Heaven is a benevolent dictatorship. Right?
But this isn’t heaven. The problem with all human government including ours is that it is run by people. While we are on Earth, we will always have that problem. So even the best government conceived will be flawed by the requirement to man it with people.
To acknowledge this human failing isn’t the same as saying that there aren’t worse things than an ugly flawed constitutional republic.
Originally people had to own property to be able to vote.
It should be returned to some version of this: People who either serve in the military or have a net paying IN TO the government, etc., should vote.
Those on the dole or who pay nothing should have no say.
Sounds tough to today's wimply ears but that is how it was back when things were sane.
You CAN NOT have people who do nothing but parasite off of others be allowed to vote.
Why? Because they eventually get the hang of it and vote for craven politicians (i.e., Rats) who give them everything in return for votes.
Then the country is destroyed, which ours almost is.
Sounds crazy to the public-skool educated person, but, it's reality.
This Mr. Voris seems quite nutty, by modern standards, when he says that only the virtuous should be allowed to vote. How shall we test for virtue?
But he is echoing John Adams: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
I bet the trains would run on time...
Your post is ridiculous. I think thiose who support homosexuality & abortion are ruining the country. It’s not a freedom thing. It’s an intelligent, insightful thing. If you can’t recognize the problems those issues have brought upon us, then you are in some serious trouble.
“i think im gonna be sick”
This guy is just a garden variety idiot, and hardly represents the Catholic Church - or anything for that matter. If every nutjob makes you sick, you should carry a sack of airsick bags with you.
Sadly many Catholic clergy haven fallen for the lies of socialism and similar nonsense, I had a nun once tell me that what America needed was a “mild form” of socialism. Well the good sister got her wish with Obama and the country is now nearly bankrupt.
How many times a day do you say that? You may not agree with what this guy would use as a test of who should vote, but the idea that the franchise should be limited goes right back to the founding fathers. Every expansion of the franchise in this country has been shortly thereafter followed by an expansion of government proving the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they limited it in the first place.
I suspect there's a lot this guy says that you don't like and figured this one would be a good hot buttom issue with folks on FR, otherwise you wouldn't have that BS about "be sick" tacked on. I also suspect you would be more than happy to have a monarchy with Christ as King and those He appoints filling all government jobs, right?
There are a subset of Catholic FReepers who refer to themselves as "monarchists", because a benevolent dictatorship (i.e. a monarchy) is their preferred/ideal form of government. Some of them actually cheered on the (perceived) demise of the USA and of free market capitalism after Obama was elected. One of their more vocal members was the recently banned B-Chan, but there are others who are still active and posting on Free Republic. I'm not surprised to hear that the supposedly conservative Michael Voris is a monarchist, too. It's not for nothing that he's referred to as part of the "Catholic Taliban".
God help the United States of America, if Catholic Monarchism is considered part of the "conservatism" that is promoted on Free Republic. Here's hoping that they get caught in their anti-Americanism, and quickly too.
What he means by web-based McCarthyism is what John L Allen (of the National Catholic Reporter) calls the “Catholic Taliban”.Allen’s explanation of this term was recently spelled out to an audience at the University of Texas. It was necessary, Allen said, to strike “a balance between two extremes”. This is how he described these extremes:
“On the one extreme lies what my friend and colleague George Weigel correctly terms ‘Catholicism Lite’, meaning a watered-down, sold-out form of secularised religiosity, Catholic in name only. On the other is what I call ‘Taliban Catholicism’, meaning a distorted, angry form of the faith that knows only how to excoriate, condemn, and smash the TV sets of the modern world........Singled out for special attention was RealCatholicTV.com, which, accused the paper, is “hunting for ‘traitorous’ nuns, priests or bishops throughout the American Church”. “We’re no more engaged in a witch hunt than a doctor excising a cancer is engaged in a witch hunt,” said Michael Voris of RealCatholicTV.com and St Michael’s Media. “We’re just shining a spotlight on people who are Catholics who do not live the faith.”
