Is the American form of government inherently wrong?

[Inego_de_Loyola]

But his beliefs are definitely Theocratic and I’d oppose any of his insane beliefs like banning pornography and contraptions, limiting seperation of Church and State, and just getting into people’s private sex lives, something that will go against my plans.

I’m glad he’s not getting elected because God knows what insane laws he’ll pass out.

Precicely and exactly those he could get the legislature and courts to go along with. Despite the beliefs of our present Commander in Chief, the president is not a king. Also pornography could be considered obscenity (Because it is almost the very definition of obscenity.) and therefore does not necessarily enjoy any first amendment protection. Unfortunately present laws say that obscenity is to be decided by the community, so while it is definitely obscene people on a local level have to point that out before the current laws banning porn can be enforced.

 

[Pisces_Adonis]

Precicely and exactly those he could get the legislature and courts to go along with. Despite the beliefs of our present Commander in Chief, the president is not a king. Also pornography could be considered obscenity (Because it is almost the very definition of obscenity.) and therefore does not necessarily enjoy any first amendment protection. Unfortunately present laws say that obscenity is to be decided by the community, so while it is definitely obscene people on a local level have to point that out before the current laws banning porn can be enforced.

United States is Secular Republic.

As for porn being obscene, to begin with what is “porn” is truly subjective at the core. For example if I have a catalogs of pretty nude models but I intend to use it to purchase products, that wouldn’t be porn.

If I’m watching a TV show full of dead-drop gorgeous nuns in a Catholic-themed story, its arguable thats pornography because they obviously chose such pretty young girls as the nuns to attract young male viewers (including those anti-Catholic and Irreligious folks).No matter how heavily clothed from arms to legs these nuns are and no matter how much “Catholic Values” the TV program espouses .

If I were to watch such a TV program, I’m technically committing LUST as I’ll be gazing upon those LOVELY Nuns and Fantasizing Romance with them .

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test
Wikipedia:

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[2] It has three parts:

Whether “the average person, applying contemporary community standards”, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[3]

Present law deciding what is obscene. Most pornography falls under this. As for your playboy catalog, It may or may not fall under the legal definition of obscenity, but it surely falls under the moral definition.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

United States is Secular Republic.

It is an oligarchy with democratic elements.

 

[andrewstx]

It is an oligarchy with democratic elements.

As a texan I like to say it’s an oilagarchy.

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

As a texan I like to say it’s an oilagarchy.

At first I thought it was a typo but I see what you did there.
If oil is what people want it is still washing up on our beaches and in our wetlands. BP is spending their time and money convincing the world they fixed it instead of actually fixing it.

 

[InJesusItrust]

United States is Secular Republic.

As for porn being obscene, to begin with what is “porn” is truly subjective at the core. For example if I have a catalogs of pretty nude models but I intend to use it to purchase products, that wouldn’t be porn.

If I’m watching a TV show full of dead-drop gorgeous nuns in a Catholic-themed story, its arguable thats pornography because they obviously chose such pretty young girls as the nuns to attract young male viewers (including those anti-Catholic and Irreligious folks).No matter how heavily clothed from arms to legs these nuns are and no matter how much “Catholic Values” the TV program espouses .

If I were to watch such a TV program, I’m technically committing LUST as I’ll be gazing upon those LOVELY Nuns and Fantasizing Romance with them .

Oh just stop. Any sane person knows what porn is. Some try to argue against common sense using reason, but legalism is a terrible way to rule a country. Just because you cannot give a purely rational account of what porn is does not mean that it is not porn. Even a toddler can tell the difference, and yet very “smart” people can’t?

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

Even a toddler can tell the difference, and yet very “smart” people can’t?

Words cannot describe how much I don’t want to know how you know this.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Well, would they close their eyes when seeing nuns on TV or not? As far as I understand as a child I would close my eyes when anything remotely sexual came on TV.

If a child can understand something so simple as to what is modest, why do adults struggle with it? They use reason to obfuscate the truth and silence their conscience.

