Peterkin

....although... it doesn't actually happen, except to the promulgators of the belief.

You wouldn't. So you probably don't. That shouldn't be a problem, either for you of the church you don't go to. Why people who go to churches do so is between them and their gods. I can't and wouldn't if I could. There are too many of us walking like zombies already; we sure don't need the ranks swelled by actual zombies. No. They teach quite different things.

It's nice to see you bring an open, inquiring mind to the subject. No, that's not how it works. Jesus was neither reborn nor born again (two different theological concepts, incidentally) ; he rose up from death in order to deliver his final message and give his troops their marching orders, as it were, before ascending to his rightful post-mortal home in Heaven. He invited the Jewish people to believe in him and follow him there - a very new idea to his contemporaries and widely rejected. It was taken up by other peoples, however, as the apostles travelled abroad, preaching their gospel. In some places, it took more readily than in others - depending on the cultural norms, tolerance level of governments, degree of dissaffection and disillusion with the prevailing religion. Most if not all of these territories were under Roman control, and the Roman policy was generally to let the natives worship however they liked, as long as they paid their tithes and didn't revolt. The "born again" idea is about baptism. Basically, it means that the converted individual renounces the tribe into which he was born and dedicated himself to the tribe of Christians. The ritual was adapted from an ancient Jewish custom of purification - washing of sins - which was performed also on Jesus, by his forerunner, a bush preacher called John the Baptist. And your problem is...?

Nor was it intended to be, not even in 1932. The quote from which the ironic title is derived was new in 1611, when The Tempest was first performed.

- What it should mean, everywhere, is that the interest of every citizen, regardless of their station in life or the esteem in which their society holds them, is represented in the administration of the government, in the application of its laws, in the rendering of social services, in access to resources and infrastructure, in rights and responsibilities and contribution. The means and methods and mechanisms may vary, but the principle shouldn't. - Division of powers. - The judiciary should not be political, either through election or appointment. - The house of direct representatives should be independent of the party affiliation of any other tier of government, both national and regional - preferably free of all party affiliation, period. - The house of representatives should elect from among its own ranks the chief administrator - who should command the armed forces to act only at the (duly advised, debated and decided by open vote) behest of the representatives. - The senate or its equivalent, which represents regional/vested/group interests should be elected independently from the lower house. - Absolute separation of church and state: an entirely secular state. - Barring of all monetary interest from the selection and election of candidates for offices, and from all official government decisions, including the appointment of government agency directors. - Independent public broadcast media to inform the people of the activities of their representatives, and during elections, the policy platforms, programs, schedules, speeches and voting records of all candidates. (alongside the uncensored private commercial media, which is not allowed to carry political advertising) I will add here the later innovations of democratic governments: - Universal franchise and state guaranteed access of all citizens to their voting rights. - Universal and unrestricted access to legal recourse for all citizens and residents; equal protection under the law. - Anti-trust and regulatory legislation to control the concentration of wealth and influence. - Federally enforced - and if necessary, funded - standard of education and child welfare. Not sure that's sufficiently comprehensive, but I'd happy with that much for the moment.

I thought I had; don't know what aspects of the subject I neglected, but am willing to try to colour in any blank bits. For particular issues, it might be more productive to address them with direct questions regarding the details in which you are especially interested. I have no Google Earth map in my head for every hillock and fjord of democracy, but I have a fairly comprehensive rough diagram of its outlines. Excellent line!!

That would have been more intriguating.

Really? And is it?

Like I said. Like we did in Canada c. 1947-72. Like they did in France, Holland, England, Sweden, Germany, etc... through the same approximate period of relatively clean democratic governance. Even the US made considerable progress in that period - in civil rights, in expansion of the franchise, labour unions, education, social services, women's rights and the general level of tolerance and civility. I say even the US, not because I think the progressive factions there are weaker than in other countries, but because the forces they're up against are so much stronger. I said that, too. Okay. There goes the "should" portion of the question. The "is" portion remains a fatally flawed work in progress. Democracy.

No - and this is why I asked the off-topic questions - because I don't believe there is any balance, nor has been since the advent of city-states and empires. If inequality of power, land ownership, economic clout, legal and/or cultural influence is built into a system at its inception, there are only four ways that hereditary privilege is disrupted: ecological disaster, conquest from outside, violent popular revolution or a technological/industrial revolution. The latter throws up a new privileged class, treads down a new or enlarged underclass, but doesn't achieve any kind of balance or fundamentally change the structure of the society. How they should adjust is through democratic process. The people see their own interests threatened by entrenched privilege and keep voting for government that enact regulation, levy graduated taxes, limit the lending rates, protect minority and worker's rights, ensure fair and equitable law enforcement and provide public services to those in need, etc. Uncorrupted democracy tends inexorably toward socialist policies. However, so long as moneyed interests are vested in the electoral process and in governance itself, all such efforts are periodically - invariably! - derailed before anything like equity can be achieved. Stop making bogus wars on lucrative little countries under the guise of spreading democracy. Leave other peoples work out what sort of government works for them.

If you know that, perhaps you also know its definition.

At what points in time, in which civilization, and for length of time, did those scale tip in favour of the peasantry? The subject peoples in an empire? An ethnic or religious minority trapped inside the newly-drawn borders of a newly-enlarged nation? How do those weights "adjust'? It might have been. It should have been. But it hasn't. In fact: https://apps.urban.org/features/wealth-inequality-charts/ And as wealth goes, so goes political power, most especially in capitalist countries where all politics are intensely money-powered. Also, incidentally, in purpose-built nations where capitalist/military patronage buys elections for its pet democracies.