-- from the thread Attacks build up on the ‘Taliban’ and the ‘McCarthyites’ of the Catholic blogosphere
I would also like to point out that neither Michael Voris, nor me, nor any other layman, speaks for the Catholic Church. The Magisterium is still the Pope & the bishops teaching in union with him.
Ever read Plato on democracy?
Do you think the U.S is a democracy? Or a constitutional republic?
So, do you agree with the above statement from your OP? If not, why did you post it? Is it because you see the Catholic as more dangerous than the social liberal who approves of abortion and homosexuality?
This may be one of the more disturbing things I have ever seen.
This person must have never seen the effects of Islam and liberalism.
This video is shown to people, and even more frightening, many are likely inspired by it.
This guy is way too worked up about this video.
This guy basically says that the problem with our country is that "everyone can vote", both ignorant know-nothings who only care about themselves(aka people who support abortion, gay marriage, etc), and informed people(aka people who agree with his/the organizations particular views)
Questioning the wisdom of universal suffrage for those over 18 is not out-of-bounds for conservatives. Also, this guy doesn't seem to have much of a problem with abortion and "gay marriage." Remember, free republic is pro-life and against the homosexual agenda.
and this is all presented in such a way as if it is incontrovertible. as if having an opinion that a woman has a right to choose or that homosexuality is someone's own business means you havent read a book in your life and are just saying that because you only care about your own "selfish interests".
Again, free republic is pro-life and against the homosexual agenda.
i think im gonna be sick
More overreaction. Notice how poorly this is written, too. It doesn't look like it was very professionally written. In fact, it looks like a blog post or a post on a forum of some sort.
Most importantly, check out the website where this is from. It says "AboveTopSecret.com- Conspiracy Theories, UFOs, Paranormal, Political Madness, and other 'Alternative Topics.'"
Check out the comments on this post, too. The commenters are mostly atheist idiots, who equate Christianity to Islam.
We have to question why this is on a conservative website like free republic.
I agree with the post.
When will you Pro-duuuh-stants realize the that Rome is correct?
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!
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.
Roman Catholicism believes in the authentic and inherent right to power of the super hierarchy. RC adherents WANT to be told what to do because they do not believe in the existence of the individual Christian’s conscience washed clean by the Holy Spirit which can actually discern right from wrong.
This Youtube blather is a GREAT example of the RC mindset — control, control, control. And dictatorship is the natural outgrowth of this desire for unchallenged authoritarianism. Spain, Mexico, Italy. Argentina. All fascists. All RC.
Everybody should watch this short video. It’s eye-opening.
So much material, so little time......
Only Catholics allowed to vote? Because they’re the only ones with their eyes on God?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That sure doesn’t describe 99.99% of the Catholics I grew up with and worked with, including myself when I was a Catholic before I got saved.
Catholicism produces a benevolent dictatorship??????
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you say *Inquisition*?????
And last but not least, the moron doesn’t really understand our form of government if he thinks it’s a democracy. This country’s form of government is a representative republic.
Yes, there are inherent dangers like he mentioned, but the answer is not in us giving up our freedom to some alleged *benevolent* control of and by the Catholic church. If the Catholic church is so interested in virtuous and moral people voting, they need to get off their collective behinds and convert people into Christians who keep their eyes on God and vote something besides DEMOCRATIC. And they need to start with a virtuous and moral priesthood setting the example of how to live a pure and godly life.
If he thinks that the Catholic church is the virtuous moral organization to dictate us, all for our own good, of course, he’s living in la-la-land. The level of delusion he’s displaying is staggering. When the Catholic church cleans house and can PROVE, by its appropriate dealing with immorality and corruption within its own ranks, AND grassroots Catholics quit voting overwhelmingly liberal, pro-homosexuality, pro-abortion, democrat, then he might begin to have a case to present. Until then, he has NOTHING of substance to say.
God help us.
The last thing we need is the Catholic church running the government. It gives new meaning to the words, *I’m from the government and I’m here to help you*.
Thank God the Protestant Founding Fathers put the First Amendment in the Constitution, to prevent the kind of power grab that Catholics would obviously love to exercise.