Is democracy un-Christian?

[DanteAlighieri]

The Founding Fathers of the United States mostly agreed that the Constitution only worked for a moral and religious people. But what they didn’t know was that the democratic ideal of government “by the people” would lead to the rampant individualism that has undermined the Christian faith of this culture and every other Western culture. No wonder people in Muslim countries call us the Great Satan.

The “democratic ideal” didn’t lead to rampant individualism and the undermining of Christianity. Sin did that. Your premise suggests that, if we were all moral people, democracy would still have brought us down – but your opening sentence suggests that democracy is only appropriate for moral people.

And those who call us “the great Satan” do so because of their own misconceptions and sin, not out of wisdom.

Therefore, I am forced to ask myself: Does democracy inherently carry the seeds of its own destruction by undermining its own moral and religious foundation? I think so.

Christianity teaches that God is king, and that the only way to happiness is to submit to Him. Democracy teaches that the individual is king, while creating a system in which the minority has no rights against the majority.

Democracy does not “teach” anything. It is a system of government, period. Furthermore, pure democracy places no extra value on individualism. Factions have the power, not individuals.

You might also want to consider that our system is not a pure democracy; it is a representative republic. This system was chosen by our founding fathers because it gave the minority more of a voice.

Christianity teaches that some things are always wrong, even if no one thinks so. Democracy allows right and wrong to be decided by a majority vote.

This is no different from my ability to choose right and wrong at a whim. We have a responsibility to elect leaders who are of good character – or, at least, not of reprehensible character. The alternative is not to have a vote at all. Would you rather be able to vote a charlatan out of office or be stuck with him?

Christianity teaches that humans are too sinful to make decisions for the common good. Democracy gives God no vote.

Christianity teaches no such thing! Where on earth did you find that? Christianity teaches that we have the RESPONSIBILITY to make decisions for the common good.

By their fruits you shall know them: Christianity has turned immoral cultures into moral ones; democracy has turned moral cultures into immoral ones.

This is, with respect, nonsense. Democracy has done no such thing – it is SIN that does this. We are given our free will by God Himself – is it HIS fault, too, that we sin?

Historically, only two forces have turned Christain countries into non-Christian ones. One is Islam (North Africa was once Christian); the other is secularism, which grew out of democracy.

Secularism is also present in Communist countries, many of which forbid religion or at least marginalize it. Your premise is totally false.

Last, but not least, you’ll notice that we never had this relativism garbage when the Catholic Church was in charge back in the Middle Ages. I think it started with Protestantism and went downhill from there. When people exchange God’s laws for manmade laws, the consequences can never be good.

What do you all think?

You’re suggesting that everything was hunky-dory until Martin Luther? There were numerous heresies that the Church was able to snuff out before Luther was ever a glint in his father’s eye. Relativism has been around since the beginning – like when the serpent convinced Eve that it wouldn’t be that bad to eat the forbidden fruit, or when Cain decided that his sacrifice was better than Abel’s.

The Church teaches that man is born to be free, and this includes the ordering of societies and governments. There is no perfect system, so the best we can do is one that allows mankind to be free of oppression.

Peace,
Dante

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Here’s a blog post by Mark Shea that speaks to this very subject. His basic point is this:

Christarchism is a Christian heresy. Jesus’ kingdom is not of this world, as he himself said and he never intended to set himself up as an earthly king. Trying to make him one against his will is therefore doomed to failure. Jesus left the work of earthly rulers to earthly rulers just as he left the work of fathering to fathers. Jesus, in fact, leaves a great deal to us to do in our proper role as creatures, precisely because he respects our freedom.

Peace,
Dante

 

[mathematoons]

I didn’t know that was a heresy. But if that’s the case, then why did the Church run things in medieval Europe for so long?

 

[AndyCothran]

So obviously a democracy is not necessarily un-Christian and Bl John Paul II has emphatically defended the principles and institutions of democratic governance in Centesimus Annus, 1991, #46.

