Overall I think you are talking about specific ways to make democracy work and I am talking about basic principles that effect the way governments practice. Let's just say I love the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights That would best describe my view of how a government should govern.
What I am saying is that communism, facists, social democracies all have elections that are controlled by wealthy elite who control who gets elected. The elections in China and the elections in the U.S. are both controlled by power players- they are not driven by the public. Social democracies are a term I use for how politicians buy votes through pork spending, media hype and a dumbed down electorate. If politicians had our best interest at heart - we the citizens- there would not be a 7 trillion dollar debt, ghettos, drug proliferation, corporate corruption and political division... Grizzled- I think you can come up with the right answers to some of the most troubling problems in the world today- Politicians have spent trillions of dollars with a track record of making the problems bigger. Social democracies are not pure democracies at all and pure democracies have never existed so I am not sure what democracy we are discussing.
Well, that is a very challenging, and very interesting, passage that requires some careful attention. On first pass, for example, it seems to suggest that Saddam Hussein was placed in power by God and that he “held no terror for those who did right, but only for those who did wrong.” There were many Roman leaders who persecuted Christians for simply being Christians too, so clearly some more careful understanding of what this means in its greater context is required. I have to admit that while the general message that we need to be law abiding citizens whether our rulers are Christian or not is clear to me, I’ve never been able to clearly reconcile some of the wording of that passage. Clearly a ruler who is persecuting Christians for being Christians is “holding terror” for those who do right so the absolute sounding language there can’t in fact be absolute. It must be a misreading, IMO. The rest of Romans 13 is very clear and clearly consistent with the rest of Romans and the Bible. “ 8Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for he who loves his fellowman has fulfilled the law. 9The commandments, "Do not commit adultery," "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not covet," and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this one rule: "Love your neighbor as yourself." 10Love does no harm to its neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” And this how we should live our lives all the time, including in our involvement with the electoral process and in the people and policies we support. The general message of the first part is clear, that we are to be law abiding and respectful citizens, but the apparent suggestion that all rulers punish the bad and reward the good simply has to be a misreading of some sort, IMO, because it’s clearly in conflict with the reality that Roman rulers persecuted Christians for being Christians, amongst other examples. I’ll look at it again in the context of it’s surrounding chapters and get back to this later.
We’re talking about real functioning 21st century democracies. Sorry for the misunderstanding about your use of the term social democracy, btw. A Social Democracy is a specific type of government and that’s what I thought you were referring to. It’s perhaps the most common type of governing party in Europe, so you can see why I felt comparing them to fascists and Communists was very wrong. I think you are far too cynical about governments, and I think you are also not considering the alternatives. Some form of government will exist and not one of them will be perfect, so the responsibility of the citizen is to support the best option. In some counties people are legally required to vote, but in any democracy people are morally obliged to vote, I would say. If you remove yourself from the process then those who wish to manipulate the system for their own ends have all the more power. I can sympathise with your frustration, and you’re certainly not alone. Half of the American electorate doesn’t even bother to vote anymore, but I don’t think it’s right to give in to despair. As frustrating as it may be I think that all concerned, well motivated citizens need to keep working for change in whatever way they can. And again, consider the alternatives. I think almost all would say that democracies have produced much better results for their citizens than totalitarian regimes. (Although you could make an argument that in extreme cases like China, for example, a totalitarian form of government was needed to restore order to a chaotic and destructive situation and that now that the country has been stabilized the situation has changed and they are transitioning to more appropriate forms for their new society, namely more capitalistic and democratic forms of governance). If you look objectively at what democracies have done I think you will see many very good things along with some bad, so don’t give in to despair. When you lose hope you are lost indeed. Keep working for, and believing in, positive change and it will come. Democracies all over the world are evolving and I think it’s only a matter of time before the US (and Canada for that matter) is forced to implement some meaningful changes.
What's with this "WE" stuff Canadian?! Very interesting discussion you and Rhester are having and I wish I had more time to read it in detail than just skim it. Just to throw my loony in I think its still important to consider that rights don't exist in the abstract. While its a legitimate philosophical belief to hold that God endowed inalienable rights to humans for most of history those rights have proven anything but inalienable and even in the US and many so-called civilized countries are routinely stripped without good cause. Without government there wouldn't be rights because in a political vacuum you can do whatever you want but so can everyone else. To have rights there needs to be an authority to guarentee the free exercise of such rights or even to have a structure to define those rights.
Grizzled, I am with you 100%, what I was speaking of was God's intentions for human government, even a reflection of His governing. God has purposes for governments even the most vile- like ancient Babylon which had one of the most cruel dictators ever and yet God said he used it for His purpose. God used an Egyptian Pharaoh for His purpose, God used a Roman governor for His purpose. Love for one another is the supreme law that would take care of all the abuses. But we both know that we pray "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" - but God's will in not always done. If everyone would follow the law of love- this would be heaven. I am not against government at all, I believe the best governments keep certain principles instead of controls (laws should follow principles of liberty)- see the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights-Those are documents I personally think very highly of. I do not think federal government should have control of every area of our lives that is tyranny by definition. I do not like the direction our government is headed- towards strong federalization- absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I appreciate your encouragement. I haven't quit. I vote every election. And I correspond with my congressman. I try to let my voice be heard. Having said that- and back to the topic- Universal Human Rights will be acheived in heaven.
Equal rights for every human, no matter what their race, sex, or religion. one should be able to think, feel, and say what one wants and do as one sees fit as long as one does not take that right away from another who has the same right.
