What’s the Cure for Ailing Nations? More Kings and Queens, Monarchists Say [NewYorkTimes]

Discussion in 'Anglican and Christian News' started by World Press, Feb 5, 2018.

  1. ZachT

    ZachT Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    498
    Likes Received:
    476
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    It was a tongue in cheek remark (the election being the papal conclave - franchise is limited to cardinals, who are only men) :p.


    I'll respond generally, so our American brothers can also relate to my response. In the past two centuries, when we look at all of the constitutional monarchies in the OECD, there has been a constitutional crisis precisely once (in my country, Australia). The United States alone has had three in the past ten years, government shutdowns have basically become an expected part of the political process now. Other Republics are not much better (see Mexico, Chile or Turkey).

    Examining the event in Australia, which we call "the Dismissal", is a good demonstration of why this is the case. In 1975 we had a similar sort of partisan split to what we usually see in the US (and still happens basically every election in Australia and New Zealand, I assume so in many other countries as well), where the majority party of the Lower House didn't have a majority in the Upper House. That is, the progressive party of the government didn't control the Senate. The Labor Government at the time was passing some pretty radical reforms for its time (like free healthcare, sound familiar?) and the politically conservative coalition in the Senate decided to block supply in the upper house, meaning the government couldn't spend any money, causing a government shutdown (now is this really sounding familiar? Obamacare 2013 anyone?).

    The Governor-General flipped out. He ordered the politicians to sort it out. They couldn't, because they were so focused on their short term political agendas they stopped caring about what their actual jobs were - to run the country. They were elected to serve their constituents, they taxed their constituents to pay for their wages, they show up to Canberra and then refused to work until they got their way like a petulant toddler. It wasn't just the side blocking supplies fault either, both sides were the problem, compromise is a two-way street. So the Governor-General went nuclear. He sacked the Prime Minister, the whole Cabinet, and completely dissolved the parliament putting everyone up for a snap re-election. This included every senator, where we normally only elect half the senate every election (still 6 years, our terms are 3 years long, not 2 years long), meaning a bunch of senators from both major parties would lose their seats.

    The Prime Minister responded exactly how you would expect. He held a bunch of rallies saying how the other side were partisan hacks who had unjustly fired him, he told everyone to "maintain the rage", kick started the Republican movement and threatened to remove the Governor-General when re-elected (it's a pretty good quote, "May God save the Queen, because no one will save the Governor-General"). The Australian public responded. He lost 30 seats and was resoundingly rejected by the electorate. Where he won a 5 seat majority just a year earlier, he now had a 55 seat minority. This is because the Australian public trust the apolitical figure head.

    We have had the luxury of 45 years to analyse the Dismissal today and work out whether or not it was justified, but at the time when emotions and tensions were high and the media narrative was confused, people didn't know what the truth was. But when the Governor-General said it was necessary, and the politicians said it wasn't, people decided to trust the apolitical Governor-General - and that's because we know they will only exercise their power once every few hundred years so this must have been extraordinary. It's precisely because they are figure heads, that people trust them. If they were using their power every year then they'd be politicised, and people wouldn't trust them to always make the right call. However, if the Queen today stepped in and broke convention, dissolved the British parliament, and called a snap election it would be such an extraordinary event everyone would trust she must have had good reasons. Because we know she's been happy being a figurehead for 70 years, and would immediately return to being a figurehead, no one would think she's launching a coup.

    And despite having many more cases since, where the Government is in a minority in the Senate (and sometimes even in the House), and many more controversial policies, we've never had anyone even joke about another shutdown. Because the people in power know it's political suicide to try. And I'm confident other governments around the world look at the Australian response as well, if anyone in their party rooms suggests replicating the US tactic.

    This is a check and balance the United States could never implement with a Presidential model. Imagine the public response if Donald Trump had dissolved Congress during the shutdowns during his term. People would have branded him dictator, fascist, there probably would have been militias rising up. No one has as much faith in the President of the United States as they do in the Crown, Congress would have been rewarded for putting their own agendas ahead of the people, if the President intervened.

