Humanism and social change

[JBeukema]

We do not approve of false humanity...

You may not approve of life either, but do you have something better to offer?

Perahps you should use wikipedia before posting? Do you know what humanism is, and what it had to do with social change when everyone assumed the rule of kings?

Perhaps you should do some research yourself and learn what the above words mean.

 

[JBeukema]

What do you think is better than democracy?

Minarchy.

A vague concept that can applied to near any system

 

[Foxfyre]

The people of the Bible intended to be a theocracy for their own benefit, uncorrupted by any others that coexisted with them.

The Founders were all very close to and well acquainted with England, the motherland, and all fully aware that England's government, while superior to most others in the world in the 18th Century, was nevertheless a Monarchal theocracy placing near absolute power in the hands of a king or queen plus the Archbishop of the Church of England who was almost a co-ruler beside the king.

The people enjoyed more liberties than most of the world enjoyed, but were still afforded no rights or privileges that the king and/or Church did not endorse. And the monarch and/or Church did not allow many freedoms that the people longed for.

You can legally but not philosophically separate the American Declaration of Independence from the Constitution because one is the implementation of the conviction stated in the other. And in a nutshell, both were a decree for a new form of government, one unlike any that had ever existed on Earth, in which the people would hold the power and would govern themselves. The function of government was to secure fundamentl unalienable rights written into and/or implied by the Constitution, and then get out of the way of the people who would then form whatever society they wished to have. No ruler nor church authority would have any power to dictate what society they had to create.

That great experiment produced the most free, most vital, most energetic, most innovative, most productive, and most successful nation the world has ever seen.

But since the early 1900's, the people have slowly but relentlessly been chipping away at the basic principles by demanding that government produce the sort of society they wish to have rather than looking to themselves to accomplish that.

And just as slowly and relentlessly we are seeing ourselves reverting to the old models where ruling authorities will have total power to assign to us whatever rights they want us to have and power to just as easily take them away.

We can stop the trend. But we have to know what is happening and be proactive in order to do that.

 

[Carol]

In the US we might be lead by human beings, but we are not ruled by human beings. We are rule by law.

They who control the law and its enforcement control they who are controlled by the law.

To be rule by law, or reason, the rules must be put in writing,

Historically, that's not actually true.

Please explain this history of which you speak.

 

[Carol]

Foxfyre, have you read Tocquelville's "Democracy in America"? He warned that Christian Democracies would become worse than any despots in history, and I have concerns that our bureaucratic development is proving him right. Tocqueville was concerned that the US didn't do enough to protect our rights.

I think if we studied humanism, our liberties would culturally protected. But edcuation for technology has people smart but not wise. I think this is a danger to our liberty.

 

[Foxfyre]

Religion, pick anyone you want, tells us we are ruled by a God, and are born into our position in life. Religions are autocratic, a hierarchy of authority, and divided between those who rule and those who serve the rulers. Before the rediscovery of ancient Greeks and Romans philosophy, there was only humans ruling over others humans. This is a matter of how we reason things through, with religion, or science and rationale. The Greek and Roman classics gave us reason and rationale, which is not inherent in religion.

Internet forums give us a valuable example of this principle. Friist, everyone makes it very clear, these forums are not democracy. These forums are private property and the owners and moderators can do as they please, and everyone else is subject to them. This is clearly a divison of those who rule and those who are subject to their rule. Cussing and attacking people is allowed, even when rules this is not allowed, but in these forums people are ruled by humans, not the law. Only when a moderator thinks someone has gone too far will action be taken. May be the moderator is having a bad day, or has misunderstood something. It doesn't matter why the moderator takes action, and those subject to the moderator have no resource. What rules is a human being, not law.

To be rule by law, or reason, the rules must be put in writing, and impersonally applied to everyone. Say the rule says we can not cuss or attack others. Then it is a matter of someone either violated the rule or did not. Then there can be trial by jury, and the accused has the opportunity for defense. Action is taken on the violation of the rule, not the degree of the violation. In law, there are various degrees of murder, and punishment depends on the degree of the violation, but these are determined by law, not humans ruling by whim, as they do in these forums, and as the Gods are said to do things. But by rule by law, you can not be banned because God or a moderator doesn't like you or is having a bad day, or misunderstood your point.