What attacks Christianity is the totalitarian attempts as seen in the present U.S. administration to shackle the free exercise of religion over conscience involving abortion, contraception and homomania.

**** John Paul was your Pope not mine ,so his declaration on the matter does hold the same weight as it might for you . No the US administartion is so divided that it cannot be said to have collectively conspired against Christians , Democracy is about a collective of people from various backgrounds coming together for consensual governance ,
I wonder if you understand that without a democracy you would have no freedom of religion period .

 

[Abu]

AndyCothran #82
the US administartion is so divided that it cannot be said to have collectively conspired against Christians,
without a democracy you would have no freedom of religion period

First, as the Supreme Vicar of Christ from the first Pope, St Peter, there can be no more authoritative voice of Christ than His own Church.
Second, while not a matter of faith or morals, the recognition of the value of a democracy by Bl JPII is clear and “As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”
‘Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs.’

The facts of abortion, contraception, and homomania evidenced in U.S. Governmental
Direction against the natural law and conscience is witness to its antagonism.

 

[AndyCothran]

First, as the Supreme Vicar of Christ from the first Pope, St Peter, there can be no more authoritative voice of Christ than His own Church.
Second, while not a matter of faith or morals, the recognition of the value of a democracy by Bl JPII is clear and “As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.”
‘Its “moral” value is not automatic, but depends on conformity to the moral law to which it, like every other form of human behaviour, must be subject: in other words, its morality depends on the morality of the ends which it pursues and of the means which it employs.’

The facts of abortion, contraception, and homomania evidenced in U.S. Governmental
Direction against the natural law and conscience is witness to its antagonism.

I reject the office of the pope as being valid and therefore reject his authority
I reject the notion that any democracy exists without values and I reject the idea that values are of a religious nature by neccesity ,

 

[Abu]

AndyCothran #84
I reject the office of the pope as being valid and therefore reject his authority

You therefore reject Christ. Why? Don’t you believe His Sacred Scriptures?

I reject the notion that any democracy exists without values and I reject the idea that values are of a religious nature by neccesity,

What worthwhile values exist that are not based on the natural moral law and Christ’s commands?

 

[aragonjohn1]

Democracy can be a bad or a good thing depending if the society utilizes natural law, catholic/christian teaching of some just form etc…
For example the emancipation proclamation freed all owned slaves but did not prevent someone from owning one

GOD BLESS

 

[jonbhorton]

**** John Paul was your Pope not mine ,so his declaration on the matter does hold the same weight as it might for you . No the US administartion is so divided that it cannot be said to have collectively conspired against Christians , Democracy is about a collective of people from various backgrounds coming together for consensual governance ,
I wonder if you understand that without a democracy you would have no freedom of religion period .

I wonder if you understand that we in fact do not have a democracy, and democracy is the sort of system which allows NO freedom of religion, outside the will of the majority, if they choose to limit such a thing. Hence, our system of governance per the US Constitution, is NOT a democracy but a Constitutional Republic.

Andy, we have a Constitutional Republic which engages in a system of representative government via a bicameral legislative power with checks and balances between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. We are not a democracy, nor have we ever been, and despite people constantly wishing to push us toward a democracy, the only result in terms of religion, given our national moral decay, is freedom and individual liberty are put in a choke chain at best. The goal of those wishing to push us toward “democracy”, i.e. the Liberals such as Amy Goodman and networks like NPR, is actually socialism. Do you want that, Andy? Do you want to wake up one day and find you have no recourse because the majority says so? If so, keep up with the idea of pushing democracy.

If you want to stay free, get off the idea of democracy, because I guarantee you that if you aren’t the minority in one area, you are in another. Democracy will absolutely put a national boot on your neck in that regard.

 

[essie7777]

I wonder if you understand that we in fact do not have a democracy, and democracy is the sort of system which allows NO freedom of religion, outside the will of the majority, if they choose to limit such a thing. Hence, our system of governance per the US Constitution, is NOT a democracy but a Constitutional Republic.

This isn’t quite accurate - the US is a federal constitutional republic in it’s legal structures only.

