From John Adams:
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Bolding mine!
AMEN!!! If only we had stayed the course!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
But seriously folks, this clown is dangerous
- Thread starter Bro. Curtis
- Start date
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
Bolding mine!
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
Republic - A free society in which citizens elect representatives to convene to vote on laws and important issues. The U.S. is and always has been a Republic.
Democracy - A free state in which citizen congregate or otherwise (eletonically) vote directly on laws. Ancient Athens was a Democracy. There aren't any modern-day Deocracies because of the problems inherent in conducting a direct vote of the people.
StraightAndNarrow
A country can't be a monarchy and a republic at once. However a country can have a monarch and be a free society in which citizens elect representatives to convene to vote on laws and important issues.
Your definition of republic is actually the definition of an indirect democracy, while your definition of democracy is the definition of a direct democracy.
A country can't be a monarchy and a republic at once. However a country can have a monarch and be a free society in which citizens elect representatives to convene to vote on laws and important issues.
Your definition of republic is actually the definition of an indirect democracy, while your definition of democracy is the definition of a direct democracy.
Not talking about that, Ken. I'm talking about the form of government, not the actions of the people. Our founding fathers would have to ignore their own words to justify slavery.
I was answering Daisy's question.
I was answering Daisy's question.
hillclimber
New Member
No offence intended mioque, but I meant the fantastic growth of business, unrestrained citizenry, that allowed America to prosper so greatly. I don't believe it could have happened without God's blessing. For a note of comparison, the Netherlands has approximately 1/3 the GDP (gross domestic product) of the state of California. They are also involved in the illicit drug trade in a big way.
hillclimber
New Member
Yeah, the way we started off treating African-Americans and Native Americans was real Christian-like, wasn't it?
</font>[/QUOTE]This country started off with great blessings from God. Slavery was NOT illegal at that time and it was used by many nations. The Slaves helped in a big way developing this country, and many blacks were saved that never would have been otherwise. Many slave owners were Christians. There are always problems where man is involved, because of our sinful nature. Slavery is obviously not allowed now so you have a gripe if you come across it.You could say that when God appointed judges over Israel, letting people pretty much be responsible for themselves, he approved self government. It's when God gave in to the Israelis' demands, and gave them a king, is when Israel's troubles started.
I'm not saying our government is perfect Christian example, but the way is was originally started, was probably pretty close. </font>[/QUOTE]
hillclimber
I wasn't being nationalistic, I was pointing out a flaw in your perception of history and probably your definition of the word republic as well.
The Netherlands has been a monarchy since the days Napoleon conquered most of Europe anyway.
As for the economic performance of my country on earth. It's slightly less than twice the size of New Jersey. So doing 1/3 of California's GDP is reasonably o.k..
As for the drug thing. if the CIA factbook is to be believed the US isn't doing that much better.
I wasn't being nationalistic, I was pointing out a flaw in your perception of history and probably your definition of the word republic as well.
The Netherlands has been a monarchy since the days Napoleon conquered most of Europe anyway.
As for the economic performance of my country on earth. It's slightly less than twice the size of New Jersey. So doing 1/3 of California's GDP is reasonably o.k..
As for the drug thing. if the CIA factbook is to be believed the US isn't doing that much better.
There are two cash "crops" which make the world go round--crude oil and opium derivatives.
How much are we spending on fighting spiritual wickedness in high places?
Selah,
Bro. James
P.S. Interesting fact: about 1/3 (35/102+,-) of the pilgrims on the Mayflower were of the same religious persuasion.
How much are we spending on fighting spiritual wickedness in high places?
Selah,
Bro. James
P.S. Interesting fact: about 1/3 (35/102+,-) of the pilgrims on the Mayflower were of the same religious persuasion.
There is another side of the Iran Issue.
"Even a mouse will defend itself if pushed into a corner" (or something like that).
Look at a world map. Iran is inbetween Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries which have a full combat ready US military presence, "armed to the teeth" under a hawk-ish administration committed to the protection of the Nation of Israel.
They know that we have an unsettled issue with them (The hostage fiasco under the Carter Administration - dove-ish).
They are paranoid, having bad dreams, etc.
My opinion of course.
HankD
"Even a mouse will defend itself if pushed into a corner" (or something like that).
Look at a world map. Iran is inbetween Afghanistan and Iraq, two countries which have a full combat ready US military presence, "armed to the teeth" under a hawk-ish administration committed to the protection of the Nation of Israel.
They know that we have an unsettled issue with them (The hostage fiasco under the Carter Administration - dove-ish).
They are paranoid, having bad dreams, etc.
My opinion of course.
HankD
hillclimber
New Member
Sorry, I should have been a bit more specific. The US was founded as a republic whos laws were based solidly in the bible and the principals given us there. Is that better mioque?
hillclimber
New Member
OK last try: amend the following,: no other republic has been thus founded. and replace "no" with, "few". Peace to you mioque
The Galatian
Active Member
The difference is that Pat Robertson has no chance of being president. In Iran, the nutcases are running the show.
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
A country can have a figurehead monarch like the UK and still be a republic. If real power is vested in the King, however, then it is not a republic.
My definition is the generally accepted definition of a republic and a democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic
In a Western approach, warned by the possible dangers and impracticality of direct democracy described since antiquity[14], there was a convergence towards representative democracy, for republics as well as monarchies, from the Enlightenment on. A direct democracy instrument like referendums is still basically mistrusted in many of the countries that adopted representative democracy. Nonetheless, some republics like Switzerland have a great deal of direct democracy in their state organisation, with usually several issues put before the people by referendum every year.
From that wikipedia article.
"Nonetheless, in practice most nations that do not have a hereditary monarchy call themselves a Republic, and in its broadest sense the idea of a Republic can include almost any form of government that is not a Monarchy."
The fact that a bunch of political theorists decided to change the definition of republic mentioned in that quote when nobody was watching is not very relevant.
One can be certain all royalists on earth would consider the redefinition of their precious kingdoms as republics an insult at best.
"Nonetheless, in practice most nations that do not have a hereditary monarchy call themselves a Republic, and in its broadest sense the idea of a Republic can include almost any form of government that is not a Monarchy."
The fact that a bunch of political theorists decided to change the definition of republic mentioned in that quote when nobody was watching is not very relevant.
One can be certain all royalists on earth would consider the redefinition of their precious kingdoms as republics an insult at best.
StraightAndNarrow
Active Member
The key phrase in your quote is "in it's broadest sense." After all, the former USSR stood for the United Soviet Socialist Republics. Do you classify the former Soviet Union as a Republic?