationale, 24 July 1873, responding to a request by the archbishop of Paris by voting its construction, specifies that it is to "expiate the crimes of the Commune". Montmartre had been the site of the Commune's first insurrection, and many dedicated communards were forever entombed in the subterranean galleries of former gypsum mines where they had retreated, by explosives detonated at the entrances by the Army of Versailles. Hostages had been executed on both sides, and the Communards had executed Georges Darboy, Archbishop of Paris, who became a martyr for the resurgent Catholic Church. His successor Guibert, climbing the Butte Montmartre in October 1872, was reported to have had a vision, as clouds dispersed over the panorama: "It is here, it is here where the martyrs are, it is here that the Sacred Heart must reign so that it can beckon all to come".

...the hour of the Church has come [that would be expressed through the] Government of Moral Order... a project of religious and national renewal, the main features of which were the restoration of monarchy and the defense of Rome within a cultural framework of official piety.

It was to take until 1905 for the final separation of church and state in France to be achieved and for France to become a modern secular democracy.

So today the Sacré Cœur dominates the Paris skyline in a symbolic, triumphalist reminder of how, as recently as 1873, the Catholic Church believed it should dominate the government and control the people and how any threat to its power and privilege was going to be met by brutal suppression and the denial of basic democratic rights, and how working-class people daring to take control of their own destiny was to be regarded as a mortal sin to be punished with all vigour.





submit to reddit




Income from ads will be donated to charities such as moderate centre-left groups, humanist, humanitarian and wildlife protection and welfare organisations.


Saturday 2 March 2013

How The Pope Opposed Democracy

Magna Carta is regarded as one of the most important documents in English legal and democratic history and in the legal and democratic history of most of the English-speaking world, including most of the USA. What is not generally acknowledged however, is how the papacy in the person of Pope Innocent III opposed this first tentative step towards democracy and reducing ever so slightly the absolute dictatorial power of the monarchy.

Understanding why this was may help people see the relationship the Christian Church still has with democracy, and so put a great deal of the history of the last few hundred years into context.

The background to the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymead in June 1215 is complex and not really the point of this blog. If you wish to understand it there are on-line sources here, here and here. The result was that an increasingly autocratic King John was forced by the English barons to sign a document which both limited the power of the monarchy and guaranteed certain legal rights to the people. In fact part of it, the promise to surrender London to the King, was immediately reneged on by the barons, and John only ever regarded it as something signed under duress as a stalling action. The legal validity of Magna Carta comes from the fact that John's successor, Henry III, adopted it in order to unite the country against the French whom the barons had invited in to depose John - who saved the day by rather appropriately dying of dysentery on 18 October 1215.

Lotario dei Conti di Segni, Pope Innocent III
So where does Pope Innocent III fit into all this?

Innocent III had previously excommunicated John, partly to curry favour with the King Phillip Augustus of France, and partly as a reprisal for his taxing the churches. In order to bring the church back on side, John agreed to compensate the Pope and the Church with lots of money, and to submit to him as his feudal liege-lord, making Innocent III de jure titular ruler of England and the English possessions in France. The Pope in return declared Magna Carta null and void.

Innocent III was probably one of the more unpleasant characters to hold the title 'Pope' but at least as his regnal name shows, he had a sense of humour. He is notorious largely on accounts of actions which, if they were repeated today, would be rightly regarded as crimes against humanity:
  • He ordered the suppression and massacre of the Cathars of the Languedoc region of southern France, to help his protector, King Phillip Augustus control his southern barons, and because they had declined to pay tithes.
  • He ordered a crusade against Moorish Spain, which was then most of the Iberian Peninsula other than a couple of Christian kingdoms in the far north, and the subsequent massacre of the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants.
  • He ordered the Fourth Crusade against Egypt in which, when the Christian army reached Constantinople where it mistook the Orthodox Christian population for Muslims, it promptly sacked the city and massacred the inhabitants. Innocent III then declared this to have been the will of God in order to re-unite the Eastern and Western Churches, under Pope Innocent III, naturally.
It's maybe worth mentioning that a 'crusade' consisted of giving a rag-tagggle bunch of mercenary soldiers, under the nominal control of a handful of princes, kings and dukes, free licence to loot, pillage, rape and massacre their way across Europe, the Balkans and Asia Minor and into the Holy Lands with no regard to the religion of those they slaughtered and robbed. They were not paid or supplied but were expected to take what they wanted from the citizenry of any towns or villages they came across on their journey - something they did with enthusiasm, routinely massacring the entire population to the applause of the Pope who declared every death a triumph for Jesus.

