Faith and Reason : Democracy

Faith and Reason : Look #1 Democracy

In science we are supposed to look at the world in a reasonable way. We take rational evidence for the support of an item, and take a hard look at the suggestions of others in terms of improving experiments or possibly discrediting our own ideas. Yet when faith and reason is applied to governmental systems it seems more and more like people have been living in a faith based government instead of one based on reason.

Foundations
How a democracy forms has some meaning in its future functions. Thats not to say that democracies can not change, this is to mention that democracies are usually formed under some kind of pretense, a revolution, a toppling, or possibly a need of change. For the most part however a small number of individuals will find a larger issue in a government which they currently live in.

• With in the United States this was wealthier individuals, or the ones with higher stakes or money to earn.
• In France it was people losing out to poor economic conditions set forth, having an effect on a higher class of individual pushing them to action.
• Iraq was formed (Democracy and formerly) out of the pretensions of a few people for a large amount.

By looking at this we can find a lot of faith with in the starts of a revolution. For example almost every reason for fighting a war is usually a play on some rational thought. People can look at it, and expierment. There are NO foul proof rational thoughts though, people in the US choose on faith to support the US, British, or None of the above. When this happened it was a subjective understanding of rational thought; this has no position in true science. As its either fact or its not fact, and if its not fact then its simply a act of faith which those who fight put their ideals in.

Advancing from Revolutionary Ideas

Since faith changes with the ideals of the generations do ideas of founders still hold true, or should they be held true? In a simple sense no they shouldn't hold true, the ideas should change to relatively adopt to the times. Nothing is perfect and for the most part due to a faith based government individuals need to live in the ways which it has evolved. In a rational environment this would still hold true. As times advanced individuals could reasonably look at the ideas behind their own government and determine if it was still logical or not. This is a manner of experimenting with laws and other items in order to, 'Get government right.' The line though is drawn at the subjective and objective realm.

Changing core ideals
And or modifying the constitution.

The fact that most constitutions can be modified shows that society is ruled by a concept of rationalism and faith. For one thing a rationalist can see that people are expiernmenting with the ideas of society and fitting them where they need be. Faith wise people are putting ideals where they 'feel' right to their own morals etc. This however becomes clouded and puts the majority of democracies at risk. Modern systems of governments even with checks and balances fail to take a truly rationalist approach to the ruling of a nation. Instead the parties of all major nations look at the world in a manner which is almost purely subjective. "How will this make ME, and my district feel?" "How will this affect MY poll numbers?" Yet even looking at this from a purely rationalistic view point shows that a democratic government is always in transition and can never stop changing. With faith in it however it can never be made into a true rationalist democracy because individuals will still look at it through a tainted perspective.

Pros/Cons of Rationalist Democracy
Pros

• Always changing to fit the logical needs of a society.
• Able to fit practical data into the system in order to meet the need of society, world affairs
• Data as is.

Cons

• A tendency to constantly play with things that may not be broken in order to find little flaws in the system.
• Above leads to faith based problems.
• Repeat!

Pros/Cons of Faith Democracy
Pros

• Ability to adjust the best to the needs of the people.
• Feeling is chief, allowing for a quick response and no need for imperical data, in some means this is good, in wartime etc.
  

Cons

• Unable to adjust to the larger demands of the people, looks only at the personal ramifications.
• No need to take data as is, always looking for ways to spin it towards their causes.