Can Democracy Survive?

First we begin with a bit of a quote:

…There is no basis for democracy except in a dogma about the divine origin of man…
– G. K. Chesterton, “What I Saw in America”, 1922

There are some words to infuriate our liberals – and even some of our libertarians:  “dogma” and “divine”!  Did he really just say that if we want to have democracy we must have divine dogmas?  You bet I did, because it is true.

When it comes down to it – as Thomas Jefferson, Deist though he was, clearly saw – if our rights are not given to us by God then they are not rights.  If we are not all created equal then there is no justification for democracy because democracy’s justification is the moral equivalence of all people.  It is the only equality there is or can be – because it is obvious that we are not physically and mentally equal to each other.

It there were nothing but blind evolution which accounts for our being here – if there is no God, that is – then any assertion of an absolute human right is absurd.  It will fall victim to the first person who comes along and says “I don’t agree” and who has the power to enforce it.  If you want to be free the first thing you must do – hard as it will be for many – is believe in God.  Don’t believe in God and, eventually, you won’t be free simply because you’ll have no defense against someone who doesn’t want freedom to exist for whatever reason.  Whether it is a national socialist who wants to base  things upon race or an international socialist who wants to base things upon class is a matter of perfect indifference:  you cannot say that the national or international socialist (and they come in all sorts of different guises) is wrong unless you have an absolute truth – God – to point to.

That right there is enough to stick in any liberal (and most libertarian) craw – but I’m about to get much worse about it.

Another quote:

…So far as that democracy becomes or remains Catholic and Christian, that democracy will remain democratic.  In so far as it does not, it will become wildly and wickedly undemocratic.  Its rich will riot with a brutal indifference far beyond the feeble feudalism which retains some shadow of responsibility  or at least patronage.  Its wage-slaves will either sink into heathen slavery, or seek relief in theories that are destructive not merely in method but in aim; since they are but the negations of the human appetites of property and personality.  Eighteenth-century ideals, formulated in eighteenth-century language, have no longer in themselves the power to hold all those pagan passions back. Even those documents depended upon Deism; their real strength will survive in men who are still Deists; and the men who are still Deists are more than Deists. Men will more and more realise that there is no meaning in democracy if there is no meaning in anything; and that there is no meaning in anything if the universe has not a centre of significance and an authority that is the author of our rights. There is truth in every ancient fable, and there is here even something of it in the fancy that finds the symbol of the Republic in the bird that bore the bolts of Jove. Owls and bats may wander where they will in darkness, and for them as for the sceptics the universe may have no centre; kites and vultures may linger as they like over carrion, and for them as for the plutocrats existence may have no origin and no end; but it was far back in the land of legends, where instincts find their true images, that the cry went forth that freedom is an eagle, whose glory is gazing at the sun.

Not only do we have to believe in God but, at the end of the day, we must believe in the Christian conception of God (which, by the way, takes in the Jewish concept of God).  See what has happened as the Christian ideal has decayed in our society.  See how many of our rich are, indeed, brutally indifferent – indifferent to public decency, rising criminality, spreading poverty because they can pay the extra charge to ensure that the indecent, the criminal and the poor cannot get at them.  See how many of those at the bottom of the economic pile have embraced a death wish called “welfare”, and they demand more and more and more, not seeing that all they are demanding are more chains (and the rich are more than pleased to place the chains of welfare dependency upon them).   Part of the problem of really bringing home to people how awful it is now that we are post-Christian is that there are too many examples – we live behind locked doors and dare not let the children out to play and yet we pretend there is nothing fundamentally wrong.  Bankers loot our wealth with the connivance of politicians and we don’t rise in revolt.  Purveyors of societal decay find judges who will rule that freedom means the ability to make money off of ruining lives and none of us think ill enough of it to do anything about it.