    And that's not because Americans are emotional or irrational. It's because they're right to be hostile to that kind of power. If a President was to dissolve Congress and get away with it, it's only a matter of time - perhaps many years, but inevitable - that future President's would start to abuse or overuse the power like they now do with executive orders and Presidential vetoes. Eventually whenever Congress did something the President didn't like they would just dissolve the Congress and get their way. The US would transition into an elected dictatorship.

    So the US has no access to the mechanisms Constitutional Monarchy has to maintain stability. It's the monarch having few powers, and very little agency to exercise those powers that makes the system so effective.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  2. Othniel

    Othniel Active Member Typist

    Posts:
    131
    Likes Received:
    73
    Country:
    Canada
    Religion:
    Christian
    I do not say that "it would be God's best," but rather that they were not breaking into unknown ground by demanding King. God graciously foresaw this desire and promised regulation generations beforehand.

    He also used the establishment of the monarchy and its eventual Davidic-dynastic line as the means to lead to the birth of the Saviour.
     
  3. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    This is news to me. Where in the world did you get the idea that the USA has had any "constitutional crises"? What sort of blathering nonsense does the MSM tell you folks in other countries about the US? As for shutdowns, that's simply short-term political posturing and not any big deal; effect on the citizens was rather minimal and the government employees basically got some paid days off.
     
  4. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Goodness, where to begin… We had a genuine constitutional crisis at the beginning of just this year. We also had one in 2000, and we came very close to having one in the early 1970s. Since we did not have a peaceful transfer of power this year, we have now failed Huntington’s Two Turnover Test and will need to have two peaceful transfers in a row to be plausibly democratic again. And, of course, there was the Civil War, the ultimate constitutional crisis, the effects of which are still with us. Government shutdowns are a big deal. When the government becomes inoperative, that is a critical system failure, and does damage throughout the economy while emboldening adversaries abroad. It’s never a good thing, and in parliamentary systems when that happens the government either must resign or call new elections. The U.S. is the only presidential system that hasn’t experienced regime collapse, yet.
     
    Othniel likes this.
  5. ZachT

    ZachT Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    498
    Likes Received:
    476
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    A government shutdown is, by definition, a constitutional crisis, at least in the way it conventionally happens. If Congress/Parliament voted to shutdown then I presume there'd be no constitutional tension (in most countries). Instead it happens by a failure to vote by a constitutionally imposed deadline. I don't know what the crisis was this year that Invictus is alluding to (the capitol building occupation? I probably wouldn't call that a constitutional crisis, but sure, it's not great), but there are plenty of other examples that don't involve the government shutting down.

    One I learned about many years ago so might have a few of the facts confused was "The Compromise of 1877", when the Democrats rigged several elections in southern states in response to reconstruction (I'm talking like 101% turnout elections in a optional vote, not like 2020 "it was rigged!"), so some southern GOP Governors refused to sign off on the election, and one northern Democratic governor refused to sign off theirs that voted for the GOP for some other reason. Eventually the GOP controlled Congress just formed their own Electoral Commission and decided Hayes won those states, so he won overall by 1 electoral college vote. That's a classic example of when only a monarch could be trusted to intervene in something that is highly partisan and emotional. Another obvious example of a crisis in the US, like Invictus highlights, is the civil war, but I don't know if even a monarchy could have prevented that. Perhaps there would have been less tension in the south if the head of state was not elected, but that wasn't the check and balance I detailed in my argument above.

    Shut downs are a massive deal if we think about the principles of representative democracy. Literally what is the job of a politician? What do we elect them to do? If they can't sort out the problems and find compromises so the country can keep functioning we should just do away with them all together and implement a direct democracy. Obviously the reason we elect representatives is because we recognise blindly following the electorates will is bad. Why does Congress slow itself down and waste time with debates? If the opinion of the country is divided, the whole point of the debate process is to find a solution to the countries problems, not to throw a tantrum and take the ball home.

    I struggle to accept that the effect on citizens is minimal to everyone, given a person's dependence on the state varies. For example, I read during your last shutdown that many Native American tribes negotiated consistent payments from the Federal Government in exchange for land. That means when the government shuts down, those payments stop, which does cut funding to essential services that would otherwise be exempt from the shutdown, like hospitals.

