Democracy

[Rollo Tamasi]

I was just thinking about this.
We tend to think of this as just a voting process.
It is more.
"All men are created equal".
Now that's something to think about.
This is what we are told in the United States.
But we tend not to think about it as ending there.
We think that this should remain all our lives, therefore we have faults with our government on this issue.
A thought that is put into people's heads is this: "I'm as good as you are".
I thought about that.
Who is the person saying "I'm as good as you are"?
Does the good looking person say to the plain looking person, "I'm as good as you are"?
Does the successful banker say to the janitor, "I'm as good as you are"?
No, the person that says "I'm as good as you are" is the person who feels inferior.
So this idea that we are equal does not really exist in anyone's mind, it's only what the inferior person wants and what the superior person does not want.
But we are told that democracy will give everyone a fair share.
I know that this is not what democracy really means but this is what many people think.
It is very socialistic.

It is an attack of the enemy.
He wants us to think that we are as good as the next person, that we deserve to have as much as the next person, that it is our right.
This only causes more division among people, even to the point of killing and wars.

But what does the Bible say?
Yes, there are those that look at Israel.
If they obeyed God's laws they would have the perfect society.
But they couldn't do it.
There are those that look at the early church and see communal living, equality, and say this is what God meant for us.

But what about Jesus?
Here is God, the creator, and he washes the feet of his creation as an example to us.
The lowliest servant will be the highest in heaven.
We should not see ourselves as being equal to others but to be less than others.
To put others first, even if we need to go without, for God will surely provide for us.

It is a thought.
After all, I was just thinking.

 

[jeff77]

I like your post! Your answer at the end is similar to what I would say. Some people are born with better looks,money,better family environment, etc. So maybe we are not created equal but we should treat everyone the same whether they are above or below us. Or you could say that we shouldn't even consider material things or IQ, looks, etc. when we compare people.

 

[gr8grace3]

The United States is a republic, not a democracy.

All men are created equal.........Equal privilege and equal opportunity in the rules,regulations and freedoms established in that Nation.

Salvation works the same way, equal privilege and equal opportunity for all men.

The fact that we have equal privilege and opportunity, guarantees an unequal outcome. Some men will choose Christ, some will not. Some men will Grow in that salvation, some will choose not to.

 

[kevinmaynard]

The U.S. is a representative democracy that counts as a republic too. China is a republic but not democratic or representative.

 

[Tristan]

Democracy doesn't work when all the options are terrible...or when you take all the power away from the government and give it to corporations (so you're voting for a powerless establishment)...or the system is completely corrupt. I don't think Democracy is the best form of government. The best is a benevolent monarch.

Jesus for king!

 

[jasoncran]

Democracy doesn't work when all the options are terrible...or when you take all the power away from the government and give it to corporations (so you're voting for a powerless establishment)...or the system is completely corrupt. I don't think Democracy is the best form of government. The best is a benevolent monarch.

Jesus for king!

what benevolent monarch has ever been found in history to work? cant count jesus. he reigns already.

 

[Tristan]

what benevolent monarch has ever been found in history to work? cant count jesus. he reigns already.

Suleiman I of the Ottoman Empire (reigned 1494-1566):Started a golden age and made educational, legislative, taxation and criminal reforms.
Meiji of Japan (1867-1912): Took Japan from an isolated country to a industrious powerhouse
Cyrus II of Persia (559-530BC): During his reign, human rights and military strategy were greatly improved.
Queen Victoria (1837-1901): Sustained the British empire at its absolute peak.
Frederick the Great of Prussia (1740–1786): Modernized the Prussian bureaucracy and civil service and promoted religious tolerance. Arts and culture flourished under his rule.

There are numerous examples of truly effective monarchs that were well loved.

 

[jasoncran]

lol that meji dynasty that well started ww2? we kinda forced that upon him. look up commodore perry.

