Posted on 04/08/2011 2:27:55 AM PDT by HarleyD
This may be one of the more disturbing things I have ever seen. This video is shown to people, and even more frightening, many are likely inspired by it. 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)
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".
and scariest of all, they actually use the words "Benevolent Dictatorship", where only those who agree with this guy's views are allowed to vote. true freedom. i think im gonna be sick
Monarchy can’t be applied today and sadly our democratic system is failing us because true liberty was not defined .
That’s just reality ,dear brother.
“”Liberty: The God that Failed””
Alex, here is an excerpt from the article.What part do you think is wrong?
Excerpt...
In sum, the god of Liberty has imposed upon Western civilization what Pope Leo XIII succinctly denounced as “that new conception of law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law.”[viii] This new conception of law expressed itself in utterly revolutionary principles which contemporary man, abysmally ignorant of his own Christian heritage, now unquestioningly accepts as the received wisdom of the ages:
[T]hat all are equal in the control of their life; that each one is so far his own master as to be in no sense under the rule of any other individual; that each is free to think on every subject just as he may choose, and to do whatever he may like to do; that no man has any right to rule over other men….that the judgment of each one’s conscience is independent of all law; that the most unrestrained opinions may be openly expressed as to the practice or omission of divine worship; and that every one has unbounded license to think whatever he chooses and to publish abroad whatever he thinks…[ix]
That these principles would destroy the foundations of our civilization was self-evident. Only forty years after Leo, Pope Pius XI observed that “With God and Jesus Christ, excluded from political life, with authority derived not from God but from man, the very basis of that authority has been taken away, because the chief reason of the distinction between ruler and subject has been eliminated. The result is that human society is tottering to its fall, because it has no longer a secure and solid foundation.”[x] But perhaps not even Leo and Pius could have imagined the full extent of the civilizational debacle Liberty has wrought: not only the abortion holocaust, but an epidemic of divorce, the universal practice of contraception, the depopulation of Western nations, the relentless advance of homosexualism, the destruction of the family, the spread of orgiastic consumerism, the debasement of art, music and architecture, and finally the emergence of a veritable neo-pagan social order in which Christians increasingly face persecution for mere utterances against the orthodoxy of “liberty.
Our history is replete with examples of just how "democratic" our Calvinist brothers and sisters have been. They overwhelming denied voting and participation rights to persons based upon race, gender, literacy, and property ownership. They are all for a system in which the actions of others can be dictated, providing they are doing the dictating.
Given the choice between a system, as Voris describes, in which the unvirtuous can vote and the rights of all are subject to the will of the mob, and a system administered by those sworn to obeying Gods laws I would still choose the later, but not in preference to a system obedient to God's will that each are endowed with inalienable rights by God.
Non- Calvinists? Perhaps some sentiment that-a-ways, but George Mason and Patrick Henry were most assuredly not Roman Catholic.
Otherwise, the idea of individual freedoms for the common man, we don't find coming much from the Roman papacy of some centuries ago, no matter how much they may now be persuaded of it's benefits.
The criticism you refer to concerning "the Popes of Boston", doesn't exactly reflect well upon papal thought, now does it? It seems you've sort-of shot yourself in the foot.
Now if one wished to argue that unbridled "freedom", without moral restraint is a formula for self-destruction, there could be wide agreement found among a great many of us here.
Thanks, Gamecock! Bookmarked all four tremendous links.
I would suggest that our republic is failing not because true liberty is not defined but because we have left our Christian heritage.
Hab 1:4-5 So the law is paralyzed, and justice never goes forth. For the wicked surround the righteous; so justice goes forth perverted. Look among the nations, and see; wonder and be astounded. For I am doing a work in your days that you would not believe if told.
And do you agree with Voris that only Catholics are capable of voting? How about Catholics and evangelical Baptist? How about Reformers (we already know the answer to that)? How about liberal churches?
Frankly, God tells us we're all corrupt. So how do you pick and choose who have the "right" morals? If your criteria is based upon those "sworn" to obeying God's laws, we know how well this has worked out over the years.
First, I am not buying into the premise that Democracies sometimes work. Democracies only work temporarily until the will of the majority is imposed on whichever minority they consider exploitable.
That being said, within republican boundaries, I don't care who votes.
“”I would suggest that our republic is failing not because true liberty is not defined but because we have left our Christian heritage.””
Dear brother, the Christian heritage was not DEFINED in the US based upon historical Christianity,it was founded in modernity where public opinion and social agenda was allowed to usurp Christianity with boundless liberty.
This is why we are in a mess today.
Fulton Sheen said it best
“Modern religion affirms just as much spiritual and moral truth as in a given condition will keep society together – just so much and no more. It affirms not the whole law of God, but extracts from it, and only those extracts which seem to be the most useful for social purposes...Again, modern religion has approved on aspect of the Divine Law concerning murder, and disapproved another, concerning divorce. The reason it does this is because public opinion believes murder to be destructive of society, but does not believe that divorce can be equally destructive of it in the long run. Religion thus compromises, or strikes and average between what is good and what is bad. It approves Christ only inasmuch as Christ approves it. It accepts His teachings and His authority only inasmuch as its maxims and its opinions approve those teachings.
Hence, the problem confronting the religious man of today is not whether he will obey of disobey law and authority; but which of the two he will obey, namely, the authority of public opinion, or the authority of Christ and tradition.”
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.