J
jonbhorton
Guest
**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?
**
I have been consistent in explaining how the US is a republic and heading toward a democracy against the principles it was founded on, even according to the only man to sign all 4 pertinent documents in this nation’s founding, Benjamin Franklin. What more do you want? Shall I employ a necromancer to bring his corpse to life and explain it? Or shall we just let some very clear words of the man explain it? That the language of today is vague and bastardized, practically useless and employed against the reality of its parts on a regular basis, doesn’t mean that was always the case. The Founding Fathers were very specific in how they wrote things with the understanding that these things might face unforeseen adversity later on. Hence, they gave the power to react to these things based on the principles of power which were already enumerated prior to the Necessary and Proper Clause- which is found in the same document as said powers.
**And if none of that convinces you the same dictionary you used lists democracy as a synonym of republic. hhmmmm… curious???**
They’re “synonymous” in a pure sense, because it is rule of the people. However, Democratic form does not follow Republican function, nor does Republican function follow Democratic form. Further, a synonym can merely encompass a high degree of similarity and is not necessarily the exact same thing, particularly in context. See my prior on the bastardization of language.
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.
I have used the word socialism in a colloquial sense as it pertains to liberalism which, colloquially, seeks to employ universal socialist principles.
**
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.**
It is not the intent of pure and unselfish liberalism I decry, though I disagree with their myopic solutions to achieve the goal. The ideas I hold regarding the issue are, in fact, based on sound moral principles as written on my heart, reconciled in my head, and very much are in line with Catholic thought. Furthermore, the Catholic Church doesn’t ascribe to, or promote, a singular or multifaceted political system in form. However, it does teach heavily on the function said system should accomplish. This function is, by definition, not able to be accomplished in the realms of marxism, mohammedanism/shariah, communism, or any variant of liberal politics which seeks to trounce on the minority and human dignity and justice overall.
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.
No, in fact, they’re not following Catholic teaching in their means of achieving that which Catholic teaching addresses. As I’ve already explained, over and over, my position on your last sentence, I’ll once again defer to that which is already explained. What you are describing in defending democracy is analogous to mohammedanism becoming the global religious power, and being labeled Christianity friendly because it employs the jizya tax. If you insist on subscribing to such an indefensible position and system, the proper course of action to keep you free from its claws is found only in a republican system of governance. This is why I constantly compare marxism and socialism, as contrasted to mohammedanism, they seek the same end- end of individual liberty by the false notion of freedom. Within Christianity, I still have freedom even if I still am bound and subject to certain principles; principles which ultimately make sure everyone has a voice and recourse.
