"The Iroquois Confederacy and 'Gayanashagowa':
the U.S. Constitutional style of governance"
by Hiali NeX
the U.S. Constitutional style of governance"
by Hiali NeX
There are 8 billion persons on Planet Earth. As such, there are 8 billion "religions" on Planet Earth. What spins the compass of governance must be rational/secular in nature. This rational/secular infrastructure *must* allow each individual person the right to BE, and FULL equality under all of this infrastructure's rational/secular laws. This is the only way to respect the INDIVIDUAL HUMAN RIGHTS of INDIVIDUAL HUMANS within their nation, whilst keeping faith-based laws out of the entire process.
Regardless of how many people "believe" (choose to not think) that the United States is a "religious" nation, it never has been, is not, nor will it ever be a "religious" nation. Any time someone brings "religion" into the Constitutional process, or into one's "Bill of HUMAN RIGHTS", they are not adhering to the way this nation's infrastructure was set up. The Federal "Bill of Rights", specifically, allows one the right to think and believe whatever one wants, whilst keeping the irrationality of "religious" thought from infringing on the Constitutional process or any individual's FULL HUMAN RIGHTS. "Rights" can *never* be voted on via a "bill" of *any* sort, simply because they are one's INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS.
One person's (or group's) "religious" beliefs cannot govern all the people within a nation. "Religion" belongs no where in government. The mythological concepts of "God"/"Allah"/"Yahweh"/etc. (and their subsequent 'set of mythical laws') do not/should not make the laws of any rational/secular nation. These are PERSONAL beliefs; whether or not, one person- or many people- share in them. RATIONALITY should all ways be the basis of law and the starting point from which to begin ANY nation on Earth that respects DEMOCRACY.
Contrary to popular belief, United States' "democracy" is not really based on an Athenian-style government, though it carries many aspects of it. It is based on the indigenous-style democracy of the Iroquois Confederacy; the people native to the northeastern area of the present-day United States.
European-style "democracy" believed in the concentrated power of "kingship". Many Republican conservatives, unknowingly, cling to this concept, though it is very much outdated and tends to be about: "every man/woman for themselves". This tends to throw a focus on the Executive figurehead, whilst "blurring out" the PEOPLE (represented by the Legislative branch). Republicans, as a party, tend to not like working within the democratic system (which throws the focus on all 3 branches of government in a more balanced way). Their focus ends up radiating from their own personal religious ideals and sense of individual isolationism.
All though, on the surface, it seems as if there are only two parties in the United States: Democratic and Republican, the Constitutional infrastructure allows for more than that; an unlimited amount, actually. The Constitution, itself, contains no mention of parties and the Framers regarded them as "undesirable" or even dangerous. Of the two main parties people tend to vote for, Democrats (by nature) tend to be closer to the Constitution, whilst Republicans tend to be closer to the Executive branch, first, and all other branches, second. Their religious values (as a group) tend to outshine Constitutional values. This belief that we are a religious nation is not delineated (or, even supported) by our Constitution. People who vote Republican often times do not understand the very document which created our nation in the first place. They attempt to convince others that they should aspire to these "religious" values and forget all about our government. People who vote from this nebulous stance basically "throw their vote away".
Note how expansion of "immigration" laws are often side-stepped by Republicans, unless it is to curb them. In an increasingly finite world allowing others into the nation would undermine the Republican goal of holding on to the majority of resources. Their first and foremost concern is to protect self-centered interests. A sense of "entitlement" tends to psychologically produce people who think like this. Republicans lean towards not sharing, whilst Democrats do.
The "yay" and "nay" polarities within the voting system are probably what created and evolved two opposing (major) parties, instead of many. Even if we had only one single Democratic Party (which will probably happen in the future), the United States would still go on. We don't really need any more parties as there is enough difference within the Democratic Party itself to keep the government functioning smoothly. Everyone within the Democratic Party does not vote the same way on every issue. But, they *do* eventually reach a harmonious conclusion. This is key to moving things right along.
Regardless of how many people "believe" (choose to not think) that the United States is a "religious" nation, it never has been, is not, nor will it ever be a "religious" nation. Any time someone brings "religion" into the Constitutional process, or into one's "Bill of HUMAN RIGHTS", they are not adhering to the way this nation's infrastructure was set up. The Federal "Bill of Rights", specifically, allows one the right to think and believe whatever one wants, whilst keeping the irrationality of "religious" thought from infringing on the Constitutional process or any individual's FULL HUMAN RIGHTS. "Rights" can *never* be voted on via a "bill" of *any* sort, simply because they are one's INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS.
