Democracy without the Protestant Reformation?

[O.S.Luke]

This set things in motion; it didn’t create instant democracy and a horde of democratically-minded men. Look at Calvin!

As a Methodist, it’s probably important to “claim” that John Wesley was not a democratically-minded person either - however, Wesley died an Anglican priest in good standing. It wasn’t until Wesley went back across the pond and stayed in England that American Methodism became “democratic” under Bishops Asbury and Coke - both men who had fled England and the Crown.

Of course, Wesley didn’t intend to start a denomination either. But that would be another thread altogether…

 

[Alexander_Smith]

You are right sir!

In fact, many Americans fought for the Crown in the American Revolution (Canada was established by American Loyalists who left the U.S. after the Revolution beginning in 1791). The American situation where the head of state is also the head of government is not without its problems and tensions either.

At the time of the Civil War, the southern states, owing to a different economy, refused to vote for Lincoln, who won the election as President, nevertheless.

Had Lincoln been simply the head of government and not also the head of state (with, say, the Crown as the head of state), the Civil War might not have ever have occurred. Heads of government in constitutional monarchies can get moved around if the people don’t like them - this is actually much more democratic and less violent a process.

Alex

The Southern states had every right to succeed from the union that is now the massively oversized federal government. There would have been no war if Lincoln had not felt the need to keep the union together by war. I guess the thought of losing that many states was too much for him.

My main problem with Democracy is that it works too much like our current Judicial system. The good guys want to be elected, but so do the bad guys. However, the bad guys have more options at their disposal because they have no mortal integrity to prevent cheap or immoral tactics. Smear campaigns? Check. False accusations of racism or homophobia? Check. Lies and empty promises? Check. Not so for those who actually have some moral fiber. The good is at an inherent disadvantage, and they have to rely on the goodwill of a population that would rather be hypnotized by TV and so-called “news” programs, than actually learn something about the political scene and the candidates involved.

Exactly! The founders of this great country feared democracy and set up a constitutional republic, fearing the excesses that can arise. No American president used the term “democracy” until the 20th century.

The government was flavored by much of what the founders believed about God and about the status of man. I doubt that we would have seen government is the configuration they set were it not for those assumptions that we brought to the table. They believed that man must have liberties that have to be protected by the government. If you read their writings, you see they never envisioned other than a hard-working voting class set free to do the things that were considered moral and beneficial. They never thought of government as a way to collectively run charity.

The founders of this country did a great thing, and I am truly grateful to be an American, but part of what makes this country great is also it’s downfall.

For example, in the Declaration of Independence it is written “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

First of all while we have a right to be free, it is more of a duty to protect and defend life than an actual right. Right comes from responsibility, it is not built into our nature. It is also odd to say that liberty is a right. What does that even mean? What is being free? Free to make pornographic movies? Free to promote homosexual causes? What really is liberty, and why is it a right? As for the pursuit of happiness, this really needs no explanation. Happiness for immoral people is generally pleasure. Anything that gets in the way of that is contrary to their rights. Thus, it is impossible for us to say that gay “marriage” is wrong because it is denying others their right to happiness. That is the error of a “liberty above all else” mindset which is strong in the United States.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Southern states had every right to succeed from the union that is now the massively oversized federal government. There would have been no war if Lincoln had not felt the need to keep the union together by war. I guess the thought of losing that many states was too much for him.

My main problem with Democracy is that it works too much like our current Judicial system. The good guys want to be elected, but so do the bad guys. However, the bad guys have more options at their disposal because they have no mortal integrity to prevent cheap or immoral tactics. Smear campaigns? Check. False accusations of racism or homophobia? Check. Lies and empty promises? Check. Not so for those who actually have some moral fiber. The good is at an inherent disadvantage, and they have to rely on the goodwill of a population that would rather be hypnotized by TV and so-called “news” programs, than actually learn something about the political scene and the candidates involved.

The founders of this country did a great thing, and I am truly grateful to be an American, but part of what makes this country great is also it’s downfall.

For example, in the Declaration of Independence it is written “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

First of all while we have a right to be free, it is more of a duty to protect and defend life than an actual right. Right comes from responsibility, it is not built into our nature. It is also odd to say that liberty is a right. What does that even mean? What is being free? Free to make pornographic movies? Free to promote homosexual causes? What really is liberty, and why is it a right? As for the pursuit of happiness, this really needs no explanation. Happiness for immoral people is generally pleasure. Anything that gets in the way of that is contrary to their rights. Thus, it is impossible for us to say that gay “marriage” is wrong because it is denying others their right to happiness. That is the error of a “liberty above all else” mindset which is strong in the United States.

I agree sir and I thank you and the other posters for their insights!

Alex