What, please means "intricating"?

In what particulars(s)?

Yes. The safety and privacy of your communications, health records and bank transactions cannot be guaranteed: somebody even more clever, at this very moment, is working out how to hack the safeguards that were installed two hours ago. Voting, in particular, is vulnerable to abuses. https://alumni.umich.edu/michigan-alum/hacking-the-vote/ So is your personal PC, phone or tablet. It sounds like a good idea, but as long somebody has great wealth or power to gain, there is abuse, and thechno-minions to facilitate it.

You can put me down any way you like. What I am in theory is anarcho-communist - in the original sense of communal, or tribal governance, with wide latitude for individual freedom. In modern practice, I'm a liberal socialist; I vote for the platform closest to my favoured agenda, within the confines of a very imperfect party system in a very imperfect first-past-the-post election format. Of course I would prefer to participate in consensus decision-making, rather than dictate to others how they should live or have anyone in authority dictate to me. Yes, a rational form of government would put the competent and cool team leaders in charge of energy production, vaccine distribution, school-building and disaster relief, because the Brownies and Betsies have not been doing a heckuva job. The very few people I know well just want to be left alone to do their art or science or fixing cars or growing blueberries, while somebody else makes sure the showers are hot and the beer is cold and there's corn flakes on the grocery store shelf. They don't want to spend their life pulling administrative strings or ordering anybody around. It seems reasonable to me to share labour and responsibility, as well as assets and knowledge.

Is that what you really desire? Because you're definitely not speaking for me.

No, it certainly doesn't sound like any definition of democracy I ever heard. "total control all by themselves" - of what - everything? Law, commerce, health & welfare, employment, civil rights, environment, natural resources, national security, policing, jurisprudence and corrections, public safety, infrastructure, education, agriculture, energy.... I don't think most people would want to be in sole control of all that. It's way too much work that we're not qualified for, and way too much responsibility, even if we were. I have a lot of trouble with the alternative, as well, but I'm more inclined to believe that many people (probably not the majority, though) are willing to place their faith in some heroic individual they've chose to follow. Many people are that gullible. And that ready to shove their fellow citizens out of the decision-making process.

I don't know that they should prefer democracy. If they do prefer it to whatever form of government they have, I know what I think it should be, but I can't tell what people of another culture would think it should be; they may have a quite different attitude, different priorities. Any form of government works, as long as its rules are both known and adhered to by a solid majority of the participants, both in leadership positions and the polity. No form of government works equally well for all of those participants. Why I prefer democracy is that - according my criteria - it works better for a larger portion of the population than any other system that I know of from recorded history, and further contains the mechanism of its adjustment and improvement. Appropriate guardrails... Now, that really is a tall order! I know some of the safeguards I would like installed: 1. Actual, rather than nominal division of powers. The judiciary should not be political, either through election or appointment. The house of direct representatives (parliament or congress or bundesteg or national assembly) should be independent of the party affiliation of any other tier of government, both national and regional - preferably free of all party affiliation, period. It should elect from among its own ranks, the chief administrator, who should command the armed forces to act only at the (duly advised, debated and decided by open vote) behest of the representatives. The senate or its equivalent, which represents regional/vested/group interests should be elected independently from the lower house. 2. Real, rather than nominal, separation of church and state: an entirely secular state. 3. The barring of all monetary interest from the selection and election of candidates for offices, and from all official government decisions, including the appointment of government agency directors. 4. Independent public broadcast media to inform the people of the activities of their representatives, and during elections, the policy platforms, programs, schedules, speeches and voting records of all candidates. And also that, Yes!

Oh, I see. It was purely about the selection of leaders. In the UK, they also have a parliament, political parties and elections, not unlike the US. That system gave them Boris Johnson. It seems to me that both methods fall somewhat short in quality control, but at least they have a back-up. I'm ready to move on now.

Go! Have at the royal spawn!

What it does mean in each country is a product of that country's history. No nation-state, including the USA, which puff-prides itself on the pretense, invented itself from a clean slate on a principle. Modern nations are more like ancient houses, many times damaged by fire and war and flood, patched up, renovated, added-on, adapted over many generations. Their forms of government contain all of that history, as do their laws and cultures and social strata. It's fashionable in the 20th+ century to call one's form of government democratic, whether it actually involves the majority of the population or not: formulas are observed, speeches are made, assemblies are held, motions are gone-through. As long as the theory and form exist, there is a potential for reform in the direction of true democracy. What it should mean, everywhere, is that the interest of every citizen, regardless of their station in life or the esteem in which their society holds them, is represented in the administration of the government, in the application of its laws, in the rendering of social services, in access to resources and infrastructure, in rights and responsibilities and contribution. The means and methods and mechanisms may vary, but the principle shouldn't.

Sorry for the misunderstanding: none of this was about me. That reference was to ordinary good manners as regards obituaries. The monarchy does have significance for many British citizens and expatriates, and even quite a few in the Commonwealth countries. In my unhumble opinion, it's inappropriate to insult them in a moment of sorrow, even if you don't understand what they're sad about. And all the Christian martyrs. *sigh* In another venue, I'll be happy to discuss how such attitudes and monsters are formed.

Does that belong here? One could find ways to describe how various nations choose their leaders that are no more flattering, but we could maybe avoid them for a day or two after the death of someone a lot of people admired, whatever their reason for doing so.

But not easy! It's not easy being Charles, either.