See? that is the difference between rule by law and being citizens, or humans ruling over subjects, as Gods rule over their subjects. This is a very important difference, and this is the difference we are fighting in the mid east. They are ruled by religion and tradation and everyone argues in these forums that they are private property and mods can do as they please, so why are we fighting in Agahanistan? If our economy collaspes, we will revert to humans ruling over humans, because the masses no longer understand the principles of democracy. They will pick up their weapons and fight each other for control, because that is what their education left them to understand. We will have anacrhy until we we have autocracy, but we will not return to democracy, because we are no longer conscious of what that is, and those good Christian republicans make sure we will never know what democracy is, because they want you to know God rules, and He rewards and punishes people as He see fit. Their religious belief is not compatable with democracy.

I am afraid we have fought every war for nothing. We have no understanding of rule by reason and how important education is to manifesting the consciousness essential to democracy. Look at all the arguments for humans ruling over humans.

I disagree that we have no understanding of rule by reason. The Founders, all being classical liberals to a man, were nothing if not rational. They were also religious and understood human rights as being given by a benevolent God. Even those who were not particularly religious accepted a concept of unalienable rights as being inviolate by a rational government or rational religion.

So that is where the U.S. Constitution started. With those unalienable rights. And it was their intent that the purpose of the law was to ensure those rights and the purpose of government was to secure and defend them. No chosen, elected, appointed, or self proclaimed ruler, whether secular or religious. could take them away because they were the social contract of the people themselves.

War may be the most stupid and destructive means of settling any issue, but I do not accept that we have fought every war for nothing. To not fight the Revolutionary War, to not fight World War II with the end result being that governments would be required to treat the people decently, we could yet be living under tyranny with our liberties dictated to us by an elite few who might or might not have our best interests at heart.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre, have you read Tocquelville's "Democracy in America"? He warned that Christian Democracies would become worse than any despots in history, and I have concerns that our bureaucratic development is proving him right. Tocqueville was concerned that the US didn't do enough to protect our rights.

I think if we studied humanism, our liberties would culturally protected. But edcuation for technology has people smart but not wise. I think this is a danger to our liberty.

Yes, I have read Tocqueville. But I don't get the same interpretation from him that you seem to get.

He was quite taken with the devout Christian faith evident almost everywhere in America and implied that it was part of the reason that the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution were so successful. He understood that the Founders saw unalienable rights as being from God. And he saw that the experiment of self governance restricted only by respect for unalienable rights was eradicating the worst of what humans could come up with. He noted that in midst of the most draconian religious intolerance, the very ones who initiated it here were also able to embrace a concept of God given unalienable rights for everybody and a Constitution to back up the concept.

George Lawrence's translation of Tocqueville expressing some of his impression of America from Chapter 2:

Thus, in the moral world everything is classified, coordinated, foreseen, and decided in advance. In the world of politics everything is in turmoil, contested, and uncertain. In the one case obedience is passive, though voluntary; in the other there is independence, contempt of experience, and jealousy of all authority.

Far from harming each other, these two apparently opposed tendencies work in harmony and seem to lend mutual support.

Religion regards civil liberty as a noble exercise of men's faculties, the world of politics being a sphere intended by the Creator for the free play of intelligence. Religion, being free and powerful within its own sphere and content with the position reserved for it, realizes that its sway is all the better established because it relies only on its own powers and rules men's hearts without external support.

Freedom sees religion as the companion of its struggles and triumphs, the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its rights. Religion is considered as the guardian of mores, and mores are regarded as the guarantee of the laws and pledge for the maintenance of freedom itself.

 

[lizzie]

What do you think is better than democracy?

Minarchy.

What to explain minarchy? I never learned of it. Did you mean monarchy, like in the Lion King Disney movie and the bible?

Minarchy is a close relative of Classical Liberalism.

From Wiki:

Samuel Edward Konkin III, an agorist, coined the term in 1971 to describe libertarians who defend some form of compulsory government. Konkin invented the term minarchism because he initially felt dismayed of using the cumbersome phrase limited-government libertarianism.[2][5] Some classical liberals, who believe in the necessity of the state, label themselves as minarchists to differentiate from market anarchists.

