Statists would have us believe that democracy is a virtue, even when there is no real democracy in the world today. We only have democratic Republics. But the thinking is, if people can vote, it is a virtuous thing that will lead to the best outcome. In effect, voting has been elevated to making society righteous, which is an absurd notion.
So what if those people who can vote are not virtuous? Will they not then vote for corruption? What if they are not educated? What is their vote worth? Moreover, what if those who vote are virtuous and educated but send a liar to represent them who is not?
So as we see, the key is the moral fiber of society. Society needs morel voters and moral people to represent them. If not, then it all breaks down. What motivates people to choose to do the right thing? Should laws coerce them to try to do the right thing? If you are a statist, the answer is yes. In the US today they pass well over 40,000 new laws and regulations every year. Are we any better for it I wonder? But then, how do we make our leaders do the right thing, especially when no one holds those in power to the same laws they pass? I'm reminded of Obama trying to appoint people to his cabinet when he was first elected. Many of them were discovered never to have paid their taxes. Most stepped down, but men like Tim Geithner, head of the IRS, did not.
As Ben Franklin aptly pointed out, the Constitution will only remain until society becomes so corrupt they will absolve it. That is why the Constitution today is ignored more and more every day.
Originally posted by whodeyDo you, or do you not think the government ought to interfere with people's religious matters and beliefs?
It is up to society to look to God as their moral guide or the state. The more people choose the state the more the state replaces God. It is really one or the other, which is why most atheists are big government socialists.
For many, Hillary will become their new god......er.....godess.
Originally posted by whodeyActually we have both made assertions. I have admitted that you may not have said it. That I may be wrong, does not make me a liar.
You are the one making the assertion, so show us where I have said it or assume the role of liar.
That you are not willing to give your actual opinion on the matter, does tell us a lot.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's right, it only makes me a liar when I do that.
Actually we have both made assertions. I have admitted that you may not have said it. That I may be wrong, does not make me a liar.
That you are not willing to give your actual opinion on the matter, does tell us a lot.
My bad.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThose who founded the country were mostly made of men of faith.
I strongly advise you to do a course on american history as you are woefully ignorant of the subject.
There were a small number who were not.
My assertion is correct.
To prove otherwise, you need to list those who were not.
Originally posted by whodeyNo, it doesn't make you a liar when you do that. Please try and learn English while you are brushing up on american history.
That's right, it only makes me a liar when I do that.
My bad.
You are a liar when you tell lies, as you frequently do on this forum. And in case you haven't yet worked it out, a lie is something that is untrue that you know is untrue.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI am not aware of whodey having claimed to have graduated from an american university.
Would you say his description is historically accurate?
World utopia is what statists hope for through such ideas as their one world order, not me. The world system is based upon money and power, and as the Bible says, the love of money is the root of all evil. However, America was founded by those of faith who sought refuge from such an oppressive system.
My own limited knowledge of american history (not having been to an american school) would be that the american revolution came about at least in part through secular beliefs in human rights and complaints about the imposition of taxes and other laws by the British parliament without due consultation with the states. It had nothing to do with religion.