The US is only a constitutional republic by structure because the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over all of its citizens.

That head of state and the representatives are voted for democratically --hence making the political function of the US a democracy.

Definition of DEMOCRACY
1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

By this definition from Merriam Webster online it certainly seems that the US fits a democracy.

Suggesting democracy does not allow religious freedom or represent any minority is beyond ridiculous. There is NO evidence of this anywhere -its a bizarre and unsubstantiated comment.

… snipped for space…The goal of those wishing to push us toward “democracy”, i.e. the Liberals such as Amy Goodman and networks like NPR, is actually socialism. Do you want that, Andy? Do you want to wake up one day and find you have no recourse because the majority says so? If so, keep up with the idea of pushing democracy.

A liberal perspective is not socialism … you are misusing the globally accepted definition of this word, as has happened over the last few years in the US, claiming liberals are socialists is a political ploy to garner support for a more conservative perception.

Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

[JimG]

I wonder if you understand that we in fact do not have a democracy, and democracy is the sort of system which allows NO freedom of religion, outside the will of the majority, if they choose to limit such a thing. Hence, our system of governance per the US Constitution, is NOT a democracy but a Constitutional Republic.

Andy, we have a Constitutional Republic which engages in a system of representative government via a bicameral legislative power with checks and balances between the Legislative, Judicial, and Executive. We are not a democracy, nor have we ever been, and despite people constantly wishing to push us toward a democracy, the only result in terms of religion, given our national moral decay, is freedom and individual liberty are put in a choke chain at best. The goal of those wishing to push us toward “democracy”, i.e. the Liberals such as Amy Goodman and networks like NPR, is actually socialism. Do you want that, Andy? Do you want to wake up one day and find you have no recourse because the majority says so? If so, keep up with the idea of pushing democracy.

If you want to stay free, get off the idea of democracy, because I guarantee you that if you aren’t the minority in one area, you are in another. Democracy will absolutely put a national boot on your neck in that regard.

Yes, we are a constitutional republic. We seem to have gone somewhat too far away from a constitutional republic in some ways, and moved too close to simple democracy, which eventually ends in tyranny.

Representatives and Senators are elected to cast votes according to their best judgment. That’s the purpose of electing representatives. In practice, now, many representatives simply follow the polls of their constitutents. And that’s not a whole lot different than passing legislation by referendum. Not a good thing.

And now, every congressman has an office simply to handle constitutent requests and complaints. Have a problem with a particular agency? Don’t like a decision by a bureaucrat? Call your congressman so they can intervene for you. But that’s not their proper function. It’s really a violation of separation of powers between executive and legislative branches.

 

[jonbhorton]

This isn’t quite accurate - the US is a federal constitutional republic in it’s legal structures only.

If it is not able to be reconciled to the legal structure, it ain’t legal. So, what you’re asserting, is that the elements of “democracy” we have, are illegal. Yes, thank you for agreeing with me in a roundabout manner, or at least recognizing an important concept in the argument.

The US is only a constitutional republic by structure because the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government’s power over all of its citizens.

Exactly, it’s a constitutional republic which utilizes representative government. Ergo, you once again prove my point to Andy that we do not exist in a democracy because representation disallows total majority rule. Your debate skills are sharp, homie.I’m glad you’re on my side.

**
That head of state and the representatives are voted for democratically --hence making the political function of the US a democracy.**

No, because as we have already established, a democracy is rule of the majority, but, a representative, despite his personal political leanings, still has to vote in the best interest of his constituents in accordance with constitutional law and corollary laws to that position. This is given credence in the Necessary and Proper Clause, in the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the political function of the U.S.A. remains a representative constitutional republic. Just because people are involved does not automatically make the government, political function, or anything else related to the nation and its political structure “democratic”. You’ve graciously provided a definition below to further assist in the proving of this point. How kind. I’ve filled in the gaps for ya, but thanks for the base to build on.

By this definition from Merriam Webster online it certainly seems that the US fits a democracy.

