Talk:Republic of Heaven

Anonymous user's comments

That second section sounds dangerously close to bullshit. 76.180.120.161 16:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that it's just completely baseless. I've never heard of a religion in which a 'Republic of Heaven' exists, and if there is one, it does not specify it. 76.180.120.161 17:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Republic of Heaven as Religious Belief

I copied the following from an earlier version of this article, and I bring it here for discussion. It was deleted by an anonymous editor who made scurrilous comments here on the talk page about this section, but offered no real critique of the ideas or their sources.

Some religious adherents believe in a literal Republic of Heaven to which they will ascend to in the afterlife. Such a scenario may involve a god, several gods, or a godless spirit realm, but the uniting principle is a governmental system in the afterlife that is owned and controlled by its occupants. It may involve direct democracy, a representative government model, or some other variant on a republican system by which to make decisions in the afterlife.

However, others believe that a Republic of Heaven must be established first, and doing so may involve a revolution in the afterlife in which they must participate in some way to overthrow a heavenly monarchy or dictatorship, not unlike the plot of the His Dark Materials series itself.

Another possible scenario is that the term "Republic of Heaven" is a metaphor for the underlying theme of the His Dark Materials trilogy of freedom in all things. In The Amber Spyglass, after Metatron & the Authority are defeated, we never find out what happened to Metatron's moving castle, the Chariot, which was a vehicle of oppression. In the trilogy, protagonist figures state many times that contrary to the Church's view, living or being part of the living world is the greatest freedom of all. It can be concluded the term "Republic of Heaven" simply means that where you are right now is heaven & that the voters in the Republic are/is yourself.

Granted that this section is unreferenced and reads like original research, but this can be said for the article in its entirety. Better that it be brought here, and some discussion occur, than delete it without a valid argument. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I also grant that the section is unreferenced (first half) and original research (second half). To merit inclusion, I would say: find citations. But don't include it until this is done. Best, Anthony Krupp 18:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, Anthony, I completely agree. I have no intention of putting this back in the article without major cleanup. The article in general needs cleanup and referencing, and I do not want to make the situation worse. Thanks for your response. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)