Is Democracy naturally CORRUPT?

[Qfwfq]

If the population is mostly silly, then democracy is the reign of silliness. The idea is that, if a people chooses its own plight, then they can't complain about it. In tyranny, people can complain, it's the tyrant that oppresses them. A people is, however, a large number of individuals and majority rule is simply the only workable criterion for fundamental choices. However individuals can have reason to complain about the majority and the majority may be gullible.

 

The main problem these days is mental laziness and diffuse immaturity. Those shrewd people who control enough media give people what they like, in a way that brainwashes them. Gradually the brainwashed people themselves help to make trash culture and idiocy prevail. Individuals are free to choose, but can't out-vote the mob or even less argue with them. Nothing is less useful than talking sense to the fool, especially when surrounded by them. Eventually the mob begins to despise those who try to be superior and the right to choose is lost, eventually books get banned altogether and all media is controlled by those behind the scheme. That's how the regime in the US envisioned by Ray Bradbury came to be. Instead of forcing a single party system, they just controlled two parties and presented two candidates; the mob didn't realized what an obvious farce the election campaign was.

 

There have been signs of it, and even of an Orwellian truth machine, in recent years. Watch the general public closely and don't let them choose to fall asleep. El sueño de la razón produce monstruos.

[C1ay]

I 'strictly' endorse the US Constitutional version of Christianity.

 

Could you point out that portion of the Constitution? I have read the entire Constitution numerous times and I have never seen any mention of Christ or Christianity.

[eric l]

I have nothing against the gun since it is the 'great equalizer' for people as a 'defensive' weapon. In the US, people do need to protect their homes fron the criminal elements.

To me, owning a gun to protect your home is pretty much the same as fighting fire with fire. PERIOD.

However, the gun and the cannon were used offensively to spread the popes christianity around the world.

This may be true (up to a point) for the Spanish/Portuguese conquest of Latin America, but it is surely not true for what is now the US, nor for the Brtitish Empire... And as for the wars in Europe from the 16th to the 20th century, I can see little relation with what you call "the pope's christianity". Just look at the number of wars between "protestant" nations, like England and Holland, to keep this to just one example.

And in the case of Latin America, the real aim was to increase the power and wealth of the Spanish king and the Grandes; spreading the catholic faith was nothing more than a good excuse.

[Mike C]

Could you point out that portion of the Constitution? I have read the entire Constitution numerous times and I have never seen any mention of Christ or Christianity.

 

You have to understand why certain things are written into our laws.

 

My summation of the NT is that Christ was crucified for his peaching the Gospel that was directed at the upper class Jews (chauvinists).

His crucifixion was instigated by these upper class Jews because of their fears of his teachings would result in riots that may have threatened their power and wealth?

 

Eventually, Pontius Pilate relented and did then crucify Christ. So he was killed because of 'FREE SPEECH'.

 

That is why our Constitution today allows free speech and outlaws 'cruel and unusual punishment' (crucifixion). So this obviously is an endorsement of Christs Gospel.

 

On the other hand, the papal church is promoting Christ as being sacrificed for humanities sins. So it promotes Christ as a 'suffering sacrifice'. That is why they use the crucifix as their religious icon that I consider to be outlawed by our Constitution.

 

So the word Christ is not needed since the implictions of the Constitutions language is plain enough.

Also, it purposely refused to endorse any religion because that would eliminate the 'freedom of religious belief' as a personal thing.

 

That is the way I sum up the current political climate as it should be practiced.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

That is why our Constitution today allows free speech and outlaws 'cruel and unusual punishment' (crucifixion). So this obviously is an endorsement of Christs Gospel.

 

Obviously? Could you please point out said founder's reasoning in the Federalist Papers? I have read them too and they did not mention any endorsement of Christ's Gospel or any incentive born of a belief in Christ in their discussion of the creation of our Constitution.

[Mike C]

To me, owning a gun to protect your home is pretty much the same as fighting fire with fire. PERIOD

 

Criminals invading your home may resort to torture to find where your wealth is hidden. Then murder you to eliminate you as a witness.

I say 'shoot to kill' unless you can hold them until the police arrive if you have a telephone handy.

Anyone invading an occupied home is a potential murderer. So it is a good thing if you eliminate one.

 

This may be true (up to a point) for the Spanish/Portuguese conquest of Latin America, but it is surely not true for what is now the US, nor for the Brtitish Empire... And as for the wars in Europe from the 16th to the 20th century, I can see little relation with what you call "the pope's christianity". Just look at the number of wars between "protestant" nations, like England and Holland, to keep this to just one example.

And in the case of Latin America, the real aim was to increase the power and wealth of the Spanish king and the Grandes; spreading the catholic faith was nothing more than a good excuse.

 

Of course the English settlers here in the US were more rational than the Latin invaders.

Since the popes had a history of genocides, I guess the Spanish conquerers were oriented in that direction as well.

One major example was the Hernando Cortez genocide of the Indian tribe in Mexico of some 500 in number.

 

Mike C

[Freddy]

Of course the English settlers here in the US were more rational than the Latin invaders.

Since the popes had a history of genocides, I guess the Spanish conquerers were oriented in that direction as well.

One major example was the Hernando Cortez genocide of the Indian tribe in Mexico of some 500 in number.