Definition of DEMOCRACY
1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

 

[jonbhorton]

BOLD is Essie7777, normal font is me. Exception is for quoted definitions, which are bolded for separation from my comments.

Now let’s look at how the USA stacks up as a republic in definition and actual history from a Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin:

Definition of REPUBLIC
1
a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit

 

[essie7777]

If it is not able to be reconciled to the legal structure, it ain’t legal. So, what you’re asserting, is that the elements of “democracy” we have, are illegal. Yes, thank you for agreeing with me in a roundabout manner, or at least recognizing an important concept in the argument.

I didn’t agree with you at all - roundabout way or not.

Again you are confusing a structure with a function. On your analysis and basis the US is exactly the same politically as China, Bolivia, Afghanistan, etc … all of which are Constitutional Republics.

I’m pretty sure that most Americans would find this comparison laughable as the politics of these countries are not democratic, and certainly don’t allow the freedoms seen here in the US as a democratic and free society.

And then going the other way your system of allaying structure as a function would mean the UK is under the rule of a monarch — wiping out 400 years of democracy. Hardly appropriate or meaningfully representing the truth there.

No, because as we have already established, a democracy is rule of the majority, but, a representative, despite his personal political leanings, still has to vote in the best interest of his constituents in accordance with constitutional law and corollary laws to that position. This is given credence in the Necessary and Proper Clause, in the U.S. Constitution. Hence, the political function of the U.S.A. remains a representative constitutional republic. Just because people are involved does not automatically make the government, political function, or anything else related to the nation and its political structure “democratic”. You’ve graciously provided a definition below to further assist in the proving of this point. How kind. I’ve filled in the gaps for ya, but thanks for the base to build on.

Ahh but you are abdicating the responsibility of the voter. As a voter you are free to decide whose mandate you support and who you wish to have represent you --this is democracy at play.

This is the function of your political identity – if The US was not democratic then maybe you can claim your structure as a function, but the allowing of choice and voting defines it as a democracy. Or you could simply follow the Chinese option and be a true republic with no democratic participation.

You are creating quite a strawman argument here when discussing the definition of democracy:

Definition of DEMOCRACY
1a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (the majority votes decides the representative who goes on to be part of government - that’s government by the people.)
b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections (Actually when you refer to no head of state being listed here that is really very simply explained here --not all democratic countries’ head of state is voted for – but ALL democracies vote for the most powerful person in their land … so the “supreme” power is in the hands of the people)
2: a political unit that has a democratic government (**try as you might your POV is flawed - the political unit your structure - is a republic filled with democratically voted for people **)
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy — C. M. Roberts> **(I just adore how Americans have hijacked the word socialism to mean liberal … and FYI this is a definition of capitalized democratic as identifying the party not its politics! **)
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority (But you ignore the fact that democracy invites all people to be able to participate - again you are confusing the structure of republic with the political function of democracy
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges (LOL – the US does not have a class system - not aware of a hereditary titled class here in the US.

So your arguments that the US fails on all counts of democracy is simply wishful thinking!

If majority ruled, as in democracy, and the majority of a country was of a religion or ethnicity which was at great odds with another religious or ethnic faction, or both, it would be fairly easy to squash their civil and religious freedom. There does exist, however, the same moral imperative in a republic that also exists in a democracy- that the people not be ruled in a totalitarian manner.

LOL – no substance here to your POV at all. I will adjust though and rather than leave it at this – point out one democracy in the world that does not allow religious freedom or protect minority perceptions and beliefs?

 

[essie7777]

That I utilize words and definitions in both strict dictionary ways, as well as colloquial slang which may or may not mesh entirely with the strict definition, probably confused you here.

It didn’t confuse, rather this misuse me makes me frustrated that Americans dare use this phrase to represent something which has no parallel to what socialism actually means.

The most accepted reason for this hijacking is because America has never experienced socialism and as such has no concerns of the appalling comparison you are making, as you so put it by not following a slang which is "not mesh[ed] with the strict definition. Its insulting to all those who have lived under socialism and suffered with it.

