The Separation between State and Religion

In time we will realize that Democracy is the entitlement of individuals to every right that was in its times alloted to kings. The right to speak and decide, to be treated with decency, to serve and be served by people in a State of “love” that is, to serve with one’s work for the development of ‘life’. To belong to the Kingdom of Human Beings without racial, national, social or academic separations. To love and be loved. To die at the service of the whole and be honored in one’s death, for one’s life and work was legitimately valued. To be graceful and grateful. To have the pride and the humility of being One with the Universe, One with every realm of Existence, One with every living and deceased soul. To treat with dignity and be treated with dignity for One is dignified together with All others and Life itself. To walk the path of compassion, not in the sorrow of guilt but in the pride of being. To take responsability for one’s mistakes and sufferings and stand up again and again like a hero and a heroine and face the struggle that is put at one’s feet and in one’s hands. Millions of people, millions and millions of people might take many generations to realize the consciousness of our humaneness but there is no other dignified path for the human being.

The “work” as I conceive it is psychological and political. Psychology is the connection between the different dimensions within one’s self and Politics is the actualization of that consciousness in our practical lives. Religion is the ceremony that binds the connectedness between the individual and the Universe. The separation between religion, politics and science, the arts and sports is, in the sphere of the social, the reflection of the schizophrenia within the individual and the masses. The dialogue between individuality and the "human" belongs to consciousness. The tendency to develop cults resides in the shortcomings we’are finding in life as it is structured today. “Life” has become the private property of a few priviledged who cannot profit from it because as soon as it is appropriated it stops to be “life” or “life-giving”.

We are all the victims of our own invention and each one is called upon to find solutions. The only problem is believing our selves incapable of finding them. We are now free to use all Systems of knowledge objectively, sharing them without imposing our will on each other. To become objective about our lives means to understand that the institutions that govern its experience are critically important. That we are one with the governments, one with the religious activities that mark its pace, that the arena’s in which we move our bodies and the laboratories in which we explore our possibilities are ALL part and parcel of our own personal responsibility. That WE ARE ONE WITH EACH OTHER AND EVERYTHING AROUND US and acknowledge for ourselves a bond of love in conscious responsibility. That we human beings know ourselves part of each other and are willing and able to act on our behalf for the benefit of each and every individual. That we no longer allow governments, industries, universities or any other institution to run along unchecked by the objective principles of humaneness. That we do not allow gurus to abuse their power or governors to steal the taxes and use them to their personal advantage in detriment of the whole. That we do not allow abuse from anyone anywhere because life is too beautiful to do so and that we are willing to stop the rampant crime with the necessary compassion Conscious knowledge is every individual's right. Conscious action is every individual's duty.

Blog Archive

Wednesday 20 October 2010

Dictator


I'm compiling the necessary material for the understanding of the History of the Soul! or the Soul of History. 


We must connect our spiritual reality with our external social realities and stop trying to avoid the facts as actual expressions of the state of our consciousness as human beings. 

Kings and dictators express phases of our consciousness as well as capitalism, communism or democracy. We live in these phases individually and socially and there's a permanent shift in consciousness in the interaction between society and the individual, the individual and society. 


Dictator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Question book-new.svg
This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(July 2008)

Contents

 [hide]
For the ancient Roman title, see Roman dictator.
A dictator is a ruler (e.g. absolutist or autocratic) who assumes sole and absolute power (sometimes but not always with military control) but without hereditary ascension such as anabsolute monarch.[1] When other states call the head of state of a particular state a dictator, that state is called a dictatorship. The word originated as the title of a magistrate in ancient Romeappointed by the Senate to rule the republic in times of emergency (see Roman dictator andjustitium).[2]
Like the term "tyrant" (which was originally a respectable Ancient Greek title), and to a lesser degree "autocrat", "dictator" came to be used almost exclusively as a non-titular term for oppressive, even abusive rule, yet had rare modern titular uses.[citation needed]
In modern usage, the term "dictator" is generally used to describe a leader who holds and/or abuses an extraordinary amount of personal power, especially the power to make laws without effective restraint by a legislative assembly[citation needed]. Dictatorships are often characterized by some of the following traits: suspension of elections and of civil liberties; proclamation of a state of emergency; rule by decree; repression of political opponents without abiding by rule of law procedures; these include single-party state, and cult of personality.[citation needed]
The term "dictator" is comparable to, but not synonymous with, the ancient concept of a tyrant; initially "tyrant", like "dictator", did not carry negative connotations. A wide variety of leaders coming to power in a number of different kinds of regimes, such as military juntas,single-party states and civilian governments under personal rule, have been described as dictators. For example, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Kim Jong-il.