 

[Pappadave]

Sorry to burst your bubble but we are not ruled by Law, we are ruled by a bunch of men and women wearing funny robes. If they don't like the law, they change it even though they have absolutely no authority to do so. Pure democracy is mob rule, a dangerous destructive animal. Religions, at least most of them, are false to their own teachings. God (if you believe in Him) grants you the freedom and responsibility to choose. Love me and my creation (everything) and be rewarded, Defy or deny Me and suffer the consequences. YOUR CHOICE! Pappadave

 

[Carol]

Religion, pick anyone you want, tells us we are ruled by a God, and are born into our position in life. Religions are autocratic, a hierarchy of authority, and divided between those who rule and those who serve the rulers. Before the rediscovery of ancient Greeks and Romans philosophy, there was only humans ruling over others humans. This is a matter of how we reason things through, with religion, or science and rationale. The Greek and Roman classics gave us reason and rationale, which is not inherent in religion.

Internet forums give us a valuable example of this principle. Friist, everyone makes it very clear, these forums are not democracy. These forums are private property and the owners and moderators can do as they please, and everyone else is subject to them. This is clearly a divison of those who rule and those who are subject to their rule. Cussing and attacking people is allowed, even when rules this is not allowed, but in these forums people are ruled by humans, not the law. Only when a moderator thinks someone has gone too far will action be taken. May be the moderator is having a bad day, or has misunderstood something. It doesn't matter why the moderator takes action, and those subject to the moderator have no resource. What rules is a human being, not law.

To be rule by law, or reason, the rules must be put in writing, and impersonally applied to everyone. Say the rule says we can not cuss or attack others. Then it is a matter of someone either violated the rule or did not. Then there can be trial by jury, and the accused has the opportunity for defense. Action is taken on the violation of the rule, not the degree of the violation. In law, there are various degrees of murder, and punishment depends on the degree of the violation, but these are determined by law, not humans ruling by whim, as they do in these forums, and as the Gods are said to do things. But by rule by law, you can not be banned because God or a moderator doesn't like you or is having a bad day, or misunderstood your point.

See? that is the difference between rule by law and being citizens, or humans ruling over subjects, as Gods rule over their subjects. This is a very important difference, and this is the difference we are fighting in the mid east. They are ruled by religion and tradation and everyone argues in these forums that they are private property and mods can do as they please, so why are we fighting in Agahanistan? If our economy collaspes, we will revert to humans ruling over humans, because the masses no longer understand the principles of democracy. They will pick up their weapons and fight each other for control, because that is what their education left them to understand. We will have anacrhy until we we have autocracy, but we will not return to democracy, because we are no longer conscious of what that is, and those good Christian republicans make sure we will never know what democracy is, because they want you to know God rules, and He rewards and punishes people as He see fit. Their religious belief is not compatable with democracy.

I am afraid we have fought every war for nothing. We have no understanding of rule by reason and how important education is to manifesting the consciousness essential to democracy. Look at all the arguments for humans ruling over humans.

I disagree that we have no understanding of rule by reason. The Founders, all being classical liberals to a man, were nothing if not rational. They were also religious and understood human rights as being given by a benevolent God. Even those who were not particularly religious accepted a concept of unalienable rights as being inviolate by a rational government or rational religion.

So that is where the U.S. Constitution started. With those unalienable rights. And it was their intent that the purpose of the law was to ensure those rights and the purpose of government was to secure and defend them. No chosen, elected, appointed, or self proclaimed ruler, whether secular or religious. could take them away because they were the social contract of the people themselves.

War may be the most stupid and destructive means of settling any issue, but I do not accept that we have fought every war for nothing. To not fight the Revolutionary War, to not fight World War II with the end result being that governments would be required to treat the people decently, we could yet be living under tyranny with our liberties dictated to us by an elite few who might or might not have our best interests at heart.

You have spoken exactly to the point of this thread. But why did you say rational religion? Where does that rational come from? That is the point of this thread. That rational does not come from reading holy books. It came from Greek and Roman classics. We are no longer literate in Greek and Roman classics, and I am saying because of that, we have fought every war for nothing. Our reasoning today, is not the reasoning that manifested our liberty and justice. Our reasoning to day is destructive to our liberty and justice. In part because now we are attempting to be technological correct. That might be smart but it is not wise.