One person's (or group's) "religious" beliefs cannot govern all the people within a nation. "Religion" belongs no where in government. The mythological concepts of "God"/"Allah"/"Yahweh"/etc. (and their subsequent 'set of mythical laws') do not/should not make the laws of any rational/secular nation. These are PERSONAL beliefs; whether or not, one person- or many people- share in them. RATIONALITY should all ways be the basis of law and the starting point from which to begin ANY nation on Earth that respects DEMOCRACY.
Contrary to popular belief, United States' "democracy" is not really based on an Athenian-style government, though it carries many aspects of it. It is based on the indigenous-style democracy of the Iroquois Confederacy; the people native to the northeastern area of the present-day United States.
European-style "democracy" believed in the concentrated power of "kingship". Many Republican conservatives, unknowingly, cling to this concept, though it is very much outdated and tends to be about: "every man/woman for themselves". This tends to throw a focus on the Executive figurehead, whilst "blurring out" the PEOPLE (represented by the Legislative branch). Republicans, as a party, tend to not like working within the democratic system (which throws the focus on all 3 branches of government in a more balanced way). Their focus ends up radiating from their own personal religious ideals and sense of individual isolationism.
All though, on the surface, it seems as if there are only two parties in the United States: Democratic and Republican, the Constitutional infrastructure allows for more than that; an unlimited amount, actually. The Constitution, itself, contains no mention of parties and the Framers regarded them as "undesirable" or even dangerous. Of the two main parties people tend to vote for, Democrats (by nature) tend to be closer to the Constitution, whilst Republicans tend to be closer to the Executive branch, first, and all other branches, second. Their religious values (as a group) tend to outshine Constitutional values. This belief that we are a religious nation is not delineated (or, even supported) by our Constitution. People who vote Republican often times do not understand the very document which created our nation in the first place. They attempt to convince others that they should aspire to these "religious" values and forget all about our government. People who vote from this nebulous stance basically "throw their vote away".
Note how expansion of "immigration" laws are often side-stepped by Republicans, unless it is to curb them. In an increasingly finite world allowing others into the nation would undermine the Republican goal of holding on to the majority of resources. Their first and foremost concern is to protect self-centered interests. A sense of "entitlement" tends to psychologically produce people who think like this. Republicans lean towards not sharing, whilst Democrats do.
The "yay" and "nay" polarities within the voting system are probably what created and evolved two opposing (major) parties, instead of many. Even if we had only one single Democratic Party (which will probably happen in the future), the United States would still go on. We don't really need any more parties as there is enough difference within the Democratic Party itself to keep the government functioning smoothly. Everyone within the Democratic Party does not vote the same way on every issue. But, they *do* eventually reach a harmonious conclusion. This is key to moving things right along.
Partisan fighting between Democrats and other parties create more issues that simply drag on instead of providing working solutions for our governance. The existence of Republicanism is becoming more and more like an impedance. As their party wanes in power, Republicans seem to only be good for keeping everyone in a perpetual argument over nonsensical issues, like LGBT marriage. This is a human right. But, Republicans continually inject religion into it, knowing full well that "religion" is not supported by the Constitution, or even the Bill of Rights; except to allow you the right to believe whatever you want. It is like "beating a dead horse"; or, a Democratic "mule" in this case. Social issues within the United States, and the aggressive nature of people who are all seeking to be "free", may have exacerbated this divide.
Still, whilst many others do vote across the vast spectrum of parties, "Republicans" and "Democrats" tend to attract the most members. In a nation like the U.S.- where so-called "Latinos" and persons of predominate African and Asian descent are now, in tandem, the majority- "Democrats" are fast becoming the favoured party. These before-mentioned ethnic groups, traditionally, stick closer to the idea of community than many others might; though this is not a hard-fast rule.
Republicans are often the ones accusing Democrats of being "communists". "Communist" simply means "community-oriented". Regardless of its origins and philosophies, the definition is clearly in the word itself. There is nothing wrong with this term except in the minds of those who demonised the word in the first place: self-seeking Republicans who do not care for government and wish to be separate from the rest of their nation. The irony is that they are all ways touting slogans like: "Country First". People *are* the country. What they are subliminally pushing is "Resources First".
