[walford]

"Such concepts as to whether the Almighty has a name that we can besmirch is a presumptive leap."

I disagree, what if God doesn't care? After all, if God doesn't talk to individual humans reveling Himself and giving them instructions from time to time it's fair to assume He is indifferent to what we do; in His name or otherwise.

It is indeed possible that the Almighty is is not offended if a human being takes a term/concept that another human being coined in vain. That certainly does not mean that the Almighty 'doesn't care.' It means that the constructs we create to apprehend the infinite may indeed have no Divine importance.

And it most certainly is NOT fair to assume that the Almighty is indifferent to what we do if none are Chosen to impose their political will upon others by violence and purport it as Divine. We may have to be humble enough to accept that these 'instructions' we are given may not be what we think they are. I may be so bold as to say that Muhammed may have been just a man who came from the desert in a delerium that others decided was a Calling -- and that untold thousands have since been slaughtered for nothing.

But then I'm the Infidel. What do I know?

protestants by and large also believed in the idea of Divine Right. Thats why they had Kings and Princes too.

Whether intended by the original founders or not [remember Martin Luther did NOT advocate an alternate Church, but to reform the Catholic Church back toward Jesus of Nazareth's original teachings], the Reformation precipitated a fundamental questioning of ALL authority structures -- secular and religious. The genie was thus then out of the bottle and could never be put back again.

Your understanding of history is crippled by an anachronistic ideology.

Or perhaps I hold a point of view that you find disagreeable and you're crippled by your arrogance.

BTW arguing a teleological development of modern democracy also has dogmatic undertones since it would have to be dictated by nature/God.

I am arguing no such thing. I am certainly not saying that limited representative government was the end-result of of a Grand Plan of which dismantling the feudal system was a predesignated stage. That was Marx's argument toward mankind's inevitable progression toward communism directed by Hegel's World Spirit. And we all know how well THAT turned out.

There is no progression to history; it ebbs and flows. Civilizations rise and fall. If anything, the implementation of modern democracy can arguably be shown as having been put into place at least a millenium later than it could have been -- having been abandoned in favor of centuries-long dogmatism and darkness.

What I am saying is that once the falsity of Divine Right was unmasked, it was only a matter of time for people to demand that their leadership be subject to a popular mandate. The crowns were no longer seen as frozen halos, but man-made trinkets which symbolized nothing more than exploitation and largesse.

The founding of the United States demonstrated to the world that it was indeed possible to have limited representative government -- previously only a theoretical concept -- and for it not to degenerate into mob rule. Thus, others wanted it as well and it spread.

[BarbaricGrandeur]

And it most certainly is NOT fair to assume that the Almighty is indifferent to what we do if none are Chosen to impose their political will upon others by violence and purport it as Divine.

All legitimate authority by definition has to come from God according to the Judeo-Christian understanding of God ergo Divine Right as postulated by St. Thomas Aquinas. If one does not receive his authority to rule from God he has none, period.

And it most certainly is NOT fair to assume that the Almighty is indifferent to what we do if none are Chosen to impose their political will upon others by violence and purport it as Divine.

Why? Why is it not fair? Were you given some insight into the way the mind of God works?

If anything, the implementation of modern democracy can arguably be shown as having been put into place at least a millennium later than it could have been -- having been abandoned in favor of centuries-long dogmatism and darkness.

This is something I've been saying for years. Modern civilization since the Renaissance has been nothing but a milksopish copy of ancient pagan civilization. Full of weak-kneed mass conformity and pockmarked with diabolical inhumanity. Say what you will about Dogmatism and Orthodoxy, they at least can ONLY go so far. There is no limit to the evil of man acting in the name of his own divinity.

The crowns were no longer seen as frozen halos, but man-made trinkets which symbolized nothing more than exploitation and largesse.

Do you even know what the word "largesse" means? In any case if you want to believe that modern political parties and ideologies don't "exploit" then we might as well end this conversation now.