(10-15-2022, 08:50 PM)batzulger Wrote: [ -> ]My goal is to put a chapter of something (old or new) out every day this month. If I can put out thirty one, some of you can put out one or two.
Quote: ...as such, the methods by which appointments to offices and positions are handled are of supreme importance to avoid or at least reduce the development of entrenched interests and corruption.
Generally speaking, systems of organization that allow for appointment to offices by patronage are highly susceptible to corruption due to the fact that such appointees are typically more concerned with the needs of their patron than they are with the needs of their office—or, conversely, those who show inadequate concerns for the needs of their patron typically find themselves removed and replaced with more compliant individuals. Unfortunately, systems of patronage are typical in environments where the organization is the personal concern of the head individual, such as in absolute monarchies, dictatorships, private businesses and corporations, and other such institutions, where, so long as the patron is satisfied with the performance of their appointee, the appointee can make use of their position for personal gain. In the worst cases, positions can literally be available for purchase, with the understanding or even expectation that they will be used for personal profit by the purchaser.
Conversely, systems of organization that require merit and competence to be appointed to official positions and are kept accountable to those that they serve tend to show lower rates of corruption and abuse of office. This is not to say that they are immune—especially for those systems which underpay their functionaries, who somehow need to recoup the difference between their wages and those resources necessary for survival, and turn to corruption of their office as a means to do so—but such systems allowing for the ability to remove a misbehaving office-holder from their position without needing the consent of potentially corrupt managers have a means by which to directly reduce and react to corruption.
In the end, the difference is between that of a king distributing personal fiefs to his friends for them to manage as they see fit, versus that of a government appointing managers who are answerable to their constituents.
—Nationbuilding: How People Move, Talk, Think, Organize, & Structure Themselves, 1888, Amsterdam University Press
Quote: Judaism most assuredly affected the Norse revival at its very roots. However, while certain cultural aspects made the leap between the two, such as the emphasis on scholarship, there are a number of distinct cultural and theological differences. While both religions have an emphasis on the importance of personal actions and on how it is mankind’s right and duty to interpret their divine mandates, the theological relationships with the divine differ strongly. In Judaism, Jews have always had an argumentative relationship with their G-d, starting with the earliest patriarchs, who routinely argued with their divine figure even as they worked to interpret and fulfill His directives. However, by contrast, in the Reformed Norse, mankind are explicitly the allies of their gods, working together to stave off the coming of Ragnarok and the end of the world.
—The Second Flowering Of Yggdrasil: An Analysis Of The Norse Resurgence, 1710
Quote: Perhaps the most illustrative example of the difference between the orthodox nature of Christianity and the orthoprax nature of Judaism and Islam is the examination of their respective statements of faith, which structure their relationship with the divine.
In Judaism, the statement of faith is known as the Shema; found in the text of the Torah, it reads simply as, “Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Echad.” “Hear O Israel, The Lord is our God, The Lord is One.” In this simple passage, the nature of the Hebrew god is defined as being the Lord of the people of Israel, and a singular entity. While there is more to the text of the prayer in liturgical use, this single phrase is the structural core of the Jewish statement of faith in their god, their relationship to that deity, and that deity’s singular oneness. The rest of Jewish law concerns fulfilling the commandments of their Lord. No further professions of faith are strictly necessary beyond this, so long as the deeds and actions of the individual Jew stay on the path dictated by their deity.
In Islam, the statement of faith is known as the Shahada; found in the text of the Koran in various combinations, it also reads simply, “Ašhadu ʾan lā ʾilāha ʾilla -llāhu, wa-ʾašhadu ʾanna muḥammadan rasūlu -llāh.” “There is no deity but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God.” In this simple passage, again, the nature of the Islamic god is defined as monotheistic, and being specifically the deity on whose behalf Mohammad acted as prophet. And while the formulation of the statement is not found precisely as-is in the text of the Koran, it is directly derived from it, and anchors the religious structure of the Islamic faith—they worship one singular god as Mohammad instructed them to, with the instructions being found in the text. Again, as another orthoprax religion, the instruction of faith is singular and focuses on singular points, with the rest of religious observance being defined by actions.
In contrast, Christianity, as an orthodox religion, has two statements of faith, the Nicene Creed and the Apostles’ Creed, both of which are lengthy, detailing the full beliefs of what it means to be Christian with twelve distinct articles of faith, in the Nicene Creed reading:
“I believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father; through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven, and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate, he suffered death and was buried, and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified, who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.”
In this text, the full orthodoxic nature of Christianity comes through, detailing the specificity of belief that makes one a Christian. Further, this statement does not come from the Christian holy texts, but was instead compiled centuries later at various religious councils, as the early Christian faith struggled to define itself solely through belief; even later, as the Apostles’ Creed came into general use, due to its shorter nature, significant portions of the statement of faith require inclusion…
—Divine Light Through The Gem Of Man: Studying The Many Facets Of The Holy, Waterford University Press, 1692