I wrote this today because after the debate this week it really came home to me that Mitt Romney is likely the next President of the United States and it won’t matter in the least if we don’t have a moral, Christian revival in this nation.  Sure, Romney can and probably would do well by our economic life – good policies firmly implemented will get wealth creation re-started, unemployment down and our fiscal system in better shape.  Clear leadership will improve our position around the world.  But what point in being richer if lives can still be ruined for no other reason than one person wanted to make a buck off it?  A perfectly moral society is not, of course, possible – but if we are not striving for a better society; a more just, merciful society; a society in which all the weight of power and economics and popular culture is thrown in to the scales on the side of those who obey the laws, marry, have children, work hard, save…if we aren’t trying for that then all we’ll be doing is piling up a bit of wealth on the way to total collapse and, in the end, the loss of all liberty.

Democracy demands that people believe certain, self-evident truths which can only be established as revelations from Nature and Nature’s God.  This is what we proclaimed in 1776 and this is what we must continue to believe if we are to survive as a free people. It is what we have steadily forgotten since 1776 and it is heavily atrophied here in 2012.  Some still hold to it, but their numbers diminish – and the only people who can hold to it are those who believe in God; but even more, only those who believe in the Judeo-Christian God can restore us to the truth we proclaimed as self-evident all those years ago.  Jefferson was not what we could call a Christian – let alone a Catholic – but he had enough Christian (and Catholic) knowledge as he wrote in the second half of the 18th century to proclaim a Christian and Catholic dogma as the founding ideal of the United States of America: that all men are created equal.

We’ll all see what happens – I think we still can revive.  In fact some trends I see today greatly encourage me – but the enemies of truth are determined upon victory while the friends of truth have yet to really become a hard, rebellious group determined to have it’s way.

45 thoughts on “Can Democracy Survive?

  1. Cluster October 6, 2012 / 7:08 pm

    Mark, what a great thread. Really well said, and I agree 100%. Without a belief in the creation component to evolution, man can, and will create their own rights, deem themselves superior and separate themselves, with the rich believing that they are superior to the poor. We must all vigorously fight to see that the Christian ideal that All Men Are Created Equal, will never be forgotten or cast aside as a founding principle of this country. I did take note of the following:

    See how many of our rich are, indeed, brutally indifferent – indifferent to public decency, rising criminality, spreading poverty because they can pay the extra charge to ensure that the indecent, the criminal and the poor cannot get at them.

    In his 1998 speech, Obama actually spoke of this – (paraphrasing) that the rich don’t want a violent society because they don’t want their stuff taken away. This comment by Obama does forget and does cast aside that principle that all men are created equal. He is insinuating that the only way the poor can become “rich” with stuff, is too become violent and take others stuff instead of sending the message that they too are as equal as those rich people and if they work hard, make good personal decisions, and do the right things, they too can have a fulfilled life.

    • M. Noonan October 6, 2012 / 11:29 pm


      Thanks much – I would observe, however, that Obama (as per usual) got it wrong. The rich don’t mind a horrifically violent society – because the rich can afford to pay for extra protection and, additionally, a large police presence will not discomfit a rich person because the rich person is protected, if necessary, by a wall of lawyers. Lots of crime and lots of cops are fine for rich people because neither will cause a problem for rich people. Poor people, of course, cannot really afford crime but they also can’t afford to have lots of cops around because if a poor person runs afoul of the legal system, he’s largely defenseless. Better, of course, if there were a fully free society where there would be less crime and also less cops – that works out best for the poor.

      But Obama is smart enough to know that the more government ostensibly takes care of people the more servile the people will become. The dog – and the slave – does not bite the hand that feeds him.