Of course papal opposition to democracy is fully consistent with the Bible. No where in the Bible are democracy, human rights, the right to elect a government or regulate its powers ever mentioned. Political power in the Bible is only ever autocratic and absolute, the sole right of kings and emperors and those able to exert power through force of arms. If this is ever mentioned it is only ever to endorse it. The frankest outright endorsement of autocratic government, often quoted to support the 'divine right' of kings, was in Paul's epistle to the Romans where he leaves no doubt about his sect's fawning attitude to authority.
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [my emphasis] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.

Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
No where in the Bible does any prophet or any apostle ever advocate government of the people, by the people and for the people nor do any of them ever decry its absence.

The concept of democracy and human rights for ordinary people was as alien to the founders of the Christian Church as it was to the authors of the Bible, both Old Testament and New. Not surprisingly the Christian Church, especially but by no means only, the Catholic version, is modelled on that same hierarchical concept of an absolute ruler accountable only to God and having total power over those beneath, who have no right to representation or even to be heard. The lot of the ordinary person is to receive wisdom from above and to meekly obey without question, and woe betide anyone who dares to. Fortunately, all civilised countries have turned their back on this, one of the nastier aspects of organised Christianity, and have adopted more or less democratic forms of government and abolished the right of the heads of the different Christian sects from re-establishing the theocracies which so blighted the development of Europe during the Dark Ages.

The conclave of unelected Catholic Cardinals will be bricked up in Rome soon to haggle and bargain and cut deals amongst themselves over which of them will inherit this absolute power.

So, which modern countries are now founded on those Christian Principles outside the Vatican City?

If Christian Principles are so great, why did the others abandon them over the last few hundred years?






submit to reddit


Thursday 8 November 2012

God's Nob

Justin Welby
Next Archbishop of Canterbury
BBC News - Justin Welby 'to be named as new Archbishop of Canterbury':

Exciting news that Justin Welby, a rich Old Etonian with aristocratic connections and a relative of former Tory grandee Richard Austen (Rab) Butler, is to be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, by rich Old Etonian with aristocratic connections and current Tory grandee, Prime Minister David Cameron.

Justin Welby is current Bishop of Durham, a post he has held for less than a year.

In case anyone was under any illusions that the Anglican Church has any hint of democracy about it, it is worth looking at how this widely leaked decision was made.
[The] Crown Nominations Commission (known until 2003 as the Crown Appointments Commission), ... consists of:
  • The Archbishops of Canterbury and York (in the event of a vacancy in either post, then the House of Bishops elects another bishop to take that Archbishop's place)
  • Three members elected by the General Synod's House of Clergy from within itself
  • Three members elected by the General Synod's House of Laity from itself
  • Six members elected ad hoc by the Vacancy-in-See Committee from itself
Beyond these fourteen voting members, the Prime Minister's appointments secretary and the Archbishops' appointments secretary meet with the commission and help supply it with information on possible candidates. Normally the archbishop in whose province the vacancy lies chairs the commission.

When meeting to nominate an archbishop, the commission is chaired by a fifteenth voting member, who must be an "actual communicant lay member of the Church of England". He or she is appointed by the prime minister (if an Archbishop of Canterbury is being appointed) or by the Church of England Appointments Committee (if an Archbishop of York).

The commission meets several times in secret. The commission then forwards two names to the prime minister, who chooses one of them, or (exceptionally) requests additional names from the commission. In recent memory, the only prime minister who has not accepted the commission's preferred candidate was Margaret Thatcher, who opposed James Lawton Thompson’s nomination as Bishop of Birmingham, due to his (perceived) liberal and left-leaning views. If the chosen individual accepts the office, the prime minister advises the Sovereign, who then formally nominates the prime minister's choice. Thereafter, the diocese's College of Canons meets to 'elect' the new bishop. (This stage of the process was mocked by Ralph Waldo Emerson thus: "The King sends the Dean and Canons a congé d'élire, or leave to elect, but also sends them the name of the person whom they are to elect. They go into the Cathedral, chant and pray; and after these invocations invariably find that the dictates of the Holy Ghost agree with the recommendation of the King" [Emerson, English Traits, XIII, 1856].)
It must be reassuring to members of the worldwide Anglican Community that the British Prime Minister (head of government) is in charge of the whole process. As you can see from the current membership of the Crown Nominations Commission, over-seas interests and opinions are well represented (not!):