I remember when we laughed at the USSR because of its red tape. It was reported trains held rotting food, because red tape prevented the trains from moving. Well, today in the US there is very little anyone can do without permission. Regulations may be a good thing, but too much of anything is a bad thing. Red tape has become a serious problem, and I think all this regulation is effecting us psychologically in a bad way. It is the direction we are going that is opposed to the direction we were going. Our consciounsess has changed.

How about this, say you die, and doctors are able to put someone's brain in your head. It is your head and your body, but is the person you? We have imitated Germany in every significant way. Our consciousness is changed. But the same happened to Athens as well, and perhaps all civilizations. Things are going fine and then people get hung up with power and technological correctness, and the civilization starts of atrophy, because of too much control.

 

[Carol]

Sorry to burst your bubble but we are not ruled by Law, we are ruled by a bunch of men and women wearing funny robes. If they don't like the law, they change it even though they have absolutely no authority to do so. Pure democracy is mob rule, a dangerous destructive animal. Religions, at least most of them, are false to their own teachings. God (if you believe in Him) grants you the freedom and responsibility to choose. Love me and my creation (everything) and be rewarded, Defy or deny Me and suffer the consequences. YOUR CHOICE! Pappadave

We have public education, because our democracy begins with the idea that human beings are capable of ruling themselves with reason. Until the 1958 National Defense Education Act, the purpose of education was to teach our young how to think. With good education democracy is not a danagerous thing. The problem is we forgot the resaonsing behind our democracy and behind our liberal education, and started preparing our young to be products for industry. Now for sure the mob is a dangerous thing. This why I write.

We can do better by removing religious superstituion from the picture, as Socrates did. When we understand what makes something right or wrong, we are compelled to choose the right thing. In the real world, prayers, burning candles and sacrificing animals do not protect us from the consequences of our wrongs. It doesn't matter who your god is, none of them are more real that the others, unless you study nature to know truth. That is, it is not a God's choice if consequences are good are bad, the cause and effect is what it is. We have to be smart enough to figure this stuff out for ourselves. Socrates was concerned with developing conscience. Con, means coming out of- so we have knowledge of right and wrong coming out of science. This is the social change coming out of humanism and the reasoing for a democract republic.

 

[antagon]

what is afforded by any form of democracy is the representation of both humanist/abstract or fundamentalist/positivist mindsets. in a (constitutionally) structured democratic country like the US, the structure itself can be altered by these movements.

if i were to guess which movement is gaining an upper hand, it wouldn't be christian conservatism. there are structural changes to society which work against traditional christian(islamic/judaic/hindu) values. the surge of traditionalists at the moment are death throes in my opinion. look at our family size and structure, for example, or the size and dynamism of urban centers: the veins which supported the intergenerational transfer of these religious values have been eroded. evangelism is a surrogate, but it is less effective than the inherent methods of family and community tradition... for many, its an annoyance. reinventing religious appeals risks reinventing tradition - an oxymoron in itself.

i think there are signs that our society recognizes that abstract and concrete principles apply in varied solutions, and that we aren't doctrinally fixed on any one for all applications. this is a basic incompatibility which fundamental religion or clinical anti-spiritualism present in contrast with the modern world.

any scientist or engineer has undertaken study in the philosophy of science or engineering as a requisite to their diploma. this is an example of fields which have benefited considerably from positivist and reductionist philosophy, but which maintain some deference to the proceeds of abstract and holistic study for their role in expanding the scope of knowledge, particularly interdisciplinary interactions.

maintaining this flexibility will be pivotal for the existence of any movements in the 21st century.

 

[editec]

When we had Liberal Education, we used the Conceptual Method. The Conceptual Method is teaching increasingly complex concepts. It is a totally different way of thinking, than how children have been prepared to think since the 1958 National Defense Education Act. Following that Act, we went to the Behaviost Method, which is also used for training dogs. It relies on rewards for punishments for getting children to remember the "right answer", like we teach a dog the right response to a command. The social ramifications of this are great. One ramification is, aruging "you are right", or "no, you are wrong", as through life is a division of good and evil, right and wrong, as opposed to understanding concepts that are neither right or wrong. This has made our discussions really challenging. Some of them go no where at all, and this thread is about getting beyond this barrier to communication, by increasing awareness of humanism and its conflict with religion. Also, awareness of what humanism had to do with social change and the Democracy of the USA.