[edit]Roman origin

Main article: Roman Dictator
In the Roman Republic the term "Dictator" did not have the negative meaning it has later assumed. Rather, a Dictator was a person given sole power (unlike the normal Roman republican practice,where rule was divided between two equal Consuls) for a specific limited period, in order to deal with an emergency. At the end of his term, the Dictator was supposed to hand power over to the normal Consular rule and give account of his actions - and Roman Dictators usually did.
The term started to get its modern negative meaning with Julius Caesar making himself a Dictator without a set limit to his term, and keeping the title until his assassination.

[edit]Garibaldi as a positive dictator

Still, even in the 19th Century, the term "Dictator" did not always have negative connotations. For example, the Italian revolutionaryGaribaldi, during his famous Expedition of the Thousand in 1860, proclaimed himself "Dictator of Sicily", which did not prevent him from being extremely popular in Italian and international public opinion. His usage of the term was clearly derived from the original Roman sense - i.e., a person taking power for a limited time in order to deal with an emergency (in this case, the need to unite Italy) and with the task done Garibaldi handed over power to the government of Victor Emmanuel II of Italy.
Garibaldi's case was, however, an exception. In general, the term "dictator" came to be a negative term, not a title used by rulers to call themselves but a term used by the foes of an oppressive ruler. Such was the case with Maximillien Robespierre, whose supporters knew him as "The Incorruptible", while his opponents called him "dictateur sanguinaire", French for "bloodthirsty dictator".

[edit]Modern era

In popular usage in western nations, "dictatorship" is often associated with brutality and oppression. As a result, it is often also used as a term of abuse for political opponents, for example, Henry Clay's dominance in United States Congress—first as Speaker of the House and later as a member of the Senate—led to his nickname, "the Dictator."[citation needed] The term has also come to be associated withmegalomania. Many dictators create a cult of personality and have come to favor increasingly grandiloquent titles and honours for themselves. For instance, Idi Amin Dada, who had been a British army lieutenant prior to Uganda's independence from Britain in October 1962, subsequently styled himself as "His Excellency President for Life Field Marshal Al Hadji Dr. Idi Amin, VC, DSO, MC, Lord of All the Beasts of the Earth and Fishes of the Sea and Conqueror of the British Empire in Africa in General and Uganda in Particular".[citation needed]In the movie "The Great Dictator" (1940), Charlie Chaplin satirized not only Adolf Hitler but the institution of dictatorship itself.
The association between the dictator and the military is a common one; many dictators take great pains to emphasize their connections with the military and often wear military uniforms. In some cases, this is perfectly legitimate; Francisco Franco was a lieutenant general in the Spanish Army before he became Chief of State of Spain; Manuel Noriega was officially commander of the Panamanian Defense Forces. In other cases, the association is mere pretense.

[edit]Modern use in formal titles

Because of the negative associations, modern leaders very rarely (if ever) use the term in their formal titles. In the 19th century, however, official use was more common.

[edit]Dictator (plain)

  • Italy
    • In the former doge-state Venice, while a republic resisting annexation by either the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia or the Austrian empire, a former Chief Executive (president, 23 March 1848 – 5 July 1848), Daniele Manin (b. 1804 - d. 1857), was styled Dictator 11–13 August 1848 before joining the 13 August 1848 - 7 March 1849 Triumvirate.[citation needed]
  • Philippines
    • Emilio Aguinaldo, the last President of the Supreme Government Council 23 March 1897 - 16 December 1897 and chairman of the Revolutionary Government from 23 June to 1 November 1897, was dictator from 12 June 1898 - 23 January.[3]
  • Poland
    • Józef Chlopicki was styled Dictator from 5 December 1830 - December 1830 and again in December 1830 - 25 January 1831
    • Jan Tyssowski was Dictator from 24 February 1846 - 2 March 1846.
    • Ludwik Mierosławski was Dictator from 22 January 1863 - 10 March 1863
    • Marian Langiewicz was Dictator from 10 March 1863 - 19 March 1863
    • An Executive Dictatorial Commission of three members existed from 19 March 1863 - 20 March 1863
    • Romuald Traugutt was Dictator from 17 October 1863 - 10 April 1864
  • Russia during the Civil War

