[sinkspur]

The point of whether the "American" revolution was "justified" is a side issue, for reason only that, in the main, the colonialists were Protestant, and thus inebriated with their own inflated sense of self-worth, which is typical to Protestants by political temper, and reinforced through their materialistic and situational-ethic minded theology.

The more you rant, the more you reveal your religious bigotry.

Man is not uplifted by the "blessings" of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity; but rather, Man is further debased into his self-indulgent deception of individual freedom--a misery that he has so shrewdly created for the stated purpose of increasing Life Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Yep. You're certifiable. You wouldn't be permitted to write these words, or even be on a forum like this, in the regime you envision.

Uncomfortable and unbearable although a monarch may be at divers times throughout history, the fact remains that such leaders hold power only at God's pleasure--not by the edicts of "the people."

Thing is, your "monarch" gets to determine what God's pleasure is, doesn't he?

I'll trust the will of the electorate over the "enlightenment" of an individual in matters political, no matter how "enlightened" he, or you, think he is.

[jt8d]

"Thing is, your "monarch" gets to determine what God's pleasure is, doesn't he?"

I will repeat the natural order of things, as you, Sinkspur, seem to be rather confused on this point: Christ is the head of the body, that entity being the Roman Catholic Church; The state, represented by its sovereign Catholic head, that being the King, rules in submission to the Roman Catholic Church--and the laws of the Church; The Catholic faithful are in submission to the King. That is the proper order of things, and whether you appreciate or approve of the arrangement is of little merit.

I belive, Sinkspur, that you are inhibited from realization of what is just and proper in this temporal sphere because of an over-stimulated sense "individualism." Your ego-centric pride, has been well-inflated by Protestant political theory, ideals which are distilled from Protestant theology--a theology centered upon the idea that Man has the supreme "right" to a total freedom of action; and the supreme "right" to a personal interpretation of both the Creator and all Creation, whether such topics revolve around a self-defined scripture, or a self-defined "church," or a self-defined freedom."

"I'll trust the will of the electorate over the "enlightenment" of an individual in matters political, no matter how "enlightened" he, or you, think he is."

So you will trust Man over God, just because the issue may be political? You will trust the electorate over the Church, simply out of spite? So, according to your philosophy, the "electorate" is more "enlightened" than the Church, or the King who speaks through the authority of the Church. This line of thought must naturally include the Pope, as he is head of the Church. By your words, there must be the corollary that the electorate is always right, even when all are wrong. So, if the "electorate decides that abortion is good, then they must be right. If the "electorate" decides that homosexual marriage is good, then they must be right. If the "electorate" decides that euthenasia is good, then they must be right. After all, the "electorate" is the majority, and in a democracy--even one that is supposedly "tempered" through the etablishment of a representative republic--the majority usually rules.

The problem is that the majority can be wrong. If everybody is doing the wrong thing, that does not make the wrong thing right.