[allmendream]

All that you said that would make any reasonable reader conclude that you are against elections, and think secular governance should subject itself to religious authority and that we should not be able to vote on such “moral” issues as how two people can get divorced.

All your quotes that made me surmise this follow......

There are many systems of government that maintain universal moral code and leaving moral disputes to the religious authority and the independent juduciary”

“the very idea that getting someone elected constitutes legitimate government is laughable”

the republic cannot legitimately operate by allowing the democratic process to intrude into the moral law

Abortion, euthanasia, medical experimentation on humans, gay “marriage”, no fault divorce are moral issues that modern democratic governments often decide wrongly.

One (a government) where moral issues are not put to the vote.

be free from the tyranny of the democratic process which imposes moral decisions on them contrary to the authority of their faith, that is, contrary to the true, religious authority.

[annalex]

Elections for the purpose of economic policy or foreign policy are fine. Elections that violate fundamental ethical beliefs are not fine. Those are the kind that delegitimize governments. The current health care bill railroaded through congress, for example, will go a long way further delegitimizing this government.

Note also that we are not talking about esoteric religious disciplines such as fasting, dress codes, etc. We are talking matters of universal ethics, on which, by the way, there is agreement between all major religions.