A Person 's Religious Practices

1. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with the British monarchy involve its straying from ideal government, the unjust placement of one individual above all others, and its hereditary aspect. The problems that Thomas Paine sees with King George III in particular are his personal transgressions against liberty. Thomas Paine, firstly views government as “but a necessary evil” (15), and therefore it should be both as limited as possible and also tied to the more positive society. The ideal form of government, thus according to Paine, is a simple republic where the elected are forced to be accountable to their electors (16). The British monarchy fails in all accounts; not only does the prescence of a monarchy at all eliminate the accountability of a republic, but the complicatedness of the British monarchy system makes it worse in this aspect than even other monarchies. Although absolute monarchies are horrid in that they give no power to the people, they are still simpler than the British monarchy; this makes issues much more difficult to handle in the British monarchy (17). The other problems that Paine has with the British monarchy apply to monarchies at large. Paine argues that the placement of one person above all others is an unnatural divide; there is no explanation for the division of people into “KINGS and SUBJECTS” (22) such as there are in other forms of division that humans live with. If it does not make sense to place one individual above all others, then such should most certainly not be law; therefore, from this logic, monarchy, which is entirely based on the principle of placing one person (and their relatives) above all others, is an invalid and unnatural form of government. Of course, some people could, arguably, have earned the admiration and respect of their peers through important action, and thus be deserving of a leadership position. In a republic, by listening to their electors, the elected earn their right to lead. However, the hereditary monarchy removes this earning of the right to lead, and Paine takes issue with that. There is no guarantee that the descendants of a good leader will also be good leaders, and therefore the government of a country should never be left to heredity (29).

Thomas Paine is not an advocate of monarchy. In fact, he called monarchy institutionalized robbing. In his work Rights of Man, the political philosopher contrasts old government with new government, defining the former as hereditary and the latter as a representative system. Specifically, Paine had two major objections to monarchy; first, he argued that a hereditary government is a imposition on humans, and secondly, “it is inadequate to the purpose for which government is necessary” (Paine 113). A hereditary government unfairly binds future generations, this would make the monarchy illegitimate because a government must have continuous consent in order to be legitimate. If a monarch inherits a kingdom he too inherits its people, Paine says to inherit people is to treat them as farm animals. To sum up this point, Paine exclaims that a hereditary monarchy reduces humans to beasts.

Imagine a world were only one person had the sovereignty of a nation through his bloodline and was not chosen by the people of the nation. This form of government is known as absolute monarchism which was practiced since the beginning of the middle ages till this day (Pope Francis, Vatican City). When it comes to a monarchy, it is composed of an individual(s) (king or queen) who reigns till his death and has a divine right appointed by God to be the ruler. The divine right was a doctrine that plead in favor of absolute monarchism, which means that the power of the rulers came by God’s authority and could not be downsized by any earthly organization such as the government or even the parliament. The Queen Elizabeth I, ‘The Virgin Queen’, also

History shows a pattern of change in relation to religious involvement of governmental affairs. As religion becomes less a part of American life, the court develops new laws to accommodate our new society. Look to the communities we live in presently and ask yourself if the American people are facing oppression of religious freedom, a freedom listed in our Constitution under the First Amendment. This spirals into an abyss of politics. Is same-sex marriage a personal matter or a public one? Is the Republican Party fair in opting to end abortion? Should a woman have contraceptive included in her health insurance plan despite the religious views of her employer? This is one of the areas in which

In my opinion “I believe that faith groups and institutions should be allowed to form political parties and they should attempt to gain influence in the workings of government for their views and values by entering the realm of political discourse and attempting to elect their own politicians.”

Although “God” is mentioned in the Constitution, this country was built upon the principle of separation of church and state. Despite this ideal, those elected into office: propose, pass, and deny laws based on their religious beliefs, completely disregarding the previously mentioned principle. The problem with that is that the country is so ethnically and culturally diverse that one religion representing an entire nation of hundreds of religions is selfish and unfair, not to mention un-American.

“Under God” is also part of our countries Plege of Allegence, not to mention all the times you will see “God” on all the buildings, monuments, memorials thought out Washington. With that said, it is hard to propose that religious beliefs don 't influence political decisions. The First Amendment states clearly that no religion shall be established by any branch of the United States Govement- keeping the Church and State separated (Madison, 1789). But at the same time, promises freedom of religion. Confusing? Yes. It shouldn’t be.