  2. Bob1 October 6, 2012 / 7:42 pm

    The kingdom of God is not a democracy, and so our political choices between political candidates and even our efforts to be “moral” do not have any value in regard to our inclusion in his blessed realm. And the only way that all men are “equal” in their creation is in regard to the fact that they are all ultimately accountable to God, their creator. By birth, inherited genes, social class, national placement, cultural influences, religious influences, natural talents, and divine gifts they are each different. The “rights” of human beings, even those that are assumed to come from God, are not nearly as important as the “responsibilities” of all human beings to learn how to live in relationship with God and other human beings with who they are basically different and unequal. Democracy is only one form of government among several, and its survival in the United States cannot be secured or maintained by “the moral equivalence of all people” through some political processes or revival of religious morality, whether it is Christian or Catholic or whatever. I don’t believe that God has any particular contract with Americans to preserve our democracy no matter how “moral” we might become. The only hope that anyone has to live in a mood of “peace” and “security” on the “battlefield” of this world is to personally live in a relationship with God through faith in Jesus, and such a relationship cannot be secured or maintained by any particular political system of government. It is futile to try to preserve or to gain these blessings through our democratic system of government. And God may be ready to demonstrate to us the futility of our efforts by his divine judgment. The real question is, “Are we ready for God’s judgmental lessons?”

    • Cluster October 6, 2012 / 8:01 pm

      I don’t believe that God has any particular contract with Americans to preserve our democracy no matter how “moral” we might become

      Bob, I don’t think you get it. This wasn’t at all the point Mark was trying to get across. Of course God does not have a contract with America, and never once do I pray that God is on “my side”, as I often hear liberals whine about. I always pray that I am on His side, and pray that I have the strength and wisdom to lead a life true to the teachings of Jesus.

      I think you you are far too mired into the Scriptures, and like to come across as someone who is profoundly spiritually deep, when all you do come off as is someone who is confused, at least in my opinion. Our God given rights are those of Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all men are born with those rights, regardless of where, when or how they are born.

      • Bob1 October 6, 2012 / 9:43 pm

        Cluster, Where has God said or even implied that anyone has any rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”? The claim that they come from God doesn’t make it so, and I don’t think that I’m “confused” about that.

      • Cluster October 6, 2012 / 9:52 pm

        Where has God, said, or implied anything Bob? Our “God” given rights are written in the constitution by man, rights of which I happen to agree with, and again and I pray that believing that I am on His side and in agreement with Him. I don’t pretend for a second to know what God wans, I only pray hat I have it right.

      • Cluster October 6, 2012 / 9:53 pm

        Correction – written in the Declaration.

      • js03 October 6, 2012 / 10:48 pm

        sorry bob1, but you missed reality there…do you think that life is not a right, or liberty, which is effectively free will….or to pursue happiness in life by making choices using your free will to what ends that may or may not be righteous…

        show me where the Bible denies those…and failed to endorse these 3 natural rights…please

    • js03 October 6, 2012 / 10:44 pm

      free will is required for democracy

      yes, I do believe God gave every one of us free will, our choice, or vote if you call it that, if the only effective means we have to peacefully join our free will with others of like mindedness

      without free will, you take away so much of the human experience, destroying any faith in a better tomorrow, and when you do that, look at the results in the fall of the USSR

      • Bob1 October 7, 2012 / 12:01 am

        jso3 and Cluster,
        Nowhere in the “Beatitudes” (in Matthew 5:2-11) does Jesus teach or imply that God’s blessings come from one’s rights or free choices of “life”, “liberty”, or even “the pursuit of happiness”. Jesus has some very challenging words of instruction against any action to retaliate against anyone who would harm you in Matthew 5:38-42. And in Matthew 5:44 he instructs those who were following him to “love your enemies”, and in verse 48 to “be perfect”. In Matthew 6:25 Jesus teaches those who would follow him that they should “not be anxious about your life”, particularly their daily necessities even to sustain life, and in Matthew 6:33 he states what he considers to be the most important pursuit in one’s life, “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness”. And the “freedom” of your will is probably much more restricted than you realize, even in a democracy; you probably don’t have enough free will power to consistently do what you know is “right” or “good” or “fair” or “loving” in every situation, and your political choices are very limited.

      • js03 October 7, 2012 / 7:38 am

        You have not described anything that restricts free will Bob1….these things Jesus said…doesnt take away anything according to free will…it simply sets down a map for us to follow to find a result, a map that only can be followed if we chose to do so. You have not show anything to the contrary, so is that all ya got?

