Posted on 04/08/2011 2:27:55 AM PDT by HarleyD
Just Wow. Has anyone ever looked at this "Great Catholic Monarch" prophecy (Yahoo Search)?
Seems very familiar... *shudder*
I had never heard of it before, but it seems to be popular among the papists...
@Quix: plz ping prophecy minded folks...
It is logically obvious that the most beneficial form of government is a competent benevolent absolute dictatorship or monarchy.
The problem is that your good monarch eventually dies, and regression to the mean implies whoever succeeds him will not be as benevolent or competent.
Balance of power republics are set up to provide reasonably decent government with even bad men in charge. Good government from an absolute dictator or monarch requires the rulers to be unusually good men.
Good luck with that.
Well, it’s a form of conservatism, but it’s obviously an anti-American conservatism. Guys would be right at home with Louis XIV.
This is the conservatism America revolted against. Our conservatism is a radical rejection of absolutism.
Personally, I’ll stick with the Declaration of Independence. I am created equal (as are all other men), and I owe no allegiance to anyone. My allegiance to my country is freely given.
If Christ returns, I’ll give my allegiance to him, but in the meantime your kings can go pound sand.
The problem with our Government is not the expansion of the franchise - that wouldn't be an issue AT ALL - if we still had a Government of limited and enumerated powers.
Without it, the public will vote themselves an indefinite supply of “bread and circuses”.
Never heard of it.
That's exactly the point Voris was making.
I hardly think that there's a crowd of Catholics roaming the countryside looking for a monarch. This is a tempest in a teapot, to the great satisfaction of some, I'm sure.
Other than that, yes - it seems a unlikely source - no doubt glommed onto for its anti-Catholic slant.
To some, many things fall to the wayside when an opportunity to bash Catholicism as anti-American presents itself.
He should focus upon restricting the government back to the Constitutional limits whereby there is no enumerated power under which they would hand out “bread and circuses”.
With Government back in its proper role (limited, enumerated) there is really no reason to get all crazy and say that “unless you agree with me and my morality - no vote for YOU!”.
That is not a functional Republic - if the giving of the vote is dependent upon agreement with the powers that be - that is a sad sick joke of a Republic.
Sort of like “Only members of the Communist Party get to vote”. Would that be a Republic?
A-millenial chr*stians have been attacking the Jewish "political messiah" for two thousand years, yet they have had one after another during that time: Constantine, Theodosius, Justinian, Tiridates, Menelek, Charlemagne, etc.
I'm waiting for a "political messiah" all right--Mashiach Ben David, Mashiach HaMelekh! That's my great monarch!
First of all, I believe his video was only put up here to annoy Catholics. Having said that:
Yes, I’d love to see government back in its proper role, with the Federal gov’t where the 10th. amendment says it ought to be.
And, it’s our enumerated right to free speech to let Voris wish for a monarchy if he so desires, right?
As for who gets to vote, I’m sure if this were out on news/activism, you’d get more than one freeper stating that many of those who vote Democrat aren’t voting out of intelligence, knowledge, etc. It’s not a new or original thought.
I agree with the post. When will you Pro-duuuh-stants realize the that Rome is correct?I think you both long for the old days when Rome had temporal power to silence her critics.
It could be they harken back to the days of Pius IX the infallible, who penned the comical syllabus of Errors.
Separation of church and State condemned!!
"55. The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. —Allocution "Acerbissimum," Sept. 27, 1852." (Condemned as error).
FREE SPEECH IS AN ERROR
79. Moreover, it is false that the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism. —Allocution "Nunquam fore," Dec. 15, 1856. (Condemned as error).
The Church CAN use force.
24. The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect. —Apostolic Letter "Ad Apostolicae," Aug. 22, 1851. (Condemned as error).
Religous Freedom of public schools condemned.
47. The best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for instruction in letters and philosophical sciences and for carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power at the pleasure of the rulers, and according to the standard of the prevalent opinions of the age. —Epistle to the Archbishop of Freiburg, "Cum non sine," July 14, 1864. (Condemned as error).
Roman Catholic as the ONLY religion of the State
77. In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.— Allocution "Nemo vestrum," July 26, 1855. (Condemned as error).
No Salvation outside the church of Rome.
17. Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ. —Encyclical "Quanto conficiamur," Aug. 10, 1863, etc. (Condemned as error).
Modern Civilization condemned
80. The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.—Allocution "Jamdudum cernimus," March 18, 1861. (Condemned as error).
He is free to wish for a Monarchy, and I am free to say that I think he is a moron.
When you determine who gets to vote and who doesn't via government decree towards conformity of ideology - that is a call to EXPAND the power and scope of government at the expense of the people.
Never claim for yourself a power in a Republic that you are not willing to see exercised by the loyal opposition. How would you have liked when 0bama and his party had the White House, the House and the Senate - for them to declare that unless you were “moral” (according to their standards) you couldn't vote?