The comparison to the French fourth Republic is unfortunate if you know your European History – it was set up post WW2, to transition France to democratic rule the structure seen as the most beneficial post socialist rule … this denounces your perception that a republic is not democratic as this form(structure) was specifically chosen as the format from which to introduce and expand democratic voting and parliament. Bad choice to focus on. Great choice for the dictionary as it emphasis form vs function.

Also notice through out the definition it uses the descriptor FORM constantly, a form is not a function.

This is followed logically that said FORM can create GOVERNMENT which is then democratically voted for by the people. This further emphases my position that your misconstruing form/structure with function.

In the definition of Republic you highlight and disagree that the US is therefore comparable to SOCIALIST states in their TRUE definition of the word that were regional Republics. Surely is you are stating the US is a republic you should be proud to compare your country to these stellar examples of freedom -former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia . The fact you try to distance yourself from this part of the definition simply makes your position weaker!

The US is either a Republic warts and all or its not. Be consistent at least., you surely can’t suggest that you get to pick and choose which parts of the definition you agree with?

And if none of that convinces you the same dictionary you used lists democracy as a synonym of republic. hhmmmm… curious???

I have already commented on your misuse of the word socialism and you admitted to not using in the strict sense, so i wont bother again.

However before you attack the concept of liberal political thought i’d refer you to the Compendium of Catholic Social Doctrine … especially 301, 303,355,389 - there are numerous others.

Those pesky liberals are only following Catholic teachings, and FYI as a point of reference the term liberal to that POV is again an Americanism, the same phrase doesn’t mean the same in Europe.

 

[jonbhorton]

Given that you only respond to particular sentences, I don’t even know what some of your reply is in regards to.

I’ll trudge through it, and once again explain to you why the US is not a democracy, but in the meantime:

lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html

1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/repvsdem.htm

albatrus.org/english/goverment/govenrment/democracy%20versus%20repubblic.htm

---

I take it that you are not American? Well, here’s our pledge of allegiance. You’ll see that it espouses the idea of a Republic, and not a democracy:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag
of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation under God, indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

“… and to the Republic … for all.” = Republican principle, not Democratic.

 

[jonbhorton]

**I didn’t agree with you at all - roundabout way or not.
** Yes, you did, though you didn’t mean to do so.

Again you are confusing a structure with a function. On your analysis and basis the US is exactly the same politically as China, Bolivia, Afghanistan, etc … all of which are Constitutional Republics.

No, I’m not confusing anything. You are. You are confusing them because you either don’t understand them, or understand them and wish to engage in rhetorical subterfuge against the principles of a republic by using a very general goal of the “democratic” process, which is better answered through a republican system of governance for reasons cited in the links in my post before last. The structure is for the function. If Form doesn’t follow Function- IT DON’T WORK or it doesn’t work well at all.

Per your accusation that China is anywhere on par with my beloved country, and its soon to be memory:
While the Chinese have a constitution, it is in fact an extreme democratic offshoot which is otherwise known as “communism” in general, but not pure communism. This is further held to the people, and not held to the government by the people, via a single-party socialist republic. Socialism and Republicanism are automatically AT ODDS. China is nothing like the US except that it has borders, a constitution, and government. How it uses those 3 things to affect the national reality is far removed and very, very distant from the US. Out of over 1 Billion people, you expect me to believe that a single party system, particularly one which utilizes marxist/communist/socialist/Maoist principles, to be either democratic or republican in any regard other than meaningless labels?

Bolivia: Almost hits a home run, and then it fails because of what it is moving towards: Socialism. Again, not the point of the US and not like it except as a possible model of future failure with which to understand the current happenings as they relate to American politics and trends toward very Un-American political processes, both historically and in spirit of the principles America is built upon.

Afghanistan: Is an “islamic” Republic. Again, structurally it tries to do what is good, but it fails because as an islamic republic, the koran is the ultimate authority on politics as it relates to both the majority (mohammedan followers) and minority (non-muslims and/or the disenfranchised). Because the constitution of Afghanistan utilizes “democratic” principles, it only follows that in a muslim-majority country, the muslims basically put their boots on the neck of any non-muslim, or any muslim out of accordance with islamic jurisprudence in accordance with their moral conscience.

