Is there a governing principal in the discrimination between philosophies of governance? A explosive topic recently has been the nature of cultural warfare and what constitutes such in the current age. Is Islam itself a exclusive religion whose outcome must be either destruction or subjugation of the whole world? Certainly the radical elements within the Islamic realm express that desire, but does that represent the religion itself?
I don't believe that is the case. The Dark Ages represent a great analogy. Christendom was the state, and was intent on dominating those it came in contact with. The Reformation first, and subsequently the Enlightenment return to the individual freedom, choice, and power. In the Declaration of Independence this power is recognized as being from God to the people who give their consent to the Government. We have moved from the control under a philosophy of domination to a free state. From the central control of Rome to the democracies of the modern West. What is to prevent this from happening in any culture? Yet I would like to move further into the realm of personal freedom and its application to governance.
Within our Judeao-Christian understanding, the origin of free will is God. Once a free will existed, the opportunity to choose between two existences became a reality. One existence, the pursuit of life, led to a eternity of dwelling with God in paradise. The other choice granted the knowledge of good and evil. It gave the individually the information about what was right and what was wrong. The free will became the judge of morality. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil materialized within the individual as awareness of the law. The individual could sit in judgment of right and wrong. But where does this path lead? Out of paradise and into the tainted world. And ultimately, death.
For those with discernment, you will be interested in discovering the source of the covering that was given once the knowledge of good and evil revealed the nakedness of the individual. But I am not hear to toss pearls. I am intending to make an distinct connection between the culture of life and the "more pure" Republic versus the culture of death and its manifestations in the west and east. First, in the west we have the quintessential evil embodiment of the culture of death in Hitlers Third Reich. What was the motto? Gott mit uns! Yet the realization of the government was not anywhere near the (arguably) ideal of power from the people with consent. God was not with them for a clear reason in that, if you believe the Declaration of Independence, a government can only obtain God given power through the consent of its people. Now many will decry my logic, but the underlying principal is clear.
In the East there are many instances of the culture of death at work. Across the board there have been horrendous genocides perpetrated among and within ethnic groups. Topping the list is the perversion that is communism under Mao Ze-Dong, who in two cycles of 'revolution' erased as many as 50 million Chinese people. Tojo, who promoted Japan's 'divine mission', is surprisingly fourth on the list with 5 million murdered, again mostly Chinese. The first case of a Islamic leader is Ismail Enver of Turkey who erased 1.2 million Armenians. He comes in at eighth. It is quite clear that the culture of death crosses many boundaries and is not limited by religion. In all of these cases, the form of government in no way resembles anything remotely democratic, let alone a representative republic.
What allows for these governments that embrace death? I would argue that its the expression of man choosing the knowledge of good and evil over life. The knowledge of good and evil leads to death. Communism is a very firm expression of this in that man not only sits in judgment of the law, but he has arbitrarily created a law with elements that are against natural order and forced this law upon his neighbor and himself. As to why a population will remain under such a government is a harder question. The founding fathers commented on this:
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
Apparently, while the evils are sufferable, men are inclined to suffer. I'm not sure that helps us resolve the existence of such perverted Governments of Death. But now that we have reached this point we can identify more clearly the difference between Radical Islamic Fascism and the general religion of Islam. Also we can expect that the most susceptible populations to the Fascist philosophy are those who are already disposed to suffer and those who are not governed by consent. For instance, subjugating yourself to Sharia law relinquishes your God given power without consent. It also represents consuming the tree that leads to death. Lets hope and work towards preventing this radical philosophy from becoming another genocide.
Individuals who chose life every day, and monitor the consent they give, create a strong stable and peaceful government. We can exercise our inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And collectively we can promote these rights among our neighbors. Our very existence is a counter to the culture of death.
PS: Those who came from Egypt and embraced the Mosaic law did not cross over, they died in the desert. Only one crossed over.