Fine if it was done under Bush and his morality - but not ever if under 0bama and HIS ‘morality’. ?????
Ludicrous.
Absolutely.
The rest of what you have to say seems to be aimed at me. Nowhere did I say that I agree with everything Voris had to say; as a matter of fact I do not, so don't erect a strawman of my position (which you don't know) and then bat at it.
Until you address the fact that people can vote themselves goodies, I don't see how you do that. At a minimum, you have to repeal the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments to even begin to get back to the original republic. So, while I agree that we need to get to the original limits and roles of the government, I don't know how you put the genie of other people's money back in the bottle without first going first back to something like the original ideas about limitations on those who can vote. Maybe there's a way, but I just don't see a large enough majority getting control and heading that way as long as huge numbers of people who work for the government or are cared for by the government remain on the voting rolls. Perhaps not a moral test, but a means test in that you cannot derive your livelihood from the Federal government and vote in Federal elections, but whatever it is, something has to give at the voting level.
Regards
My remarks were applicable to anyone, not you. It wasn’t and isn’t about you. It is about what power the government should have in a Free Republic.
I don’t feel that restricting the vote to those who agree with the ruling parties morality and/or ideology is consistent with our Constitution or any form of actual Republican governance.
By saying this I am not intimating, hinting, or suggesting; let alone stating - that you hold the opposite position.
Giving government greater power; and that is what restricting voters to those who agree with the ruling party absolutely is - is no way to limit government - or what goodies people will vote for themselves.
Restrict voting to those with assets of at least one million dollars - and they WILL vote themselves the goodies of legislation that restricts economic competition, gives sweetheart contracts to their families, and hands out bailouts if they ever might actually lose money.
The problem is not WHO is voting - it is that the government they are voting into power has way too much POWER.
Giving them more power is insanity.
Allowing them to say who can vote and who can not vote based upon morality or ideology is giving them more power.
The Curious Republic of Gondour by Mark Twain
(Samuel Clemens); published in 1870/1871 [1]
As soon as I had learned to speak the language a little, I became greatly interested in the people and the system of government.
I found that the nation had at first tried universal suffrage pure and simple, but had thrown that form aside because the result was not satisfactory. It had seemed to deliver all power into the hands of the ignorant and non-tax-paying classes; and of a necessity the responsible offices were filled from these classes also.
A remedy was sought. The people believed they had found it; not in the destruction of universal suffrage, but in the enlargement of it. It was an odd idea, and ingenious. You must understand, the constitution gave every man a vote; therefore that vote was a vested right, and could not be taken away. But the constitution did not say that certain individuals might not be given two votes, or ten! So an amendatory clause was inserted in a quiet way; a clause which authorised the enlargement of the suffrage in certain cases to be specified by statute. To offer to “limit” the suffrage might have made instant trouble; the offer to “enlarge” it had a pleasant aspect. But of course the newspapers soon began to suspect; and then out they came! It was found, however, that for once—and for the first time in the history of the republic—property, character, and intellect were able to wield a political influence; for once, money, virtue, and intelligence took a vital and a united interest in a political question; for once these powers went to the “primaries” in strong force; for once the best men in the nation were put forward as candidates for that parliament whose business it should be to enlarge the suffrage. The weightiest half of the press quickly joined forces with the new movement, and left the other half to rail about the proposed “destruction of the liberties” of the bottom layer of society, the hitherto governing class of the community.
The victory was complete. The new law was framed and passed. Under it every citizen, howsoever poor or ignorant, possessed one vote, so universal suffrage still reigned; but if a man possessed a good common-school education and no money, he had two votes; a high-school education gave him four; if he had property like wise, to the value of three thousand ‘sacos’, he wielded one more vote; for every fifty thousand ‘sacos’ a man added to his property, he was entitled to another vote; a university education entitled a man to nine votes, even though he owned no property. Therefore, learning being more prevalent and more easily acquired than riches, educated men became a wholesome check upon wealthy men, since they could outvote them. Learning goes usually with uprightness, broad views, and humanity; so the learned voters, possessing the balance of power, became the vigilant and efficient protectors of the great lower rank of society.
And now a curious thing developed itself—a sort of emulation, whose object was voting power! Whereas formerly a man was honored only according to the amount of money he possessed, his grandeur was measured now by the number of votes he wielded. A man with only one vote was conspicuously respectful to his neighbor who possessed three. And if he was a man above the common-place, he was as conspicuously energetic in his determination to acquire three for himself. This spirit of emulation invaded all ranks. Votes based upon capital were commonly called “mortal” votes, because they could be lost; those based upon learning were called “immortal”, because they were permanent, and because of their customarily imperishable character they were naturally more valued than the other sort. I say “customarily” for the reason that these votes were not absolutely imperishable, since insanity could suspend them.
advertising
disclaimer
Under this system, gambling and speculation almost ceased in the republic. A man honoured as the possessor of great voting power could not afford to risk the loss of it upon a doubtful chance.