For most of my life I have not had a relationship with religion. I did not grow up where going to church was a priority. I knew my parents were Catholics, but they were not practicing Catholics. I would say I was forced to attend CCD (Continuing Catholic Development) every day after school and make my first communion, but I have always respected its practice and learned about its history. Since I enjoy history, I have known how religion was one of the big factors in our country’s history. When kids say the pledge of allegiance and say “One Nation under God” I don’t get insulted or offended, I simply understand that is the heritage of this nation. That is why I am going to argue that faith groups and institutions should be allowed to form political parties and gain influence in the workings of government. Whether I classify myself as Atheist (believe in no god) or Agnostic (claims neither faith nor disbelief in God) it doesn’t change the fact that a great majority of this country and billions across the planet have deep religious faiths that help guide them through

Despite their argument, I still strongly believe that the government should contain some religion and morality. If someone with vast amounts of power believes that he is the top being of all, he will not think twice about passing a law or act. If the ruler believes that there is someone higher than him, he would think about what that person would want.

Hereditary succession referred to the continuation of a monarch’s political reign through passing the sovereignty to his kin. However, hereditary succession ignored civil liberties and equalities. As mankind was originally founded on equality, hereditary succession discredited equal opportunity, especially since the kingship was exclusive. In the eyes of Thomas Paine, the continuation of a royal family’s reign refuted equality and liberty to colonial settlers. The election of a king was not based on political savvy but personal ancestry. This left the Thirteen Colonies in a precarious situation as they were susceptible to the will of their monarch, who could easily become a tyrant. Furthermore, hereditary cemented a political divide and ignored

Paine discusses how inequalities came about through kings and their inheritors. Thus, Paine states that mortals should not be the people’s ruler, only God. So, God does not approve of monarchies. As a result, Paine said that all men are equal, and that no man should inaugurate his family to endlessly rule over others. If a person deserves certain honor, his children should not have the right to pass those honors on. During the revolutionary war, people believed that kings reigned through heavenly rights, and the people were afraid to rebel against them because damnation could arise against them. Thus, Paine used biblical scripture that would support his arguments against the kings, assuring the people of the thirteen colonies that kings are not godly, because they are mortal, and that God is against those who have kings to rule

Thomas Paine has constructed a highly organized criticism of Monarchy and hereditary succession that begins with questioning the very foundation of monarchies and progresses to an explanation of why remaining tied to England would be hurting America politically and economically. He appeals the reader’s logic, starting with the origin of government. Paine argues that fundamentally, a monarchy is ineffective because appointing a man as the king is making the assumption that he is able to make better decisions than the citizens collectively; he needs to be very informed about the public and make involved decisions even though the king is at the disadvantage of being isolated from the common man. The public and the king are supposed to be interrelated and cooperative with information going back and forth between the two, but instead, it creates a dichotomy; the government is very flawed, not only in execution but also is conception. By starting with the very foundation of government, his argument is compelling already. Instead of arguing about the king specifically, he is addressing a larger issue that people cannot ignore. His next unique point is that no kingdom can be justified or

Religious traditions share a set of characteristics that enable them to be dynamic, living religious systems. Each of the characteristics (beliefs, sacred texts, ethics, rituals and ceremonies) interact and provide adherents with a multifaceted way of engaging and relating to the tradition.

We are not speaking here of the secularist idea that the state should marginalize religion and discourage people from voting their consciences as Christians. We are talking about the idea that church and state are not the same thing and that they have different spheres of activity.

Throughout Common Sense, Thomas Paine shows that he is against Monarchical government, and he says that the government type itself is not a reasonable means of ruling a nation. To support this, he sheds light on several reasons in which a monarchy is a bad choice for government. Paine says that all the power is unbalanced and vested in the hands of a single person, which most of the time leads to the King of the nation using the powers he has, against his people, for the benefit of himself, and those around him. Paine also says that to have hereditary succession of a monarch is complete nonsense. Paine uses his reason to support this case by showing that maybe a nation is lucky and has a well fit ruler as a King, but who is to say the King’s successor will be best fit for the position of King or Queen of a country. The notion that one ruler is fair and just, does NOT guarantee that the successor will be as just or as fair.