    All that is to say that even if it's a minor issue (and from a principled position I don't think it can be), this is a clear governance flaw in the US, and a flaw that demonstrably does not exist in constitutional monarchies, as evidenced by what happened when it was tried in Australia.
     
    Othniel and Invictus like this.
  6. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    I think, in principle, God is not agin' the idea of having a king, or even a queen, for that matter. After all Jesus is himself the king of them all. Queen Victoria once said her greatest ambition was to lay her crown at the feet of Jesus Christ.
    .
     
    Dave Kemp and Othniel like this.
  7. PDL

    PDL Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    839
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Church of England
    I stand by by original comment. No one has suffrage in the Vatican City. When the College of Cardinals meet in conclave to elect a pope they are doing so for the entity called the Holy See.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  8. PDL

    PDL Well-Known Member Anglican

    Posts:
    1,086
    Likes Received:
    839
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Religion:
    Church of England
    The USA does have checks and balances where all three branches of the federal government are equal. There is one very good reason that Donald Trump never dissolved Congress. That is because the US president simply does not have that power. It is probably as well because I am sure Donald Trump would not have baulked at dissolving Congress if he had the power and he thought it would service his purposes.
     
    Invictus likes this.
  9. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    I guess I don't see anything that has happened lately to have been of a great enough magnitude to qualify as a "crisis." IMO the word "crisis" is being watered down to encompass too many things. But, whatever.

    My understanding of "crisis" has been a condition of great instability that leads to a decisive change. The Civil War certainly qualifies, but that was more than 150 years ago. Government shutdowns induced by not passing a spending bill would not qualify as "great instability" or "decisive change" in any way, shape or form. What happened in January of this year could theoretically have become a crisis, but it did not; to call it a 'constitutional crisis' seems to imply that our Constitution was somehow in peril, but it was not.
     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2021
  10. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    I disagree. But then I guess that all depends on the definition of "crisis" one is employing.
     
    Rexlion likes this.
  11. Tiffy

    Tiffy Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    3,323
    Likes Received:
    1,626
    Country:
    UK
    Religion:
    CofE
    crisis = a crucial or decisive moment, a turning point, e.g. in a disease; a time of difficulty or distress; an emergency; [Gr krisis meaning to decide]
    .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 7, 2021
    Invictus likes this.
  12. Invictus

    Invictus Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,678
    Likes Received:
    1,484
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Then we've definitely had a few of those.
     
  13. Carolinian

    Carolinian Active Member Anglican

    Posts:
    172
    Likes Received:
    174
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian
    To me, the crisis already occurred, and we are just living in the fallout. At least for Europe and Western Christendom.
     

    Attached Files:

    Shane R likes this.
  14. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    Not exactly correct. The military and civilian contractors go unpaid during shut downs. The contractors do not work but the military does. It is a particularly arduous time because the military folk are tasked with the workload of the contractors and the Government Service employees (who do get back paid for the time off). I had my week of leave canceled during the first Obama era shutdown. We had planned a trip to the Gulf Coast. I was a fairly disgruntled individual for a couple of weeks.
     
    Invictus and Othniel like this.
  15. Rexlion

    Rexlion Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    4,188
    Likes Received:
    2,122
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Christian attending ACNA
    Military members don't get that back pay at all? Yikes!
     
  16. Shane R

    Shane R Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    1,138
    Likes Received:
    1,181
    Country:
    USA
    Religion:
    Anglican
    I didn't explain that well. We got back paid but we were the only ones working and the only ones forbidden to use paid leave days.
     
