quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

So are the militia gun nuts going to stage an insurrection? Is Cheney proposing a coup de tat?

quote:

I had to laugh at all of the ads in CA about restoring "traditional" marriage...let's see, is that the traditional marriage like Jacob with his many wives or Abraham who tries to circumvent God's promise by having a child (at his wife's urging) with her servant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mrs.Above_All

There's always been a fine line between democracy and the government. The biggest in this country's history is the separation of church and state. While doctrine has always differed from one person to the next, the inherent Truth of G-d's Word has remained mostly consistent across denominational lines. People were free to worship what they wanted and thus, America's government basically stayed out of people's personal religious beliefs. But on the whole though, the many truths of the bible has held steadfast in our Constitution.

With this separation of church and state birthed that wonderful thing called democracy. But are we beginning to see that democracy being lost? Proposition 8 is a good example. Here, the people have chosen but the homosexual community is now opposing this democracy and is demanding that the government get involved. Government's involvement will no longer make church and State separate. One group of people, whose own beliefs are so strong that they attempt to defy democracy. Forget what the people have voted.

With a liberal President elect, I am curious to see just how long true Democracy in this country will last.

What are your thoughts on Democracy in this country? Where do you think democracy will head with our current President elect?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mrs.Above_All

They want to change the foundation of this nation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: huangshan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mrs.Above_All

They want to change the foundation of this nation.

What do you think is the foundation of this nation? Direct democracy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: stamper_ben

On Prop 8, 51% of the VOTERS were in favor of making that change to the Constitution, 49% of the VOTERS weren't. Then there were the others in the state who although eligible to vote, didn't. So yes, it IS the will of the people because the people who didn't vote gave their will to those who did. That is how a representative democracy works, like it or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mrs.Above_All

I pledge an allegiance to the United States of America...and to the republic for which it stands...one nation under G-d...indivisible...with liberty and justice to all.

...

I had an instructor in college and a paper he graded, asking me to provide reference as to how this nation was birthed as a nation believing in G-d. He is from Singapore. Granted, yes, I needed to provide that reference for paper purposes but I had a sense that my grade had to do with the fact that I provided false information. I feel compelled to e-mail him or something and give my reference. lol!

quote:

ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist

quote:

ORIGINAL: ayani

I think you'd agree with me that the first-line to 'help people' should be the church. But, for problems that are too big for the church to solve: if we don't act collectively (i.e. use the government), the problem just doesn't get solved. If we say that we're not going to use the government to solve a problem, what it means is that sometimes the problem isn't going to be addressed. Yes, there is a downside to using government to do this, which you've rightly identified. But, the alternative of people starving, dying from cold or lack of medical care or from abusive home situations, or whatever, is much worse than creating a bureaucracy and taxing people to do it.

You couldn't be more wromg about this, my friend. To say that "if we don't use government to fix a problem, it isn't going to be addressed" ignores the history of the last half of the 20th century. Every social problem that government has addressed, with the possible exception of air pollution, has gotten worse, not better. Government action has CREATED social problems that would not have existed otherwise. To quote Ronald Reagan "Government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem", and, as a nation we are headed for some HUGE problems.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Churchmouse26



I certainly agree that the "first line" should be the church. It's not that the problems are "too big" for the churches (collectively) to handle, however -- it's because the government keeps the churches' hands tied. Traditionally the church was #1 in helping the poor and effecting more permanent solutions to poverty and other (sometimes related) social problems. But in today's cultural and political climate, either the churches/parachurch organizations aren't requiring accountability from those who are being assisted (i.e., in the case of some mainstream liberal denominations), or they are so intimidated by the government's legal restrictions on the operation of their ministry project, their assistance remains a mere temporary 'stopgap' and often doesn't get to the root of the problem being addressed.

Unfortunately I foresee parachurch ministries becoming less, not more, active during Obama's coming administration. As Americans' tax burdens increase to support the (mostly ineffective) bureaucratic programs, they will have less discretionary funds to contribute to faith-based charities and missions. So it's more or less a double-whammy. :(

quote:

ORIGINAL: ayani

quote:

ORIGINAL: backrowbaptist

quote:

ORIGINAL: ayani

I think you'd agree with me that the first-line to 'help people' should be the church. But, for problems that are too big for the church to solve: if we don't act collectively (i.e. use the government), the problem just doesn't get solved. If we say that we're not going to use the government to solve a problem, what it means is that sometimes the problem isn't going to be addressed. Yes, there is a downside to using government to do this, which you've rightly identified. But, the alternative of people starving, dying from cold or lack of medical care or from abusive home situations, or whatever, is much worse than creating a bureaucracy and taxing people to do it.

You couldn't be more wromg about this, my friend. To say that "if we don't use government to fix a problem, it isn't going to be addressed" ignores the history of the last half of the 20th century. Every social problem that government has addressed, with the possible exception of air pollution, has gotten worse, not better. Government action has CREATED social problems that would not have existed otherwise. To quote Ronald Reagan "Government is not the solution to the problem, government IS the problem", and, as a nation we are headed for some HUGE problems.

Think about it a little: There are a huge number of problems which government has reduced.

A few examples that come to mind:

-FAA oversight has helped our air traffic system be among the safest in the world.