We can not understand our democracy without understanding humanism, and unfortunately many Christians oppose humanism. This seems especially true in Texas, a state that buys so many text books, it effects the whole text book industry and what all our children are taught. To discuss this problem we need a good understanding of humanism and what it has to do with the United States being a democracy. The google links might help us discuss the importance, or problem with, humanism, in our school system, and to our whole nation, effcting everything from politics and culture.

Humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHumanism is an approach in study, philosophy, or practice that focuses on human values and concerns. The term has a complex history and is used to mean ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism - Cached - Similar

Renaissance humanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaRenaissance humanism was an activity of cultural and educational reform, engaged in by scholars, writers, and civic leaders who are today known as humanists ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance_humanism - Cached - Similar

I share you concern about the outcome of one or two states whose purchasing power dictates what goes into textbooks.

However I suspect that problem is about to evaporate as the cost of text books is high, and there's a better way to transmit textual data, now...the internet.

So that monopoly that a few publishers once had over school texts is pretty much on its way out because the world of publishing is changing so rapidly.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry to burst your bubble but we are not ruled by Law, we are ruled by a bunch of men and women wearing funny robes. If they don't like the law, they change it even though they have absolutely no authority to do so. Pure democracy is mob rule, a dangerous destructive animal. Religions, at least most of them, are false to their own teachings. God (if you believe in Him) grants you the freedom and responsibility to choose. Love me and my creation (everything) and be rewarded, Defy or deny Me and suffer the consequences. YOUR CHOICE! Pappadave

We have public education, because our democracy begins with the idea that human beings are capable of ruling themselves with reason. Until the 1958 National Defense Education Act, the purpose of education was to teach our young how to think. With good education democracy is not a danagerous thing. The problem is we forgot the resaonsing behind our democracy and behind our liberal education, and started preparing our young to be products for industry. Now for sure the mob is a dangerous thing. This why I write.

We can do better by removing religious superstituion from the picture, as Socrates did. When we understand what makes something right or wrong, we are compelled to choose the right thing. In the real world, prayers, burning candles and sacrificing animals do not protect us from the consequences of our wrongs. It doesn't matter who your god is, none of them are more real that the others, unless you study nature to know truth. That is, it is not a God's choice if consequences are good are bad, the cause and effect is what it is. We have to be smart enough to figure this stuff out for ourselves. Socrates was concerned with developing conscience. Con, means coming out of- so we have knowledge of right and wrong coming out of science. This is the social change coming out of humanism and the reasoing for a democract republic.

I was blessed to have teachers committed to teaching how to think rather than what to think, and who were unafraid to teach the good with the bad and the pros and cons about world heroes, world policy, history, sociopolitics, government, economics, conquest, science, etc. I don't recall ever having to structure a thesis to conform to a teacher/professor's ideology or convictions in order to make a grade.

Nor were they afraid of religion and fully recognized and allowed for how much it has been an influence in world history and has been a component of all of American life and education. Science teachers were not afraid to express how millions of people do believe in intelligent design, for instance, and that such is not an irrational concept and is one way to explain what science cannot explain. But they would also explain how I.D. is not science and why it cannot be taught as science. We didn't have to believe in evolution, but we would have to answer questions about it on the test.

But even though there were no subjects off limits in school and our God, however we believed him to be was welcome there, I could not tell you whether my teachers/professors were liberal or conservative, religious or not, or what political party they embraced. I knew a beloved choral instructor was Lutheran because she spoke of her childhood in Norway and going to the Lutheran Church on Christmas eve. I knew my beloved typing instructor was Seventh Day Adventist because she explained she couldn't attend a function with us on a Saturday morning because she would be in church. The rest, I didn't have a clue.

We received an excellent education that equipped us to compete with anybody.

Humanism has definitely affected both religion and politics, but I don't think we can consider humanism the superior authority or concept in the general scheme of things.

 

[lizzie]

We can do better by removing religious superstituion from the picture, as Socrates did. When we understand what makes something right or wrong, we are compelled to choose the right thing. .