It was curious to observe the manners and customs which the enlargement plan produced. Walking the street with a friend one day he delivered a careless bow to a passer-by, and then remarked that that person possessed only one vote and would probably never earn another; he was more respectful to the next acquaintance he met; he explained that this salute was a four-vote bow. I tried to “average” the importance of the people he accosted after that, by the-nature of his bows, but my success was only partial, because of the somewhat greater homage paid to the immortals than to the mortals. My friend explained. He said there was no law to regulate this thing, except that most powerful of all laws, custom. Custom had created these varying bows, and in time they had become easy and natural. At this moment he delivered himself of a very profound salute, and then said,
“Now there’s a man who began life as a shoemaker’s apprentice, and without education; now he swings twenty-two mortal votes and two immortal ones; he expects to pass a high-school examination this year and climb a couple of votes higher among the immortals; mighty valuable citizen.”By and by my friend met a venerable personage, and not only made him a most elaborate bow, but also took off his hat. I took off mine, too, with a mysterious awe. I was beginning to be infected.
“What grandee is that?”
“That is our most illustrious astronomer. He hasn’t any money, but is fearfully learned. Nine immortals is his political weight! He would swing a hundred and fifty votes if our system were perfect.”
“Is there any altitude of mere moneyed grandeur that you take off your hat to?”
“ No. Nine immortal votes is the only power we uncover for that is, in civil life. Very great officials receive that mark of homage, of course.”
It was common to hear people admiringly mention men who had begun life on the lower levels and in time achieved great voting-power. It was also common to hear youths planning a future of ever so many votes for themselves. I heard shrewd mammas speak of certain young men as good “catches” because they possessed such-and-such a number of votes. I knew of more than one case where an heiress was married to a youngster who had but one vote; the argument being that he was gifted with such excellent parts that in time he would acquire a good voting strength, and perhaps in the long run be able to outvote his wife, if he had luck.
Competitive examinations were the rule and in all official grades. I remarked that the questions asked the candidates were wild, intricate, and often required a sort of knowledge not needed in the office sought.
advertising
disclaimer
“Can a fool or an ignoramus answer them?” asked the person I was talking with.
“Certainly not.”
“Well, you will not find any fools or ignoramuses among our officials.”
I felt rather cornered, but made shift to say:
“But these questions cover a good deal more ground than is necessary.”
“No matter; if candidates can answer these it is tolerably fair evidence that they can answer nearly any other question you choose to ask them.”
There were some things in Gondour which one could not shut his eyes to. One was, that ignorance and incompetence had no place in the government. Brains and property managed the state. A candidate for office must have marked ability, education, and high character, or he stood no sort of chance of election. If a hod-carrier possessed these, he could succeed; but the mere fact that he was a hod-carrier could not elect him, as in previous times.
It was now a very great honour to be in the parliament or in office; under the old system such distinction had only brought suspicion upon a man and made him a helpless mark for newspaper contempt and scurrility. Officials did not need to steal now, their salaries being vast in comparison with the pittances paid in the days when parliaments were created by hod-carriers, who viewed official salaries from a hod-carrying point of view and compelled that view to be respected by their obsequious servants. Justice was wisely and rigidly administered; for a judge, after once reaching his place through the specified line of promotions, was a permanency during good behaviour. He was not obliged to modify his judgments according to the effect they might have upon the temper of a reigning political party.
The country was mainly governed by a ministry which went out with the administration that created it. This was also the case with the chiefs of the great departments. Minor officials ascended to their several positions through well-earned promotions, and not by a jump from gin-mills or the needy families and friends of members of parliament. Good behaviour measured their terms of office.
The head of the governments the Grand Caliph, was elected for a term of twenty years. I questioned the wisdom of this. I was answered that he could do no harm, since the ministry and the parliament governed the land, and he was liable to impeachment for misconduct. This great office had twice been ably filled by women, women as aptly fitted for it as some of the sceptred queens of history. Members of the cabinet, under many administrations, had been women.
I found that the pardoning power was lodged in a court of pardons, consisting of several great judges. Under the old regime, this important power was vested in a single official, and he usually took care to have a general jail delivery in time for the next election.
I inquired about public schools. There were plenty of them, and of free colleges too. I inquired about compulsory education. This was received with a smile, and the remark:
“When a man’s child is able to make himself powerful and honoured according to the amount of education he acquires, don’t you suppose that that parent will apply the compulsion himself? Our free schools and free colleges require no law to fill them.”
There was a loving pride of country about this person’s way of speaking which annoyed me. I had long been unused to the sound of it in my own. The Gondour national airs were forever dinning in my ears; therefore I was glad to leave that country and come back to my dear native land, where one never hears that sort of music.
Thanks for the clarification.
Do you have the link to the thread where B-Chan was zotted?
Much deserved; I imagine, as any ideology that anti-Republic has no place on Free Republic other than to be denounced and ridiculed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.