Democracy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven_John
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hesychios said:
I agree with what you say, but the democratic ideal is at the heart of the Republic, it enlivens it with a higher purpose. This was not exactly so from the beginning, when so many rich families preferred to control the system for their own purposes.

So now we have women and renters voting, and Senators directly elected. I for one do not see that as a bad thing.
Click to expand...
Of course it isn’t a bad thing. Americanism has always been a mass movement, as we see now with the tea parties, etc.

But we are far too large now for anything resembling true democracy. In creating a system rivalling the Roman empire in size and awesomeness, we have wound up with an equally entrenched and meddlesome governmental system. The democratic ideal developed in an era of “cities” that were minor towns by our reckoning.

ICXC NIKA.
 
Hesychios said:
I agree with what you say, but the democratic ideal is at the heart of the Republic, it enlivens it with a higher purpose. This was not exactly so from the beginning, when so many rich families preferred to control the system for their own purposes.

So now we have women and renters voting, and Senators directly elected. I for one do not see that as a bad thing.
Click to expand...
The demoncratic ideal is at the heart of the elective process, but even that was, and is less so today, limited. We still, thankfully, have the Electoral College. And for the first half of the republic’s history, US senators represented the states, therefore, indirectly electioned by the people.
I too agree that voting rights for all is valuable.

But the essence of constitutional representative government is that the rights of the majority, and powers of the government are strictly limited by the constitution, or at least is supposed to be. 🤷

Jon
 
The United States is a constitutional republic. But it was greatly compromised when President Woodrow Wilson took away the right of Congress to control taxpayers monies through the US Treasury and instead, have the international bankers through the Federal Reserve do so. The international bankers do not care about a constitutional republic.

They can buy lawyers, judges.

Thomas Jefferson said the most vulnerable branch of government vulnerable to misrepresentation of the people is the branch of Law. In various areas of our country, it has become a black beast legislating immorality, the death culture, and the whittling away of American sovereignty as a nation. Poverty is immigrating to America…good people, but an acknowledged segment of immigrants,–note acknowledged – legal or illegal, are not desirous of achieving higher education and professions, or not having the innate psyche of creating new businesses.

Subsequently, the baby boomer population that promoted and backed unChristian legislation from the bench will be the ones supported by the poor-- if they are even able, tax-wise. Many secular Americans practice contraception; their numbers are decreasing. So much for liberal politics.

Saw this coming a long time ago…Pope Paul VI saw a contracepting culture that does not value human life coming to its end.

But for us, a greater opportunity to live out the Gospel…irregardless what happens to our sovereignty.

John Paul came to believe in his opinion a free market with a strong moral voice was the best way of living for people…it is about making a living and the zeal to live…
Check out today’s, February 27, 2011 National Catholic Register, ‘Why the Romans Loved John Paul’…I had no idea just how much he lived out the gospel. He didn’t get paid for it either, and lived a life full of service for the Lord.
 
An interesting thread.

We UUs hold the demoncratic process in high esteem, it is one of the seven principles that we affirm as our foundation.

We do elect the board that governs us, from the national association down to individual church or fellowship boards.

A congregation may also vote to hire a minister, although many of the smaller fellowships, such as mine, are lay led.

I only mention this because someone had said voting for a minister or priest is unthinkable in a Catholic church.

We are happy with our system, just as, at least according to the statements posted here, Catholics are happy with the manner in which their church is run.

As for those of us in the U.S., we live in a constitutional republic, which generally means we live under the rule of law, not the rule of the majority.

It is a sound system, for the most part, allowing everyone to, theoritcally, be treated equally, without regard to position, social status or wealth.

I would much prefer that to some other form of more dictatorial government.

Seeker
 
GEddie said:
The classical Athenians from 450 to 350BC?
Click to expand...
A very good example in some respects. However as I understand it (I could be wrong) there was a percentage of (native born) perpetual aliens as a non-voting class, and a significant slave population.

But in Athens the juries were massive, as well as the assemblies.
GEddie said:
So do all of their adult citizens get to take part directly in governance?
Click to expand...
I thought the Swiss make better use of the referendum and recall., and they have a way with chocolate 😉

I am partial to the multi-party parliamentary democracy model. I think it works better than the American style two-party system.
 
The basic reason we need “democracy”, regardless of form (Westminster style government technically answerable to the Queen, Republican style or whatever) is that we are fallen. That is, we can’t be trusted with unlimited power over our fellow man. This doesn’t mean that every man is so good and wise he or she deserves a role in government.

I remember discussing another issue with my old pastor. He had just stated that he “wondered if Protestants get to heaven” ( and he was Protestant) and that he thought God wasn’t as easy going about the division of the church as we were.

In the same discussion he mentioned that “if there is a ‘false prophet’”, he thought it was probably Martin Luther, quoting “Some of the things Luther said and did weren’t very Christian”.

Leaving those two items aside for a forum bun fight somewhere else, we moved on to the topic of, “Well, if that’s the case, why did God allow the Reformation to take place?”

His comments were along the lines that it hastened the development of democracy, and that Bible study was dragged out of the confines of medieval church allegorisation, and ultimately into Biblical criticism. This in turn led to the development of much greater intellectual freedom. It would have taken far longer, if ever, under the old centrally authoritan states of Catholic Europe.

The fact is that the Protestant world has largely led the Catholic world in these developments. The USA for example is still essentially Protestant in its heritage. Compare it’s historical development with that of Catholic Latin America, or Orthodox Russia.

But ultimately it boils down to the fact we can’t be trusted with absolute power. I’m not sure who penned the term, but “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Which is probably why so many of the saints were never allowed to be in positions of power, but service. God’s Old Testament people, the Jews, were never allowed anything remotely resembling an empire, even at the peak of the kingdoms of David and Solomon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top