 

[thesmiter1]

and unregulated capitalism isn’t?

Did I say it wasn’t? There is a tendency for people to polarize on the issue, either one or the other. I hate when this happens. Why must we have unregulated capitalism? Why must we have a large welfare state? People condemn one but not the other. People pick one to hate, but let the other run rampant. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in between.

Perhaps a welfare state would work well if Catholic moral principles were applied, but unfortunately every government in the world right now runs at an almost entirely secular level, and it is quickly becoming secular humanism. In the interest of the salvation of souls, this is not what we want (see my ENTIRE post, you and others selectively quoted me). The state is not god, nor is the dollar. This is why I felt it necessary to warn against socialism. Capitalism already had its opposition stated. I never endorsed unregulated capitalism. You put those words into my mouth.

 

[severus68]

I disagree with a hereditary monarchy. I think that a man known for his virtue should be proposed by the provincial aristocracies, approved by the church and then elected by two thirds majority of the national aristocracy, or the last kings college of counselors. If no man is acceptable by these standards then in its stead I would have an aristocracy by lottery from the educated, veteran, clerical, religious, and senatorial (wise elders not senate in the american sense.) classes for civil matters and a consul for martial leadership. This would serve until such time as a kingly man arose. Elections would be held every decade, but a king once found would serve for life excepting impeachment or voluntary retirement having been approved by the college of counselors.

There would be subsidiarity, so everything would be done on the lowest level that can effectively do it.

But sadly I don’t rule the world so…

So you believe in classes with the aristocracy having all the say?

Anyhow, this like any other human government would be corrupted by sin and vice and eventually collapse or reform.

 

[Justin_Swanton]

What is interesting, looking at the historical record, is the link between material prosperity and moral decline in the social sphere.

Material prosperity always presupposes a highly complex and fairly centralized economy, which means a society in which people are no longer significant parts of small, self-sufficient communities but rather tiny cogs in a big economic machine.

In a small community it isn’t just money that makes the world go round. Community solidarity depends upon other qualities besides the annual turnover. You have to get along with other individuals as individuals if the community is to work, hence their convictions, prejudices, integrity, beliefs and values are of paramount importance. If everyone in a small community is Catholic then that will determine to a great extent how the community runs itself.

A fairly sizeable state can be composed almost exclusively of such small communities (like the early mediaeval kingdoms) with the natural result that the religious convictions of the inhabitants are respected by the legal institutions, which by and large simply reflect the local customs.

When technology develops and industry is organised to take advantage of it, then the small communities suffer. No longer economically self-sufficient, they are obliged to become integral parts of a bigger picture in which the natural moral norms of a community no longer need apply. It takes time: societies don’t become amoral in a single generation, but once you have industrialised the lower classes and created a world in which material progress becomes an end and not a means (so what if I have DSTV and an ipad - I’ll still die of old age if an accident or sickness don’t get me first), then you have started a process which will inevitably end in the dissolution of the old moral guidelines that governed society.

It doesn’t matter then what kind of government you have - democracy, republic, oligarchy, monarchy, dictatorship, take your pick - the end result will be the same.

 

[Bill_Martin]

But his beliefs are definitely Theocratic and I’d oppose any of his insane beliefs like banning pornography and contraptions, limiting seperation of Church and State, and just getting into people’s private sex lives, something that will go against my plans.

I’m glad he’s not getting elected because God knows what insane laws he’ll pass out.

Since Congress makes the laws, I’m not sure what laws you think he would pass. But I am also glad that he’s not getting elected.

 

[pnewton]

There are few forms of government that are inherently wrong, and certain democracy is not. It is however self-destructive in the long run, something the founding fathers knew, but one or two minor mistakes in the beginning have lead to an unraveling of the system of checks and balances that were to keep demoracy in reign.

So now we have a quasi-democratic oligarchy (or oiligarchy if you wish) and the countdown has begun. For Catholics, none of this should matter, as we are taught to be good citizens, within moral limits, in any form of government.