In a world of 8 billion (so far), "Resources First" will tend to rub people the wrong way and cause them all to uprise against the elite ruling class. If Republicans attempt to spark any type of insurrection, they will find themselves outnumbered by the working classes who will not tolerate being trodded upon. History has shown us these "revolutions" over and over again: the "French Revolution", then, and the "Egyptian Revolution", today. Hogging up the resources will eventually create sufficient tension to cause the proletariat to rise up and demand their individual Constitutional "freedoms" and "liberties"; what the U.S. is essentially founded upon in the first place.
Native American Iroquois believed in a balance of powers. There were 3 tiers, or levels, of government: a "federal" one (which covered everyone), a "state" one (which were the different tribes; today, they are the different states) and the various "local" governments (counties and cities). The many different tribes within the Iroquois Confederacy lived in relative peace because of this arrangement.
3 branches of the government exist within each level: Executive (the "President". the" Governor", and the "Mayor"), Judicial (Supreme Court, State Court, City Court) and Legislative (a Senate & a House of Representatives on the federal, state and local levels). Each one (within a specific level) has a set of powers that keeps the other two in a "balance". In this way, "dictatorship" is avoided on every level of government.
This is what the U.S. has today: a system that is based on "checks" and "balances". The "checks" and "balances" system creates two opposing sides (Executive & Legislative), with a witnessing and balancing third (Judicial). Amendments to the Federal "Constitution" systematically pass through all branches after being introduced into the legislative branch. These amendments modify the "Constitution" (on each level: federal, state and local) in order to fit the evolving needs of a growing nation; the goal being: full freedom and full equality under rational/secular law.
3 branches of the government exist within each level: Executive (the "President". the" Governor", and the "Mayor"), Judicial (Supreme Court, State Court, City Court) and Legislative (a Senate & a House of Representatives on the federal, state and local levels). Each one (within a specific level) has a set of powers that keeps the other two in a "balance". In this way, "dictatorship" is avoided on every level of government.
This is what the U.S. has today: a system that is based on "checks" and "balances". The "checks" and "balances" system creates two opposing sides (Executive & Legislative), with a witnessing and balancing third (Judicial). Amendments to the Federal "Constitution" systematically pass through all branches after being introduced into the legislative branch. These amendments modify the "Constitution" (on each level: federal, state and local) in order to fit the evolving needs of a growing nation; the goal being: full freedom and full equality under rational/secular law.
PEACE is all ways maintained as "balance" is all ways kept. This is why you see the President (who rules for a maximum of 2 four-year terms) fight on behalf of all people from the Federal level. "Governors" fight for the people of their state and "Mayors", for the people of their cities. Other politicians (from the other branches) make arguments for and against whatever "bills" are presented into this system of "three". The politicians belong to the Legislative and Executive branches and handle most political business from there; though in certain special cases, the Judicial branch weighs in. This system, all most exclusively Native American in nature, maintains intact "Gayanashagowa" (the 'Great Law of Peace').
All though the U.S. has had a socially-tumultuous history getting itself organised around this way of thinking, it is an ancient indigenous American system that keeps the U.S. (a nation within "America") from falling apart at the seams. Our issues tend to be mostly social "growing pains" as this has become a nation of immigrants (save for the natives who have lived in America for all most 30,000 years). There are many groups fighting for recognition within the U.S. Each individual (within any given group) is guaranteed their FULL human and individualistic freedoms; delineated not only in the "Constitution", but also in a "Bill of Rights" (a separate document).
When building a new nation, other modes of governing (such as the one I've just described) are things one ought to take into consideration. When one looks at how other countries started out, perception of another's gubernatorial system sometimes helps a nation come to a conclusion on what would work out best for them. Despite a U.S. civil war (in the mid-19th Century) and, later, international concerns (and, wars extended from those concerns), the Iroquois Confederacy was and is a sound system of governance that has worked for indigenous people in "America" for thousands of years.
All though "religion" is respected by being allowed, it has NO part in government on ANY level. The original founding fathers of the United States were not "Christian", or of any particular faith. They, in fact, abhorred religion as useless and mythological. These days, some conservatives (and, a few politically-uninformed liberals) push their religious agenda only to be stopped by the mechanics that hold the actual system together. Faith does not rule the United States in terms of our Constitution, rationality/secularism does.
copyright 2012