As he arrived, Perry ordered his ships to steam past Japanese lines towards the capital of Edo, and turn their guns towards the town of Uraga.[11] Perry refused Japanese demands to leave.[11] He then demanded permission to present a letter from President Millard Fillmore, and threatened to use force if the Japanese boats around the American squadron did not disperse.[11]

Perry attempted to intimidate the Japanese by presenting them a white flag and a letter which told them that in case they chose to fight, the Americans would destroy them.[12][13] Perry ordered some buildings in the harbor shelled. (Walworth,Arthur; Black Ships Off Japan p.21) Perry's ships were equipped with new Paixhans shell guns, cannons capable of wreaking great destruction with every shell.[14][15] In Japan, the term "Black Ships", used for centuries to refer to foreign trade vessels, would later come to symbolize a threat imposed by Western technology.[16]

After the Japanese agreed to receive the letter from the American President, Perry landed at Kurihama (in modern-day Yokosuka) on July 14, 1853,[17] presented the letter to attending delegates, and left for the Chinese coast, promising to return for a reply.[18]

After Perry's departure, fortifications were built on Tokyo Bay at Odaiba in order to protect Edo from possible future American naval incursion.

Second visit, 1854[edit]





Commodore Perry's fleet for his second visit to Japan, 1854
Perry returned in February 1854 with twice as many ships, to find that the Japanese had prepared a treaty accepting virtually all the demands in Fillmore's letter. Perry signed the Convention of Kanagawa on March 31, 1854, and departed, mistakenly believing the agreement had been made with imperial representatives.[19] The agreement was made with the Shogun, the de facto ruler of Japan.





Japanese 1854 print relating Perry's visit.
On his way to Japan, Perry anchored off Keelung in Formosa (modern day Taiwan), for ten days. Perry and crew members landed on Formosa and investigated the potential of mining the coal deposits in that area. He emphasized in his reports that Formosa provided a convenient mid-way trade location. Formosa was also very defensible. It could serve as a base for exploration as Cuba had done for the Spanish in the Americas. Occupying Formosa could help the US to counter European monopolization of major trade routes. President Franklin Pierce declined the suggestion, remarking such a remote possession would be an unnecessary drain of resources and that he would be unlikely to receive the consent of Congress.

so it wasn't exactly all that good for Japanese. and later on we went to war with his descendant, some one called Hirohito. one rule that is it.e ach of the lands save one is where now?

ottoman? gone.
Persian gone soon after cyrus.
mejii ended in 1945 as we forced them out power
Prussia? conquered and is part of Poland
only the uk stands. i prefer a federal republic over any monarchy without limits and even then in queen Victoria that was a limited monarchy she never had full control. the uk has had a limited monarchy long before the us was even a colony of theirs. we modeled our congress after that and improved upon that. so nix her off that list, she acted with consent of parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_victoria



six kings out of how many?

 

[jasoncran]

well since i am a jew. i guess he wouldn't like me then even though im saved i would be forced under him to do what?

We have too many Jews in the towns. They are needed on the Polish border because in these areas Hebrews alone perform trade. As soon as you get away from the frontier, the Jews become a disadvantage, they form cliques, they deal in contraband and get up to all manner of rascally tricks which are detrimental to Christian burghers and merchants. I have never persecuted anyone from this or any other sect [sic]; I think, however, it would be prudent to pay attention, so that their numbers do not increase.[62]

from Wikipedia on frederik the great. for his time yes but uhm im sure my jewish kin didn't like him at all.

 

[Tristan]

lol that meji dynasty that well started ww2? we kinda forced that upon him. look up commodore perry.

so it wasn't exactly all that good for Japanese. and later on we went to war with his descendant, some one called Hirohito. one rule that is it.e ach of the lands save one is where now?

ottoman? gone.
Persian gone soon after cyrus.
mejii ended in 1945 as we forced them out power
Prussia? conquered and is part of Poland
only the uk stands. i prefer a federal republic over any monarchy without limits and even then in queen Victoria that was a limited monarchy she never had full control. the uk has had a limited monarchy long before the us was even a colony of theirs. we modeled our congress after that and improved upon that. so nix her off that list, she acted with consent of parliament.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_victoria



six kings out of how many?

Umm...where's the relevance there He didn't come along until 1867...many years later? The country remained a monarchy, but instead involved a lot more democratic participation and feedback. The country was modernized, and had it not been, World War 1 would have obliterated them. The war started after the man died...while he was ruling, he was an effective ruler who served the interests of the country.

Ottoman empire is gone now, but WHILE HE WAS RULER, the country flourished. We're talking about the effect the leader has on the country while he's there. The same goes for the Persians and the Prussians. Just because their empires are gone doesn't mean they weren't great at the time.

