Atheist Nexus Logo
I couldn't find a definition for lovarchy in any dictionary, so I came up with my own. The below defines my ideology pretty well.
Lov·ar·chy love-are-key

noun, plural-chies.
1. A Jesus-Gandhi ideology, involving the study and pursuit of a barrier-breaking, radical, nonviolent, ultra-aggressive love, imposing an undivided humanity through selfless suffering, to defeat the systems that erode humanity by refusing to play their game.
Patriarchy has pillaged society for thousands of years, promoting domination and violence for far too long. The only ideology that can save us now is lovarchy.

I'm not religious, neither am I atheistic. I'm neither superstitious nor materialist-reductionist. I don't believe in fairy tales, but I cannot ignore the truth I have encountered in beauty, goodness and love. You could call me a lovarchist.

Views: 24

Tags: domination, gandhi, ideology, jesus, lovarchy, love, nonviolence

Comment

You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Joshua Bizley on April 14, 2010 at 10:07pm
I got it published on Urban Dictionary! http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lovarchy
Comment by Joshua Bizley on April 14, 2010 at 12:58pm
I figured that since monarchy means 'ruled by monarch' and patriarchy means 'ruled by men' that lovarchy would mean 'ruled by love.' So essentially I meant, as you said, love is the ruler. I understand your aversion to 'love' being absolutized, and I don't see how that could be avoided if Love itself was legalized. However, the point is precisely that I believe love to be above the Law, above legalities. It would be a disaster if the entirely subjective concept of love were legalized - it would be a disaster if the law punished people simply because they didn't live by love, but that doesn't mean we can't live as if love is above law. Lovarchy could never be enforced, but if an entire country were to live as if it did, it would be effectively become a lovarchy. Saying that, its primary advantage is that it doesn't rely on the entire country to live by it for it to be beneficial. It's not a way of ruling others, but a way of ruling ourselves.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

Nexus on Social Media:

Latest Activity

The Fantastic Skeptic posted a video

Welcome to Jesusland (Part 16) - How Did Bill O’Reilly Get Here?

Video response to Bill O’Reilly and his video, “Where did it all come from?” which you can watch here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyHzhtARf8M This video is for educational/commentary purposes and the use of the clips/images within it fall…
39 minutes ago
Profile IconPatrick Brown and Rosita joined Atheist Nexus
40 minutes ago
Loren Miller commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago
Plinius commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago
Ian Mason commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
1 hour ago
jay H replied to Daniel W's discussion American Atheist Blogger Ajivit Roy Hacked to Death in Bangladesh
1 hour ago
Plinius commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends
3 hours ago
Joan Denoo replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion Cliteracy in the group Secular Sexuality
4 hours ago

© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service