So, you fail yet again at analyzing systems of governance and their dissimilarity to the labels they use.

I’m pretty sure that most Americans would find this comparison laughable as the politics of these countries are not democratic, and certainly don’t allow the freedoms seen here in the US as a democratic and free society. The processes of these countries are built on the principle of democracy, and thus, majority rules when the minority doesn’t fight it, or the minority becomes the majority, or any variance in between. The point being, not all individual rights and liberty are allowed to flourish or fail on their own merits within a framework that allows such a thing. See my explanation on China, Bolivia, and Afghanistan to understand how this is exactly what makes the difference between a working republic and a working democracy versus the non-working or bastardized models in the same.

 

[jonbhorton]

**And then going the other way your system of allaying structure as a function would mean the UK is under the rule of a monarch — wiping out 400 years of democracy. Hardly appropriate or meaningfully representing the truth there. **

The UK is under the rule of a Monarch. They have a Constitutional Monarchy. That the monarch has deferred legislative powers to a parliamentary body which engages in governance doesn’t change the fact that the Monarch is head of state, and allows the principles of subsidiarity to exist (and languish) amongst the system of governance in place there. Do you even research the things you posit for bolstering your argument?

Ahh but you are abdicating the responsibility of the voter. As a voter you are free to decide whose mandate you support and who you wish to have represent you --this is democracy at play.

The responsibility of the voter is throughout the process of republican governance and election procedures. You still do not understand how a principle of rule by the people can be theoretically accomplished via democracy vs the actual accomplishment of this principle via republican governance. Either one allows the person’s voice, but only republican systems, at least with the one in the US, has the ability to make known the voice of all and actually gives the minority a chance at something to be accomplished in their interests. Again, Democracy = majority rule.

**This is the function of your political identity – if The US was not democratic then maybe you can claim your structure as a function, but the allowing of choice and voting defines it as a democracy. Or you could simply follow the Chinese option and be a true republic with no democratic participation.
**

This paragraph is so full of inconsistent application of terms, systems, and the actual reality of how those things react that I can’t even answer this without risking a violation for “lack of charity”. I’ll defer to the rest of my answer in how this relates.

You are creating quite a strawman argument here when discussing the definition of democracy:

No, I’m applying the defined principles to a system of governance to provide a litmus test of which system the USA most closely resembles in structure, form, and function: A republic.

So your arguments that the US fails on all counts of democracy is simply wishful thinking! It doesn’t fail on all counts, it succeeds on the checklist of a republic despite the facade of similitude in a democracy, in comparison to the beautiful countenance of a republic.

LOL – no substance here to your POV at all. I will adjust though and rather than leave it at this – point out one democracy in the world that does not allow religious freedom or protect minority perceptions and beliefs?

There are no pure democracies in the world. None. However, as I have addressed prior, here now in the above, and will continue to state- democracy is majority rule. In the case of Afghanistan, we see a very easy example of the trouncing of religious liberty as a state function.

 

[jonbhorton]

It didn’t confuse, rather this misuse me makes me frustrated that Americans dare use this phrase to represent something which has no parallel to what socialism actually means.

When Americans you use term “liberal” and “socialist”, we are applying the reality of socialist principles which the liberals seek to make come to fruition and power in the land. That you don’t understand or are frustrated by this is no different than saying “That child is a bad egg”. Bad eggs do not accomplish the function of a good egg. They are, in not accomplishing the function and purpose of an egg, definitively “wicked” as per the linguistic ideographic meaning of the word and concept in Hebrew. Liberalism in America is the snake on the tree, and socialism is the fruit which we should never eat. Liberalism is the temptation to the sin of socialism. Socialism, in principle and how it seeks to employ those principles, is one of the brainchildren of the tempter which leads to original sin and continued sin. Socialism is satanic. Liberalism, while generally pure in its intent (ignorance to the sin it seeks to truly foist on the people), it is still evil in its pursuits, though I will leave its intent to each individual liberal.
**
The most accepted reason for this hijacking is because America has never experienced socialism and as such has no concerns of the appalling comparison you are making, as you so put it by not following a slang which is "not mesh[ed] with the strict definition. Its insulting to all those who have lived under socialism and suffered with it.
**