    • M. Noonan October 6, 2012 / 11:24 pm


      It isn’t a matter for just the United States – it is a matter that a Christian society will be democratic (even if it is a monarchy) while an un-Christian society will be a tyranny (even if it allows votes). The reason I demand a right to vote is because no one out there is inherently superior to me as we are all created by God and He shows no partiality.

      • Bob1 October 7, 2012 / 11:44 am

        jso3 and M. Noonan,
        Your “free will” and mine and our “right to vote” and to make “Christian” or “good” or “wise” choices in how we vote and choose to legally conduct our lives together in our “society” are each hampered or “restricted” by our personal and corporate civic sins. This influence of “sin” is so strong that even Paul, who was a great Christian leader and an expert in the biblical laws of God that were given to Moses, had this to say about his ability “to do what is right”: “I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” (Romans 7:15-20) Any “rights” that we might claim, even those for “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, are all subject to the laws that we choose to apply in our social order to each other, often by our votes and those of our representatives, and in too many ways these laws have all been affected by our sins. A primary example of such effects is in regard to the issue of “life”; we can’t agree on when it begins and under what circumstances it can be terminated. Our challenge is not to do what we can to save “Democracy”; it is to learn how to live in loving relationships with God and our “neighbors” in our current social order. And this challenge is true for everyone, no matter where they live.

      • merrymerry October 7, 2012 / 11:52 am

        “Bob” thank you so “much” for taking the “time” to lecture “us” on what God “wants” and “means”. It is “so” much “help” to “us” I am “sure”. But “I” think we “got” it now thank you “very” much.

      • js03 October 7, 2012 / 3:15 pm

        in context;

        Romans 7:15-20

        King James Version (KJV)

        “15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
        16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
        17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
        18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
        19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
        20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me”

        this is the operation of free will…to contest the sins of the flesh…and consent to follow the spirit…its got nothing to do with governments and free will, or the will to chose right and wrong or even more so to claim that it was not an act of free will to pursue the things of the spirit which ones body does not know, and to reject the lusts of the flesh which in inherent in both vice and sins…

        nice try but…you still havent show anything in fact that removes the God given right of free will….

      • Bob1 October 7, 2012 / 3:49 pm

        You overestimate the abilities of your “free will” if you think that you can use it “to contest the sins of the flesh”. Apart from the indwelling powerful influences of the Holy Spirit in your life you cannot overcome the powers of “sin”, not in your own life and certainly not in our social “democratic” order of society, even when you are “free” to vote.

      • merrymerry October 7, 2012 / 7:05 pm

        “Bob” you almost “seem” to believe in “predestination” or at “least” that no one can “succeed” in being “moral” without following your “own” belief. “Your” God must “be” a very unbending ‘One” to have such a “narrow” path to “morality”. Or you “must” be a very “unbending” person to “think” only your “way” can be “right”.

      • Bob1 October 7, 2012 / 8:21 pm

        I won’t try to comment on the doctrine of “predestination”, but I will acknowledge that the God of the Bible, the God and Father whom Jesus served and about whom he taught was an “unbending ‘One'” The “path” that leads into the realm of God’s blessed presence, where his will is supreme, that I previously commented on in regard to the “beatitudes” of Jesus in Matthew 5:3-11, is described by Jesus in this way: “Enter by the NARROW gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is NARROW and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.” (Matthew 7:13-14) Jesus told Nicodemus, a legal expert in the moral laws of the Jews who acknowledge that Jesus was “a teacher come from God” that “unless one is ‘born again he cannot see the kingdom of God’.” (John 3:3) That does not seem to me to define a “broad” “path to ‘morality'”, which you seem to believe that your “One” has established. In this thread that is addressing the issue of “morality” and human rights and the “freedom” of one’s will, whether I think that my “way” is the only “way” or the “right” way to save our Democracy is not the crucial factor. The crucial factor is how can we learn to live together in a legally defined society of individuals who are each quite different from the others, even those who share the common “Christian” label. I don’t think that there is anyway to do this through an election of “popular” political representatives.