I don't believe in an absolute monarchy. I think a constitutional one is best...something that borrows from several of these leaders. There are representatives of the people that deliberate with the monarch and hold him accountable. He has the final word, but if he begins to lead the country in a direction that is unconstitutional, he can be removed and replaced.

Those are just a handful of historical examples. I can broaden the list to effective leaders instead of 100% benevolent ones and the list jumps dramatically. It didn't take much effort to come up with those.

Bear in mind that we are all human and will make mistakes and have shortcomings.

 

[WIP]

Suleiman I of the Ottoman Empire (reigned 1494-1566):Started a golden age and made educational, legislative, taxation and criminal reforms.
Meiji of Japan (1867-1912): Took Japan from an isolated country to a industrious powerhouse
Cyrus II of Persia (559-530BC): During his reign, human rights and military strategy were greatly improved.
Queen Victoria (1837-1901): Sustained the British empire at its absolute peak.
Frederick the Great of Prussia (1740–1786): Modernized the Prussian bureaucracy and civil service and promoted religious tolerance. Arts and culture flourished under his rule.

There are numerous examples of truly effective monarchs that were well loved.

Interesting how none of those mentioned lasted more than 75 years. If they were so great one would think they'd still be in force by popular demand.

 

[jasoncran]

Umm...where's the relevance there He didn't come along until 1867...many years later? The country remained a monarchy, but instead involved a lot more democratic participation and feedback. The country was modernized, and had it not been, World War 1 would have obliterated them. The war started after the man died...while he was ruling, he was an effective ruler who served the interests of the country.

Ottoman empire is gone now, but WHILE HE WAS RULER, the country flourished. We're talking about the effect the leader has on the country while he's there. The same goes for the Persians and the Prussians. Just because their empires are gone doesn't mean they weren't great at the time.


what part of we need a benovalent monarchy did i fail to understand? was it the fact that you said i don't like democracy?

Democracy doesn't work when all the options are terrible...or when you take all the power away from the government and give it to corporations (so you're voting for a powerless establishment)...or the system is completely corrupt. I don't think Democracy is the best form of government. The best is a benevolent monarch.

que

I don't believe in an absolute monarchy. I think a constitutional one is best...something that borrows from several of these leaders. There are representatives of the people that deliberate with the monarch and hold him accountable. He has the final word, but if he begins to lead the country in a direction that is unconstitutional, he can be removed and replaced.

Those are just a handful of historical examples. I can broaden the list to effective leaders instead of 100% benevolent ones and the list jumps dramatically. It didn't take much effort to come up with those.

Bear in mind that we are all human and will make mistakes and have shortcomings.

Democracy doesn't work when all the options are terrible...or when you take all the power away from the government and give it to corporations (so you're voting for a powerless establishment)...or the system is completely corrupt. I don't think Democracy is the best form of government. The best is a benevolent monarch.

the royality of brittainia had no power at all, the pm did. she is a figure head with no more power then just that. she can inspire that is it and speak to the parliament nothing more. the house of lords and commons did that all . again you are picking rare moments. im sure if i posted that a fascist dicator named hitler was great for Germany you would disagree. he did more for Germany in few years then any free democracy could ever had. but i wouldn't want him but he did do that. so did any other despot. alexander the great conquered the world. so did ceaser Julius and yet they weren't what i call the best forms of government.

 

[Tristan]

Interesting how none of those mentioned lasted more than 75 years. If they were so great one would think they'd still be in force by popular demand.

The Ottoman Empire lasted another 400some years after Suleiman. Japan unfortunately had WWI and WWII but at least they weren't Feudal anymore! Persia lasted around 200 years. The British empire lasted a few hundred years. Prussia lasted another 200 years after Frederick. The world happens and empires fall. These people were powerful leaders that were generally benevolent.

 

[Tristan]

the royality of brittainia had no power at all, the pm did. she is a figure head with no more power then just that. she can inspire that is it and speak to the parliament nothing more. the house of lords and commons did that all . again you are picking rare moments. im sure if i posted that a fascist dicator named hitler was great for Germany you would disagree. he did more for Germany in few years then any free democracy could ever had. but i wouldn't want him but he did do that. so did any other despot. alexander the great conquered the world. so did ceaser Julius and yet they weren't what i call the best forms of government.

She's an example of the a monarch that worked in cooperation with the people and their elected government. She was not powerless.