Americans experience socialist policies daily, both in reaction to employed realities of socialist principle (social security, etc) as well as the impending scourge of Obamacare- a forced program which is wholly unconstitutional. That the government is instituting programs to address issues which are traditionally best resolved at the local level, and via that, stamping out subsidiarity and responsibility, and via that, disallowing the traditional function of the Church and Community in self-sustainment, just strengthens my argument.

The comparison to the French fourth Republic is unfortunate if you know your European History – it was set up post WW2, to transition France to democratic rule the structure seen as the most beneficial post socialist rule … this denounces your perception that a republic is not democratic as this form(structure) was specifically chosen as the format from which to introduce and expand democratic voting and parliament. Bad choice to focus on. Great choice for the dictionary as it emphasis form vs function.

Again, as we have demonstrated, regional application of a term does not necessarily mean anything in regard to how the purity of that term’s principles are put into play. The problem with your understanding is that the point of the republic in the case of the Fourth French Republic, is that it employed totally different principles in a parliamentary form, which does not follow the same function as the republic of the United States. Again, do you actually research and compare objective truth when putting forth theory on it?

 

[jonbhorton]

Also notice through out the definition it uses the descriptor FORM constantly, a form is not a function. Form that doesn’t follow function doesn’t function. Furthermore, the function (moral imperative) is what actually begets the form. Compare the form and function of two styles of soft drink containers. One, the closeable-top bottle, I can take anywhere, I can hit the brakes suddenly and not have the drink spill, etc. The other, the can, is less fluid in its ability to adapt to the situation that I, the reason and power behind the drink being given credence in my life, subject it to either intentionally or without intent. Nonetheless, the function of the can is not as widely applicable as the bottle. The can is Democracy, and it spills its guts constantly when brakes are hit.

This is followed logically that said FORM can create GOVERNMENT which is then democratically voted for by the people. This further emphases my position that your misconstruing form/structure with function.

Government is the form. Form does not create form unless function is at play. Form, the mechanics, is designed through consideration of the intended function and all mechanical processes relating to that. In a republic, particularly that of the USA, its inception is based on realities in the (then) present and contingencies in the (now and forward thinking “then”) future, while still assuring the best possible system for the People. Hence, the function creates the form. If you want a Christian example, the function of Christ necessitates the form of Christ Incarnate, but it doesn’t negate the objective truth that the form, in its abstract, also is the creator of the function as a reactionary measure to the free will of the people which exist in a system of subsidiarity in approaching God. God also has an open door policy, kinda like any good leader.

In the definition of Republic you highlight and disagree that the US is therefore comparable to SOCIALIST states in their TRUE definition of the word that were regional Republics. Surely is you are stating the US is a republic you should be proud to compare your country to these stellar examples of freedom -former nations of Czechoslovakia, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or Yugoslavia . The fact you try to distance yourself from this part of the definition simply makes your position weaker!

No, I was quite specific in how I compared the two in contrast. Again, you discount a regional use of a word, while using the regional use of a word to show how the overall picture is not shown in that word’s use, and then you decry me using the same principle when I am showing the actual effect of how this plays out. Which is it? My argument is strengthened by effectively letting you use your strike against itself, that you hit yourself in the process isn’t my problem. Furthermore, you seem to misunderstand that within every definition of a word, there are specific parts of speech which that word can apply to. The case of the Eastern European/Balkan “republics” is a specific use of the term, though in practice its application is woefully mistaken in light of the general system the label describes. Anything socialist in principle is not the same as a republic in the case of the US, as socialism is a type of democracy in that majority rule. The problem with socialism, is the government becomes the vocal majority despite its numerical fallacy in regard to the demographics of the population it “represents” at large.