I hope the next time a constitution is written they put an expiration date on the whole thing. You know, “best used by xxxx”.

 

[Pisces_Adonis]

If I reply against many of the SEX related things, it would pull thread in a totally off-topic direction.So I’ll create a new one.

 

[tafan]

Who says it is the ideal? Historically Israel was a theocracy both during the age of the Judges and during the Second Commonwealth. Samuel initiated a limited monarchy, where the king’s authority was limited. David’s house, exceeded its limits, with Solomon especially behaving like a typical monarch of the region rather than God’s annointed. His son and successor promised to do the same, which provoked the north to reject his authority. The North then behaved even worse, while Judea had both good and bad kings. Both eventually collapsed and this began the exile. Afterwards, under the Persians, the temple sacrifices were restored and the national cult became the highest form of national life. Then came Alexander and the Hellenists and the Revolt, and another theocracy, before it was restored as the Herodians installed by the Romans. Medieval monarchy tended to appeal to the Davidian model, and despite the extreme claims of Boniface, the pope were less theocrats than more like Chief Justices. Again: the ideal form recognize the need for government that serves the law, both natural and divine, and rules the people justly in accordance to such law.

You said so, in post 23: “The ideal form is, indeed, theocracy”.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Would a general consensus be:

Theocracy or church-supervised monarchy is the best form of government in principle. There will always be faults even in this kind of government, but secular government in itself is always a least of evils kind of thing. And people will still break laws and murder their babies and whatever else, but it would no doubt be done at a much lower occurrence, and it would be extremely taboo.

??

 

[ReapReason]

Would a general consensus be:

Theocracy or church-supervised monarchy is the best form of government in principle. There will always be faults even in this kind of government, but secular government in itself is always a least of evils kind of thing. And people will still break laws and murder their babies and whatever else, but it would no doubt be done at a much lower occurrence, and it would be extremely taboo.

??

I think that what is good in principle is not always good in every practical context. A Catholic Government may seem in principle like a good idea, but that alone does not mean that it would in practice be a good thing, or even that it is the least of two evils.

I think there was a split between church and state for a good reason, and that is simply because it is not practically sustainable in a pluralistic society and it greatly soured the moral image of Christianity in the form of Catholicism.

 

[RobbyS]

You said so, in post 23: “The ideal form is, indeed, theocracy”.

I misspoke. Or rather used the term in two senses. Theocracy means that the Lord Jesus will come to rule over the nations in a way we do now know, with the descent of the New Jerusalem. But it was the ideal, analogous to our ideal of democracy, held by the people of Israel during the time of the judges. The twelves tribes has no king but the Lord and the judges served as his ministers. It was a concession to the weakness of the people that the Lord gave them a king. It was, however, supposed to be limited monarchy. Saul, David and Solomon, however, each in his own way, sought accumulate power and wealth, and ended up, in Solomon’s case. if becomingin the end just another potentate.Those who think that the Bible looks back at the monarchy as a golden age, miss the point, I think, since Solomon’s rule ends in tragedy, in the loose sense. He has raised Israel to the heights of its power, but the end result is the oppression of the people, caused the destruction of the unified kingdom, and eventually, the disappearance of all but a remnant of the nation that Solomon had once ruled over. Solomon remains as a man famous for his knowledge and wisdom, but paradoxically he is representative of folly. Like the inhabitants of Babel, he raises a tower to his might and wealth and prestige, but his empire barely survives his death.

 

[starshiptrooper]

Would a general consensus be:

Theocracy or church-supervised monarchy is the best form of government in principle. …

??

I am not part of this consensus. In a theocracy, the leaders have authority because of their religious beliefs. A hereditary monarch receives his power from his family. Both governments disregard the truth that political power is given only by consent of the people.

An elective monarchy might be a good form of government, but concentrating power in the hands of one man is dangerous. To avoid this, we have to divide the powers of government among different leaders who are all chosen by the people in some way.

Wait a second that sounds like the American form of government.