-USDA mandated safety programs improe the safety of our food supply from contamination. Example: the EColi and Mad-cow diseases.
-FDA required testing keeps many uselss or harmful 'medications' from being sold.
-Product safety laws encourage manufacturers to make their products safer. Example: what if there was no-one to tell a dairy they can't put Malamine in their watered-down milk?
-Food stamps have significantly reduced hunger in this country.
-Ask someone on Medicare whether they'd be better off without any medical care.
-Social Security has significantly reduced poverty among the elderly.
-NHTSA's safety recalls and required notifications have reduced the number of people driving dangerously defective cars.

-Laws against child abuse, and funding of shelters and counseling programs have made life much better for hundreds of thousands of abused children.

That's just a start.
No, Government can't solve all our problems and shouldn't be asked to. And, for every problem solved, some other problems can arise. But, government can significantly reduce some of our problems. And, in many cases, (like the ones I've mentioned), the consequence of not using the government is worse than the consequence of using it.

quote:

"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not".

Thomas Jefferson

quote:

ORIGINAL: SonInMe1

quote:

Yes friends, democracy in this country is on life support.

Only if we let it.

Only if we sit in our churches and let our voices be silent in our government.

Only if christians do not vote with Christ in mind.

Only if...we let true conservatism die.

Only if..we let fear control us and suck at the government teat.

Only if...we let more charity go into the hands of government.

Only if..we deny the truths in the bible for CULTURE and what makes us feel good over what is biblically right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: guerillachristian

At the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked what kind of government they had devised. His answer: "A republic, if you can keep it." Of course we couldn't keep it. The demise of the republic (despite the phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance) can be dated a number of ways. McColloch v. Maryland (1819) is as good a place as any to start, added to which were interpretations of the Commerce Clause and adoption (with strained interpretations) of the 14th Amendment. Eventually, the republic morphed -- some might say degenerated -- into a "democracy" of countervailing power centers (c.f. Madison's fear of factions). Once Congress figured out they could steal money from one pocket and put it in another, or their own, the enterprise was pretty well sunk. Someone else once said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others. Take a look around.

The kind of civic virtue and requirements envisioned by the Founders is long lost. The citizen says: What’s in it for me? The politician says: What’s in it for me? The lobbyist says: What’s in it for me? The bureaucrat says: What’s in it for me? And what about the country? Somebody else’s problem.

So, not only are we financially bankrupt, but morally bankrupt as well. Decades of spineless Congresses have abdicated much of their legislative responsibility with vague statutes or simple denial. Their motto seems to be “let the Court take care of it.” And guess what? The black-robed boneheads jumped right into the breach and now decide for all of us how we should live. Imagine if you possibly can a vote on the floor of the House or Senate legalizing abortion. How about pornography? Homosexual marriage? Criminal rights? Or just about anything requiring a definitive moral stand? Not likely.

quote:

And I have no idea what you are talking about re: the courts arbitrating how we should live. Legalizing something does not arbitrate the actions of anyone who does not wish to partake. If pot was legalized, you would not be obligated to toke. If gay marriage is legalized, you are not obligated to get married to someone of the same gender. If interracial marriage is legalized, you are not obligated to, well, you know. The fact that pornography is legal does not decide a thing regarding the practices of those who do not consume it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zhi

quote:

And I have no idea what you are talking about re: the courts arbitrating how we should live. Legalizing something does not arbitrate the actions of anyone who does not wish to partake. If pot was legalized, you would not be obligated to toke. If gay marriage is legalized, you are not obligated to get married to someone of the same gender. If interracial marriage is legalized, you are not obligated to, well, you know. The fact that pornography is legal does not decide a thing regarding the practices of those who do not consume it.

Well, that depends entirely on the context in which it's available.

If churches are required by law to host, and ministers are by law required to perform, gay marriages that they have personal moral issues about, then yes, it DOES affect those who do not wish to participate. If pot is legalized and people are smoking it in enclosed spaces that you must be in for transportation, your job, shopping, etc, then you ARE forced to toke, second-hand. If pornography is legal to the point where it's being plastered across billboards and advertisements at bus stops and constantly on TV and the internet despite your efforts to avoid it, then you're forced to consume it even if you would prefer not to.

There aren't a lot of people who live in little, insulated, bubble-wrapped spaces to the point of where what happens in society does not affect them whatsoever, and what they do does not affect society at all.

And that's not even counting the potential for the wrath of God to come down on the society in question, for their allowance of depravity.

The courts were never meant to legislate from the bench. Doing so violates the very premise of our government and is a very, very dangerous thing to be apathetic about.

quote:

With respect to pot and pornography, I guess you might have a point, but public conduct isn't something we've had a great deal of trouble regulating with respect to existing habits, like smoking or, yes, pornography. In addition to that, simple common decency (the desire to not make an [male donkey] of oneself before one's peers) and societal mores tends to restrict us to a decent degree, and private interests' desire to not offend their customer base takes care of a lot as well.

quote:

Courts erring on the side of the persecuted minority doesn't seem out of line with their historical role, and given the above coupled with a desire to err on the side of freedom, I'm perfectly happy to be at least apathetic, if not enthusiastic.

quote:

Courts erring on the side of the persecuted minority doesn't seem out of line with their historical role, and given the above coupled with a desire to err on the side of freedom, I'm perfectly happy to be at least apathetic, if not enthusiastic.