[edit]Compound and derived titles

  • Dictator President, twice in modern Colombia:
    • In Antioquia, 30 July 1813 to 1 or 5 March 1814: Juan Bautista Antonio María del Corral y Alonso Carriazo; continued to 7 April 1814 as one of the Presidents of the State (27 July 1811 - July 1815)
    • In Cartagena de Indias (after Presidents of the Supreme Junta of Government since 13 August 1810, even before the 11 November 1811 declaration of Independence as Province of Cartagena de Indias, 21 January 1812 restyled State of Cartagena de Indias; and since 21 January 1812 one of them, José María del Real e Hidalgo (d. 1835)), as Governor President of the State), 1 April 1812 - 4 October 1812: Manuel Rodríguez Torices (b. 1788 - d. 1816)
  • cf. supra (Poland) 19 March 1863 - 20 March 1863 Executive Dictatorial Commission of three members *
  • In Paraguay, in a procession of generally short-lived juntas, the last of the Consuls of the Republic in power, two Consuls alternating in power every 4 months, 12 June 1814 - 3 October 1814 José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia (2nd time), succeeded himself as the only ever Supreme Dictator 3 October 1814 - 20 September 1840 - from 6 June 1816 he was styled Perpetual Supreme Dictator
  • Prodittatore (plural: Prodittatori) was the title of the governors appointed in Sicily after Garibaldi's conquest of the island (11 May 1860) till shortly before the 12 December 1860 annexation to the Savoy dynasty's Kingdom of Sardinia:
    • 23 July - September 17, 1860 Agostino Depretis (b. 1813 - d. 1887)
    • 17 - end September 1860 Antonio Mordini (b. 1819 - d. 1902)

[edit]"The benevolent dictator"

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged andremoved. (December 2007)
The benevolent dictator is a more modern version of the classical “enlightened despot”, being an absolute ruler who exercises his or her political power for the benefit of the people rather than exclusively for his or her own benefit. Like many political classifications, this term suffers from its inherent subjectivity. Such leaders as Napoleon Bonaparte, Anwar Sadat, Alfredo Stroessner, Kenneth Kaunda, Józef Piłsudski, Ion Antonescu, Miklós Horthy, Deng Xiaoping, Omar Torrijos, Park Chung-hee and Sukarno have been characterized by their supporters as benevolent dictators. In Spanish, the word dictablanda is sometimes used for a dictatorship conserving some of the liberties and mechanisms of democracy. (The pun is that, in Spanish, dictadura is “dictatorship”, dura is “hard” and blanda is “soft”). Some examples include Yugoslavia under Josip Broz Tito or Spain under Francisco Franco. This contrasts with democradura (literally “hard democracy”), characterized by full formal democracy alongside limitations on constitutional freedoms and human rights abuses, frequently within the context of a civil conflict or the existence of an insurgency. Governments in Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Eritrea, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela have at various times been considered such régimes by different critics and opposition groups, not necessarily with an academic or political consensus about the application of the term emerging.

[edit]Dictators in game theory

In social choice theory, the notion of a dictator is formally defined as a person who can achieve any feasible social outcome he/she wishes. The formal definition yields an interesting distinction between two different types of dictators.
  • The strong dictator has, for any social goal he/she has in mind (e.g. raise taxes, having someone killed, etc.), a definite way of achieving that goal. This can be seen as having explicit absolute power, like Sulla.
  • The weak dictator has, for any social goal he/she has in mind, and for any political scenario, a course of action that would bring about the desired goal. For the weak dictator, it is usually not enough to "give their orders", rather he/she has to manipulate the political scene appropriately. This means that the weak dictator might actually be lurking in the shadows, working within a political setup that seems to be non-dictatorial. An example of such a figure is Lorenzo the Magnificent, who controlled Renaissance Florence.
Note that these definitions disregard some alleged dictators, e.g. Benito Mussolini, who are not interested in the actual achieving of social goals, as much as in propaganda and controlling public opinion. Monarchs and military dictators are also excluded from these definitions, because their rule relies on the consent of other political powers (the barons or the army).

[edit]See also

[edit]References

  1. ^ "dictator - Definitions from Dictionary.com". reference.com. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  2. ^ "dictator - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2008-08-01.
  3. ^ Philippine Legislature:100 Years, Cesar Pobre

[edit]External links

Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)