    Rexlion and Invictus like this.
  17. J_Jeanniton

    J_Jeanniton Member

    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    7
    ZachT, you said:
    Here is my answer: You claim that "It's precisely because they are figure heads, that people trust them." The truth is, the reasons you have given are political, pragmatical, and smack of worldly wisdom and human reason. However, I have yet other additional, but even more importantly, conscientious and devoutly religious objections against the quibble that the queen reigns but does not rule. The wisdom that reigning monarchs need in order to reign (if not also to govern) well is not merely human worldly wisdom and human reason, but divine, Christian, and devoutly religious and theologically, doctrinally, morally, and Scripturally sound and orthodoxical wisdom. It is a fundamental maxim of English common law that whatever is contrary to divine law is repugnant to the order of society and therefore null and void. I have produced a theorem to explain why the quibble that the king reigns but does not rule is untenable, but the theorem is too long to write down in such a short space. But the summary of my proof is: If all conditions each of which is necessary and the whole sum total of which is sufficient & actually efficient to guarantee the lawfulness and validity of the reigning monarch's reign and tenure of his sovereign royal title are met, then it doesn't make any difference what happens in the course of government afterwards, or what sort of policies parliament or the politicians choose to make and get the reigning king/queen to give his/her royal assent to. Thus if the proposed plea that "the queen reigns but does not rule" had been sufficient to make her reign lawful, well then her reign would have remained lawful even if the ministers/politicians and/or Parliament make a legislative or political decision or decree she knows is contrary to Divine Law – provided only that the constitutional limitations and stipulations on her reign are fully complied with. Her “decision” in this matter is either to comply with the advice of her ministers or overrule and veto it. If she complies, she is going against Divine law. If she refuses to comply, well then her ministers are no longer the ruling de facto power – she now is. But then it is now a de facto act of gynecocracy and petticoat government. So the end result must either be that the queen is guilty of being a lukewarm Laodicean half-hearted professed “Christian”, or else she has followed a multitude to do evil, or else she must reject the advice of her ministers and therefore overrule and veto her ministers and therefore commit a de facto act of gynecocracy: Thus by a reductio ad absurdum, it follows de jure Divino that every act of merely reigning (either as king/queen, or any other supposed monarchical title of “sovereignty”) is either ipso facto an act of having, holding, claiming, or seeking the right and liberty of ruling and governing, or else a heinous and fiendish violation of the Divine Law. Another devoutly religious reason I have against the quibble that the queen reigns but does not rule is because the possibility of such anti-scriptural acts of parliament is not just merely a logical or philosophical possibility or contingency. It has actually happened before, and it is still happening in England, even today.

    One such case is Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii and the Opium Lottery Bill. A while before the overthrow of the Sovereign Kingdom of Hawaii by Anglo-Saxon Yankee sugar barons and businessmen, it is well known that the Queen Liliuokalani gave her royal assent to a bill authorizing exactly the kind of opium and gambling licenses which demoralized her own native Polynesian “race” of Hawaii! Yet she used the very SAME excuse that many anti-suffragists have historically used, when questioned about the scandalous and unchristian opium/lottery bills. And here is how she tries to vindicate herself from the charges I am about to indict her withal: http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA381&dq=Liliuokalani opium license&ei=Q6K0TrvIG8aUtwfD0c3PAw&ct=book-thumbnail&id=QrTCvcy0sE4C&output=text:
    (Hawaii's Story by Hawaii's Queen.)

    The Catechism of the Church of England says MY DUTY ... IS ... TO KEEP MY BODY IN TEMPERANCE, SOBRIETY, AND CHASTITY! Every such opium/lottery bill violates this moral doctrine. It also involves gambling, which is a SIN against the 8th & 10th Commandments: THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! THOU SHALT NOT COVET! She knew as a professing Christian that those opium and lottery bills are contrary to the Christian virtue of sobriety. Yet she followed a multitude to do evil! ‘Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment: Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.’ – Exodus 23:1/3. ‘If sinners entice thee, consent thou not’ – Proverbs 1:10. Before she gave her royal assent to that Opium & Lottery bill, she had participated in an impromptu female prayer meeting. Many respectable women inhabitants of the city of Honolulu, especially of the Haole “race”, came to her in a body and BEGGED her to CEASE and DESIST from signing that evil and unchristian Opium Bill!

    https://books.google.com/books?pg=PA301&dq=Liliuokalani+prayed+to+God+for+strength&id=BgMbAAAAYAAJ#v=onepage&q=women&f=false:

    (Our Day: A Record and Review of Current Reform, Volume 11, pages 301, 302.) This very fact PROVES that she KNEW that the bill her “constitutional” advisers advised her to sign was wrong and unchristian and contrary to divine law. She cannot deny the charges against her.