The current (May 2012) members are:
  • Professor Glynn Harrison - Diocese of Bristol - elected by General Synod to serve as member of the Commission for a five year period.
  • Mrs Mary Johnston - Diocese of London - elected by General Synod to serve as member of the Commission for a five year period.
  • Mr David Kemp, elected from the Diocese of Canterbury by their Vacancy in See Committee.
  • The Most Revd Dr Barry Morgan, Primate of The Church in Wales, elected by the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion.
  • The Rt Revd James Newcome, the Bishop of Carlisle - elected by House of Bishops.
  • The Very Revd Andrew Nunn - Diocese of Southwark - elected by General Synod to serve as member of the Commission for a five year period.
  • The Rt Revd Michael Perham, the Bishop of Gloucester - elected by House of Bishops.
  • The Reverend Canon Mark Roberts, elected from the Diocese of Canterbury by their Vacancy in See Committee.
  • Mrs Caroline Spencer, elected from the Diocese of Canterbury by their Vacancy in See Committee.
  • The Revd Canon Peter Spiers - Diocese of Liverpool - elected by General Synod to serve as member of the Commission for a five year period.
  • The Revd Canon Glyn Webster - Diocese of York - elected by General Synod to serve as members of the Commission for a five year period.
  • The Right Reverend Trevor Willmott, elected from the Diocese of Canterbury by their Vacancy in See Committee.
In addition, the Archbishops' Secretary for Appointments (Ms Caroline Boddington), the Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary (Sir Paul Britton) and the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion (Revd Canon Kenneth Kearon) are non-voting members of the Commission.
Of course this elaborate process is in place to ensure the right types get appointed to these important posts, untrammelled by the attendant risks in allowing the hoi poloi a say.

Do sheep get to elect their shepherd? Whatever next!

For example, one pitfall this process has avoided is appointing John Setamu, as Archbishop of York, the natural successor to the Archbishop of Canterbury and a person who, on the face of it is admirably suited to the job both academically and in terms of his experience. He had been widely tipped as the next Cantuar by naive commentators, however, as the token African Archbishop, both the CNC and the Prime Minister, David Cameron, obviously felt it wasn't worth the inevitable disintegration of the world-wide Anglican Community which would certainly have followed the appointment of an African as its head.

Phew! What a good thing these things are so tightly controlled by the ruling classes!
Further reading: Christian Democracy.

'via Blog this'

Saturday 31 March 2012

Christian Democracy.

Have you noticed how a few words just never seem to crop up in the Bible at all. Words like:

  • Democracy
  • Vote
  • Equal/Equality (as it applied to humans one with another)
  • Consensus
  • Parliament
  • Election (as it applies to the selection of representatives

Saturday 18 February 2012

How To Spot A Militant Secularist


With all the dire warnings now in the media on the dangers of militant secularists and the imminent threat they pose to the fabric of society, law and order and life on this planet as we know it, I thought I would produce a handy print-out-and-keep list to help people recognise these individuals and show why it's important to resist their perverted ways.

The first thing to remember is that most militant secularists try to look like perfectly ordinary people. They wear the same sorts of clothes and may not even look particularly scruffy. They may have a proper job, even a well-paid one. They may even live in your street and drive around in cars or use public transport just like normal people.

Are you sure your neighbours or even members of your family aren't militant secularists? What about aunts and uncles, even cousins or the mailman or school bus driver, even that friendly neighbourhood policeman? They do not have green or purple skin and very rarely have red eyes. In fact, in most respects they look just like you or me and are not easy to pick out in a crowd - unless you know the signs.

It is important to remember that, just like socialists, they may look like perfectly respectable, ordinary people!

However, there are a few tell-tale signs that, try as they may, militant secularists are not able to keep hidden for long. If you learn these they can become fairly easy to spot even across a crowded room.

Sunday 8 January 2012

Religion! Mind Your Own Business!

Where do religious institutions get this idea that somehow they should be included in the institutions of government or that our elected representatives should pay them any attention beyond that due to any other member of society? Religious institutions are by their nature, autocratic and undemocratic, even anti-democratic. All are self-appointing, self-interested organisations which exist ONLY for their own aggrandisement and perpetuation.

Few, if any religions have a democratically elected leadership. Few if any of them are accountable to their members for policy and/or doctrine. Almost all of them have a top down structure which is answerable only to itself.

Where then do they get their authority to interfere in government and the right to influence the nature and structure of society? They can't even claim to represent the opinions of their members since they never seek to discover them. Indeed, almost every religious service seems to consist of autocrats telling their members what they should believe.
Web Analytics