It is impossible to remove religious superstitution from the picture. Humans are, by nature, religious, and that religious nature can take many forms besides what we consider traditional religion. Humanism is itself a religion.

It doesn't matter who your god is, none of them are more real that the others, unless you study nature to know truth. That is, it is not a God's choice if consequences are good are bad, the cause and effect is what it is.

I agree with this statement, but I have doubts that you and I have a similar interpretation of just what it means. What types of choices and good/bad consequences are you referring to? Just curious.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The importance of this thread is Christianity supports autocracy, the enemy of democracy.

We are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic.

Christianity taught kings were chosen by God. The Bible promised God will provide our leaders. The bible tells slaves to be good slaves, because this honors God.

It really doesn’t matter. Our country was not founded on Christianity, but rather with a written guarantee that we have inalienable rights bestowed by “the creator”, as opposed to rights bestowed by man or government. The Bible is irrelevant as a context for governance in this country.

Our democracy is the result to literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Prehaps we would benefit from awareness of this?

Again, we’re not a democracy.

We are a Democratic Republic, the term Constitutional Republic is a neo-conservative talking point.
We directly elect our representatives in local, state and federal elections under the rule of law, our Constitution.
And yet, a constitutional government is a form of government in which a constitution details the powers available to each branch of government, and the rights of the individual in relation to the government. Any action by the government that is not in accord with the constitution is considered illegitimate; hence, a constitutional government may provide conditions where democratic actions are secondary or may in fact be ignored under certain conditions. For example, consider Aritcle 48 of the Wiemar Republic and its application in 1933.

 

[Coyote]

The importance of this thread is Christianity supports autocracy, the enemy of democracy.

We are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic.

Christianity taught kings were chosen by God. The Bible promised God will provide our leaders. The bible tells slaves to be good slaves, because this honors God.

It really doesn’t matter. Our country was not founded on Christianity, but rather with a written guarantee that we have inalienable rights bestowed by “the creator”, as opposed to rights bestowed by man or government. The Bible is irrelevant as a context for governance in this country.

Our democracy is the result to literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Prehaps we would benefit from awareness of this?

Again, we’re not a democracy.

I hear that argument a lot...but...it's only half true. We're a constitutional republic with a democratic form of government -yes? no?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The importance of this thread is Christianity supports autocracy, the enemy of democracy.

We are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic.

It really doesn’t matter. Our country was not founded on Christianity, but rather with a written guarantee that we have inalienable rights bestowed by “the creator”, as opposed to rights bestowed by man or government. The Bible is irrelevant as a context for governance in this country.

Our democracy is the result to literacy in Greek and Roman classics. Prehaps we would benefit from awareness of this?

Again, we’re not a democracy.

I hear that argument a lot...but...it's only half true. We're a constitutional republic with a democratic form of government -yes? no?

We are a Democratic Republic, the term Constitutional Republic is a neo-conservative talking point.
We directly elect our representatives in local, state and federal elections under the rule of law, our Constitution.
A constitutional republic does not require representatives to be directly elected by the people. The use of this term has become popular with the RW, expecially those who fear the hoi polloi, and particuarlly as the demographics of our nation change.

 

[Foxfyre]

Splitting hairs here I think. I believe a Constituional Republic and a Democratic Republic are defined essentially the same.

Wiki definitions:

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

A republic is a form of government in which the people or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government,[1][2] and in which the head of government is not a monarch.[3][4] The word "republic" is derived from the Latin phrase res publica, which can be translated as "a public affair".

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch.[3][4] In republics such as the United States and France, the executive is legitimized both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States, James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy,[5] and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".[6] Montesquieu included both democracies, where all the people have a share in rule, and aristocracies or oligarchies, where only some of the people rule, as republican forms of government.[7] In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.[8]

From Dictionary.com
Main Entry: democratic republic
Part of Speech: n
Definition: a form of government embodying democratic principles and where a monarch is not the head of state

 

[JBeukema]

In the US we might be lead by human beings, but we are not ruled by human beings. We are rule by law.

They who control the law and its enforcement control they who are controlled by the law.

To be rule by law, or reason, the rules must be put in writing,

Historically, that's not actually true.

Please explain this history of which you speak.

Ask an anthropologist how cultures without writing opr without a written constitution enforece their laws.