    Yet Queen Liliuokalani used exactly the same plea that the queen reigns but does not rule in order to comply with the advice of her ministers to accept the very bill she KNEW as a Christian was wrong: and just for that, look what happened to the Kingdom of Hawaii! It did not protect the liberty, felicity, peace, and safety of the realm! On the contrary, it aroused the fierce implacable indignation of every Christian missionary and American and white man and woman on the island, which hastened the Revolution, which resulted ultimately in eventual annexation to the United States of America.

    Another case in point consists in a whole multitude of unchristian and anti-Scriptural statute laws of Parliament contrary to Divine Law since 1950: see http://www.prophecytoday.uk/comment/church-issues/itemlist/tag/laws.html.
    [And yet the queen CONTINUES to plead that she cannot act except in conformity to the advice of her ministers!!!]

    Neither Queen Liliuokalani of Hawaii nor Queen Elizabeth II of England can vindicate herself in point of divine law from these serious charges by pleading that she reigns but does not rule (and therefore she cannot act except on the advice of her ministers). Each of these two reigning queens herself KNEW that these laws were wrong! The plea that the Monarch cannot act except on the advice of her ministers has put a PREMIUM on all those politicians who pass ungodly and oppressive and subversive laws in torrents! See also
    http://www.cryaloud.com/faith_constitutional_freedom_our_destiny.htm, http://www.chr.org.au/books/understanding-our-christian-heritage-volume-one/page6.html for more information.
     
    Last edited: Nov 22, 2021
  18. Distraught Cat

    Distraught Cat Active Member

    Posts:
    138
    Likes Received:
    69
    Country:
    United States
    Religion:
    Christian
    Though I do not wish to make any declaration on the present circumstances in the United States, I urge you to be more careful when dealing with these topics; the internet is a hostile place.

    To wit, if you must express an opinion relevant to the subject of ethnicity, you need to take into account your own safety. There are a lot of crazy people out there, who are sadly much cleverer than are we when it comes to computers.
     
  19. J_Jeanniton

    J_Jeanniton Member

    Posts:
    86
    Likes Received:
    7
    I'm sorry if I have offended or insulted anybody of different ethnicity in the comments that I had made. All I desired to do is show not just that the plea that "the king reigns but does not rule" is merely untenable on the grounds of logic, but also that it is precisely such a plea of theirs (namely the king reigns but does not rule) is precisely one of the foundational reasons why at least one pious and religiously devout constitutional monarch, despite having sworn in her Coronation Oath, to rule justly according to Divine Law, the Christian faith, and the dictates of justice and mercy, continually gave her royal assent to parliamentary bills every theologically sound and orthodoxical Christian not infected with the heretical innovations of modernism, liberalism, and cultural relativism, knows are utterly repugnant to divine moral law. Unless I am convinced to the contrary on the grounds of doctrinally, orthodoxically, and hermeneutically sound Scripture proof, I will neither retract nor abjure any punctilio of all the evidence I have presented; nor yield one iota of the claims I have asserted in the proof of my Cardinal Theorem that every act of merely reigning (either as king/queen, or any other supposed monarchical title of “sovereignty”) is either ipso facto an act of having, holding, claiming, or seeking the right and liberty of ruling and governing, or else a heinous and fiendish violation of the Divine Law.

    For the full proof of my Cardinal Theorem, see https://forums.anglican.net/attachm...king-reigns-but-does-not-rule-rev-1-pdf.2041/.

    There is also another thing: John Knox, the founder of the Presbyterian CALVINIST sect, wrote a virulent and ferocious pamphlet called The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women: the cardinal thesis of which is precisely that that to allow (even on mere sufferance) for any woman or women, to hold or exercise civil and/or political rule & government or to reign over any kingdom, county, municipality, state, or city, is indeed repugnant to nature, contumely to God, a thing contrary to his revealed will and approved ordinance, and finally the subversion of good order, equity, and justice. In his utterly androcentric, if not male chauvinist, ethical system concerning the nature and relative rights, duties, liberties, and obligations of the sexes, he holds feminism and/or "petticoat government" to be one of the greatest and most fiendish cardinal sins.

