posted
Thanks for the backup, Saxon. I'm really not insulted by Dag's posts. He doesn't know me, and I am arguing against some views that are quite foundational for him. My first post used pretty broad strokes to bring up a complicated issue, and I fully expected to be called to task about that.
quote:Sounds like democracy to me: People evaluating representatives on the characteristics they think matter most. Participating in society means being allowed to run, no being guaranteed a win.
But the possibility of winning might be nice.
quote:Well, since the Founders used the idea that England was offending the laws of God in not providing representation to the Colonials, I think there’s plenty of analysis already existing to answer that question for you.
The founding fathers weren't exactly perfect believers in democracy and basic freedoms.
Anyway, I think they were being inconsistent. Nowhere does the Bible support the idea of representative democracy or liberty. Meanwhile, it does endorse a number of monarchies -- David's, for example.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But the possibility of winning might be nice.
The possibility of winning definitely exists.
quote:The founding fathers weren't exactly perfect believers in democracy and basic freedoms.
True, but they were the best available at the time, weren't they? They clearly held some sort of religious justification for their beliefs in freedom and democracy.
quote:Anyway, I think they were being inconsistent. Nowhere does the Bible support the idea of representative democracy or liberty. Meanwhile, it does endorse a number of monarchies -- David's, for example.
How is it inconsistent? A monarchy makes a lot of sense when God gets to pick the monarch. Absent that, I don't see the Bible as a handbook in the practicalities of the best way to run a government.
quote:How is it inconsistent? A monarchy makes a lot of sense when God gets to pick the monarch.
This is the attitude I was talking about in my first post. You don't really, genuinely believe that democracy is the best possible system of government. I, on the other hand, don't think there's any way that a monarchy could be better.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is the attitude I was talking about in my first post. You don't really, genuinely believe that democracy is the best possible system of government. I, on the other hand, don't think there's any way that a monarchy could be better.
I do to think democracy is the best possible system of government in this world without divine intervention.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