 

[jasoncran]

The Ottoman Empire lasted another 400some years after Suleiman. Japan unfortunately had WWI and WWII but at least they weren't Feudal anymore! Persia lasted around 200 years. The British empire lasted a few hundred years. Prussia lasted another 200 years after Frederick. The world happens and empires fall. These people were powerful leaders that were generally benevolent.

benevolent? to whom? really the ottoman empire was benovent? to whom? we fought them ww1, and japan didn't fight in ww1, they fought only Russia, they won with Russia in the sino-russian war and then tried agains and found out Russia learned and were kicked out of Mongolia and made no attempts to attack Russia.

the French revolution produced napoleon, and he was a man whom we borrowed much on our constitution. and yet he was hated by England and spain and most of Europe he went a conquering. the Persians? were they always nice after cyrus to the jews? i doubt that.

 

[jasoncran]

the fact IS SHE wasn't a monarch who had power. was she voted in or are kings and queens rulling by consent they aren't you have changed your tune now. you said a benevolent monarch and now its a limited monarchy which is nothing but a type of democracy. funny thing about that. i wouldn't want to be as a jew under the ottoman empire nor the Japanese one. i know some things about that era. the Japanese forced the samurai to lop their hair off. that wasn't well received. they banned karate, which had a religion to at that time. i suggest reading up on that era under the books by gichin funagoshi. he was alive in that time and spoke of that.

 

[Tristan]

the fact IS SHE wasn't a monarch who had power. was she voted in or are kings and queens rulling by consent they aren't you have changed your tune now. you said a benevolent monarch and now its a limited monarchy which is nothing but a type of democracy. funny thing about that. i wouldn't want to be as a jew under the ottoman empire nor the Japanese one. i know some things about that era. the Japanese forced the samurai to lop their hair off. that wasn't well received. they banned karate, which had a religion to at that time. i suggest reading up on that era under the books by gichin funagoshi. he was alive in that time and spoke of that.

A benevolent monarch doesn't have to be absolute. For me, ideally, a monarch should have the final choice as long as it is bound by the constitution. There can be elected representatives, but they do little aside from advise, deliberate, and hold the leader accountable. Reduces corruption.

I haven't changed my tune. I also didn't say they were perfect leaders. They were effective ones that cared about the people in their country and steered them to greatness. You also have to take the historical context into perspective...which nobody ever seems to do.

 

[jasoncran]

really? so what will stop them for going south? nothing.

an elected king? that isn't a king. i know that it has happened history but that is from jewish history and that wasn't really a chosen king by the people. god chose saul first then david and then said the warnings of that. Solomon is where the 666 come from. not nero. nero acted in that manner but he wasn't the first, and um. its if i vote for you its you will do for me in all democracy. you can never get rid of that. it take money and support to get into office. i hate that but its the truth.

 

[Tristan]

really? so what will stop them for going south? nothing.

an elected king? that isn't a king. i know that it has happened history but that is from jewish history and that wasn't really a chosen king by the people. god chose saul first then david and then said the warnings of that. Solomon is where the 666 come from. not nero. nero acted in that manner but he wasn't the first, and um. its if i vote for you its you will do for me in all democracy. you can never get rid of that. it take money and support to get into office. i hate that but its the truth.

You like slippery slope, don't you?

Solomon was a good king and he made a series of mistakes...it happens when you're human and sinful. David was a man after God's own heart. Nero went insane. I stand behind a constitutional monarchy...and you have to keep in mind that the constitution AND the elective representatives are there to keep the monarch honest and accountable.

 

[jasoncran]

Solomon wasn't. why was isreal split in half? because of Solomon.

http://www.bible-history.com/old-testament/solomon.html
really and trust the government as that is what you were told to do. i wasn't. funny thing the army a branch of the government taught me never to rely on it all the time. always save documents, always watch my back, always be careful and lock and secure my gear. it might get stolen.

you might want to recheck that on Solomon. his sin was the reason isreal split, it happened not in his reign but under is son.

so the three cant go south and not check each other? uhm yeah about that. we have enough on Obama to impeach him and yet he is still there/

failure over the nsa, failue over the irs, failure over the Benghazi., American deaths under the fast and the furious. congress could and can and should impeach on that alone. bu that would mean that they must come forward with that fact and take the sword to and they wont admit that.