    And thus, if my Cardinal Theorem is true, logically valid in both premises and conclusions, and doctrinally and Scripturally sound and orthodoxical, well then, if the cardinal thesis of John Knox's Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women is true, well then it follows from both my Cardinal Theorem and John Knox's cardinal thesis against "petticoat government", that:

    Corollary I: Much more then, under John Knox's Cardinal thesis of his First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, is despotic absolute monarchy forbidden to women to exercise, either as sovereigns, or as subordinate authoritative officers thereof!

    Corollary II: Nor will it be lawful for women to inherit the throne. Yea, not even the law of MOSES for the daughters of ZELOPHEHAD [Numb. xxvii. 7, and xxxvi. 11] by which daughters shall inherit the estate, goods, lands, monies, and chattels (real and/or personal) of their fathers in default of male issue of the father will ever justify or vindicate these daughters in inheriting the prerogative of bearing rule, superiority, dominion or empire above any realm, nation or city – not even the very realm, nation, or city over which their father or guardian or testator exercised rule, superiority, dominion or empire!

    For John Knox wisely and carefully observed in his First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women that nothing unlawful for women to exercise or practice under Divine or Natural Moral Law can be their lawful due or inheritance. Nor can it be lawful for her to transfer it or convey it to anyone else to exercise in her name.

    Corollary III: Nor will the long custom which hath received the Regiment of Women, the valiant acts and prosperity, together with some Papistical laws which have confirmed the same excuse them from this very guilt! A good reason why the long-standing customs and laws of men is also an inadmissible plea is because every custom that goes against manifest truth is no better than the antiquity of error. In fact, even the “roman catholics” themselves are FORCED against their will to confess this, for the Pope Pius XI declared ex cathedra and de fide that in Casti Connubii in 1930 that “No reason, however grave, may be put forward by which anything intrinsically against nature may become conformable to nature and morally good”.

    Corollary IV: Nor will it excuse them on the Day of Judgment to plead:

    (a) Item: That albeit Women may not absolutely reign by themselves (oh, but on the contrary, they may neither sit in judgment, neither pronounce sentence, neither execute any other public office): yet they shall do all such things by their Lieutenants, Deputies, and Judges substitutes.

    (b) Item: That a woman born to rule over any realm, may choose her a husband; and to him she shall transfer and give her authority and right.


    For from a polluted and venomed fountain, there cannot spring forth any pure and salubrious (=wholesome) water. Nunquam Licet – Nunquam Licuit – Nunquam Licebit – it always IS, WAS, and will always CONTINUE to be unlawful – for any man to grant or delegate the thing which does not justly appertain unto himself! Therefore these titular reigning queens cannot hope to vindicate themselves from this crime by transferring the throne to their husbands on pretext of dowry and coverture.

    Corollary V: It is not just merely logically inconsistent, but also Pharisaical hypocrisy, to campaign against woman suffrage (or against women civil magistrates) in the State and in political and legal affairs and yet favor female succession to the sovereign throne. For the opposition to woman suffrage is usually based on the principle of the subordination of the FEMALE sex to the MALE sex. If it is not scripturally permissible for women to vote, well then, neither is it scripturally permissible for women to hold public office. Every ultraconservative knows that! But this is precisely the essence of the Cardinal Thesis of the First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women.
     
  20. Botolph

    Botolph Well-Known Member

    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    2,529
    Country:
    Australia
    Religion:
    Anglican
    At this point I think it is fair to note that more than a little of the motivation for Knox writing The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regiment of Women may well have something to do with his political opposition to Mary I who was not simply a woman but also a Catholic.

    As it so happens this has been found wanting, women can and do vote, and it seems not to be the annulment of the Divine Order. There is undoubtedly a Patriarchal Flavour to the narrative of Holy Scripture, given that it came to birth within a Patriarchal Society and Tradition that is hardly surprising, however it should also be noted that counter to this there is a Holy Scripture a surprising egalitarian thread which can also be discerned. Clearly there are examples to be found in the Genesis 1 account of creation, in the discussion with the woman of Samaria and John 4, and in the Gospel accounts of the first Resurrection appearances.

    Knox's primary intent in the publication was an attempt to destabilise the reigns of both Mary in Scotland and Elizabeth in England.

    To suggest that this work should be received here as an authority for the prevailing conditions of our day seems to my mind folly. The entire document is of historic value only.
     
    Invictus likes this.