 

Mike C

Oh really! I guess you never heard of the Pequot War in 1637 which took place less than two decades after the Pilgrims and less than one decade after the Puritans arrived in Massachusetts. The two colonies got together and wiped out the entire tribe. They surrounded a Pequot village in Connecticut and set it a flame. More than 600 Native Americans were roasted to death that night and up to 7,000 died in the war. Later in 1675 in King Philip's War in New England, the bloodiest Native American/European War, about 9,000 died. Most of the Indians who survived were rounded up and sold into slavery. Then there was the Trail of Tears. Yes, English settlers were more rational than Latin invaders. It was best expressed in the words of General Philip H. Sheridan who said, "the only good Indian I ever saw was dead."

[Qfwfq]

Mat 19:24, Mar 10:25, Luk 18:25...

It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

So I s'pose The Capital must be Marx'es version of Christianity. :hyper:

[Mike C]

Obviously? Could you please point out said founder's reasoning in the Federalist Papers? I have read them too and they did not mention any endorsement of Christ's Gospel or any incentive born of a belief in Christ in their discussion of the creation of our Constitution.

 

Does it have to be 'spelled out' in words literally?

 

The NT summary as I interpret it is that John the Baptist and Christ were both opposed to the chauvinism of the Jewish elite.

 

So even though the Constitution (CN) does not specifically use the name of Christ, does not mean that there is no connection between the two.

When they included the elimination of 'cruel and unusual punishment', what do you think they had in mind? After all, they were Christians, weren't they?

And the promotion of free speech, who do you think they had in mind when that was included?

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

Does it have to be 'spelled out' in words literally?

 

Yes. Many of the founders were deists but not Christians so I don't think their reasoning was based on Christ. The statement that our Constitution "endorses" Christ's Gospel is unfounded and unsupportable.

[Mike C]

Oh really! I guess you never heard of the Pequot War in 1637 which took place less than two decades after the Pilgrims and less than one decade after the Puritans arrived in Massachusetts. The two colonies got together and wiped out the entire tribe. They surrounded a Pequot village in Connecticut and set it a flame. More than 600 Native Americans were roasted to death that night and up to 7,000 died in the war. Later in 1675 in King Philip's War in New England, the bloodiest Native American/European War, about 9,000 died. Most of the Indians who survived were rounded up and sold into slavery. Then there was the Trail of Tears. Yes, English settlers were more rational than Latin invaders. It was best expressed in the words of General Philip H. Sheridan who said, "the only good Indian I ever saw was dead."

 

OK, So I guess that was kept under cover as far as history is concerned.

 

Howewver, do you see any Indian tribal lands in South America like you see here in the US? Granted, these Indians are having a tough time living under those conditions since most have become alcoholics.

But they do have a source of revenues now with the casinos. And they do not have to pay any taxes.

 

They do not enjoy those luxuries in Mexico and South America, do they?

 

Mike C

[Freddy]

OK, So I guess that was kept under cover as far as history is concerned.

 

Howewver, do you see any Indian tribal lands in South America like you see here in the US? Granted, these Indians are having a tough time living under those conditions since most have become alcoholics.

But they do have a source of revenues now with the casinos. And they do not have to pay any taxes.

 

They do not enjoy those luxuries in Mexico and South America, do they?

 

Mike C

A majority of about 60% of the Mexican population are mestizos, or people of mixed Native and European blood. About 30% of Mexicans are Native peoples. While in the US the Native American population is about 2% of the population with slightly less than half of them living on the reservations, which are US government territory. In the US 7.4% of the general population are considered alcoholics. No information was available for Native Americans. Could you document "most" Indians, or more than 50%, "have become alcoholics"?

[LaurieAG]

Here's a link to a recently developed situation in New South Wales, Australia.

 

Costa praises NSW casino deal - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

I've asked quite a few of my friends if they think the company of Australia's richest man paying a state government AU$100million for exclusive casino rights in the state for 12 years smacks of official corruption and all of them agreed. In Queensland we call it 'the joke' (official corruption that is).

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Christ's teachings haven't been on the minds of most Christians for about 2000 years. Just in the past ten years have I seen a surge in Christian groups that seem to be instilled with his preaching, those based on love and altruism rather than spreading the word of the "church".

[Mike C]

Yes. Many of the founders were deists but not Christians so I don't think their reasoning was based on Christ. The statement that our Constitution "endorses" Christ's Gospel is unfounded and unsupportable.

 

The reason I say it is, is because I consider Christ was murdered because of what he was preaching IMHO. So this then is a way of slilencing 'free speech'.

 

The cross is not the way for silencing free speech. Even though our Constitution (CN) was written more than two centuries ago.

 

That is why I endorse our CN as a means of prohibiting any religion that resorts to murder and torture as a way of using religion as an excuse for these methods.

The coincidence of what happened to Christ and the CN's restrictions is the reason why I say it endorses Christs Gospel as the way to show Christ respect as a deity.

 

Mike C

[Mike C]

A majority of about 60% of the Mexican population are mestizos, or people of mixed Native and European blood. About 30% of Mexicans are Native peoples. While in the US the Native American population is about 2% of the population with slightly less than half of them living on the reservations, which are US government territory. In the US 7.4% of the general population are considered alcoholics. No information was available for Native Americans. Could you document "most" Indians, or more than 50%, "have become alcoholics"?

 

 

What I write about the problem of living on these Reservations is what I have read at times. I cannot quote the numbers , but just assumed that a large number were acoholics because they feel defeated and have nothing else to do.

 

The alcohol problem was the only one mentioned about living on these reservations.

 

Mike C