What is the difference between a ruler/king/queen/president leading a country by MORAL standards and a ruler/king/queen/president leading by a RELIGIOUS standard?
Or is there a difference at all? Do they amount to the same thing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Ruling by moral standards sort of mean that you are ruling by ways that are right and can help your people. Most of the time when people rule by religion they are forcing people to follow a certain religion that they may not believe in. They use fear and threats to get people to follow their ways and dont really care if they are helping their people as long as they are helping themselves. Ruling by moral will usually get you more followers because people feel safe with you as a leader because you believe in doing what is right.
MOTB,
you're even talking like Machiavelli now. Bravo!
I agree with Ashton when she says that when people "try" to rule by religion the rulers are mostly forcing people to follow a religion that (in most cases) a majority of the people don't believe in. Therefore the rulers must force people to obey the religious laws they have set. Whereas rulers who base their laws on morals tend to get a more positive response from the people because most of the people have been taught and have followed their own morals since they were very young.
I love it when people agree with me!! I didnt even realize I sounded so smart. See... I really do listen during class!!!!
I really don't think there is a difference unless the leader has no religion at all. But most people do get there moral standards from their religion so i dont think there is a difference
In some places there is a difference and in others there isn't. Like if the President of the United States were to rule by a religous standard, then there would be many opposers to his rule. This would happen because America consists of a variety of religions ad is not dominated by one. On the other hand, if we were in Afghanistan, where I think the Muslims are and they dominate in religion at about 95%, the country could get by with a religous ruler.
They don't amount to the same thing because there will always be opposers to a certain rule.
When a ruler rules his country by moral standards, people's actions are judged by what the ruler decides is good and by what he decides is bad. This is effective as long as the ruler's subjects are not afraid of death or have another cause pushing them, such as hunger or poverty.
On the other hand, if a ruler were to use religion as a basis for the laws of their goverment, the subjects of the ruler would not be judged by the ruler's morals, but instead be judged by a much higher authority than the ruler. I personally believe that this is a much more effective method to rule a country, because not only would your subjects lose their freedom or lives because of their crimes, they would also lose their soul in the eyes of their god(s).
I believe that if a ruler rules by moral standard then thay could only be leading them selves since probably no one else has those morals. Also morals can become corrupt. If a ruler leads by relgion then they could have some followers and be leadin also religion usually doesnt become corrupt.
I do agree with what everyone else has said. Most morals.. well, good morals, are the same as some religious beliefs. Then again, people tend to shy away from religious ruling because its as if whoever's leading is trying to pull everyone into their own beliefs with fear and threats. Moral ruling seems to be more free, I guess? Like people said above me, moral ruling seems to have more of a positive impact than religious ruling.
Religion i think of more as something you believe in and try to influence others to believe in that. So religion I think effects leaders a lot especially if they don't have the same one as the people they govern because they're then sometimes trying to change their minds to believe something else. When morals is what you think is right and wrong and what you were taught growing up. Yes, I think it probably influences the leader as well but i'm not sure whether your religion or morals may affect the way you rule your people more. Either way you should be able to stick with what you believe and not be influenced by what your ruler thinks and believes.
Yes. I do believe they is a big difference between Kings(Queens),and presidents. For one a King or Queen in the 16,17,and 18 centery has a lot more power than the president of the U.S.A. does. In the U.S.A. we have checks and balances ,and back then what Kings or Queens said when. Like the president can seened men to fight but congress says if we go to war or not. If we don't go to war than the president has to get the men out in 60 days or less. Back then the Kings or Queens said we where going to war and that was finally.
Yes i think that religion would have an effect. because it would influence as to what they may decide on a important mader and that judgement with effect everyone around then and the country as a whole!
Post a Comment