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: 10

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.
Comment by Фелч Гроган on April 13, 2010 at 7:27pm
Oh good. The patriarchy hasn't been blamed for everything for maybe a whole week. Thankyou for reminding us.

There's also Lovolution.

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

MJ

Latest Activity

Joan Denoo replied to Gene Sokolowski's discussion Great New Book: Taking Liberties: Why Religious Freedom Doesn't Give You the Right to Tell Other People What to Do
20 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Gene Sokolowski's discussion Great New Book: Taking Liberties: Why Religious Freedom Doesn't Give You the Right to Tell Other People What to Do
21 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Gene Sokolowski's discussion Great New Book: Taking Liberties: Why Religious Freedom Doesn't Give You the Right to Tell Other People What to Do
25 minutes ago
Joan Denoo liked Gene Sokolowski's discussion Great New Book: Taking Liberties: Why Religious Freedom Doesn't Give You the Right to Tell Other People What to Do
26 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to Gene Sokolowski's discussion ALL Politicians Should Be Made to Read: "Homosexuality, atheism etc: What's it to you?"
35 minutes ago
Mike Mitchell commented on Mike Mitchell's blog post Why You Shouldn’t Announce Your Atheism
37 minutes ago
Tom Sarbeck posted a discussion
38 minutes ago
Joan Denoo replied to matthew greenberg's discussion Kansas "Religious Liberty" bill
49 minutes ago
Napoleon Bonaparte posted videos
58 minutes ago
Richard C Brown replied to Luara's discussion Meet Brother Richard
1 hour ago
Richard C Brown replied to Luara's discussion Meet Brother Richard
1 hour ago
Napoleon Bonaparte commented on Napoleon Bonaparte's video
1 hour ago

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service