      • M. Noonan October 7, 2012 / 9:03 pm


        I think you are mistaking the point I’m trying to make – leaving aside who shall be saved, the point I’m making is that if we want to be free, at all, then we can only be so in a Christian society – meaning a society, for all its faults, has as its foundation Christian dogma.

      • Bob1 October 7, 2012 / 10:26 pm

        Mark, The point of my perspective on this blog isn’t directed to the matter of “who shall be saved”. It is directed to the inability of “Christian dogma” even in a “Christian society” to enable Democracy to “Survive” through the exercise of its citizens’ “free will” to vote because that “free will” is extensively and collectively impaired and corrupted by SIN.I’m sorry if I haven’t made my point clear.

      • M. Noonan October 7, 2012 / 11:15 pm


        Of course everything humans do is corrupted by sin – its why we’ll never get it right. But in as much as we must do things – and we must – then if we want to be free we can only be free if we will base our society upon the rock of Christian truth.

      • Bob1 October 8, 2012 / 12:23 am

        Mark, I recognize that there is much that “we must do” as citizens in our democratic society, but our political choices, even if we think that they are based “upon the rock of Christian truth” cannot make us “free”, because our society and our choices are so corrupted by sin that they cannot by our human will make us “free”. Jesus told some Jews who had “believed in him” but who were still wondering who he was and who questioned his claim that he came from their “Father” (God) who is “above” them all in heaven: “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free….If the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.” (John 8:31, and 36) “The rock of Christian truth”, who is the abiding personal indwelling presence of Jesus (God’s Word) in an individual’s life is the only source of “freedom” for a human being, and his freeing presence cannot be secured or maintained by any political choices that anyone makes. It is foolish for you or for me to think that there is something that “we must do” or that we can do to enable Democracy to “Survive”. I think that this is the objective of your blog, but I don’t think that it can be accomplished through any political procedures. But I appreciate your effort, and i share some of your same concerns. See my blog at A good blog.

      • M. Noonan October 9, 2012 / 1:11 pm


        Well, that seems to set it up that you are entirely Calvinist in your views – but as I don’t subscribe to that, I guess we’re at an impasse.

      • Bob1 October 9, 2012 / 1:22 pm

        Mark, I don’t consider myself to be “completely Calvinistic” in my theology. I’m trying to learn how to be a faithful “disciple” of Jesus and to understand and to lovingly apply his teachings to the way that I live. I don’t think that we are at any impasse in our dialogue. There is probably much theological thought that we share in common. I’m always open to further discussions with you regarding any of your concerns. Let’s keep talking.

      • Amazona October 9, 2012 / 6:20 pm

        Bob, while I think some reference to Christianity, every now and then, as an essential component of our national identity, is important, it is clear that you want to shift this blog into a theological discussion group.

        I beg to differ. You have a religious blog, and this is where you ought to focus your energies. You can experiment with your random and exuberant use of quotation marks, you can lecture to your heart’s content on your new understanding of the true meaning of the words of God, and you can hold forth on all the things you seem to want to insert into this, a political blog with a conservative bent.

        I think you have mistaken some references to God and His teachings as an invitation to remake this into a platform for your religious beliefs. I believe you have linked, many times , to your web site, and invited us to go there to engage in these discussions with you. If some of us have, then that is the place for talking about this. If not, that is a clue.

      • Bob1 October 9, 2012 / 7:32 pm

        I am not trying in my comments to shift this blog into a “theological discussion group”. I recognize the difference between my blog regarding “What is good” and this blog on political “Victory”. I’ve followed this blog for a long time as being one of my “Favorite” sites, but I recently removed it from my list because I just didn’t want to participate in the regular arguments regarding the posted issues. I’ve only commented on this one thread, because it specifically seemed to be addressing a “moral” factor in our civic lives. I understand that their is a difference between civic action, such as voting, and religious beliefs that may in some personal ways influence how individuals behave in their civic relationship and actions, but I’m not trying to merge these two realms of thinking or acting. I think that such mergers have been tried over and over again in various national situations, and they never seem to be very effective for the benefit of any citizens. I’m only trying to help the proponents of “victory” on this blog avoid wasting their time and energy seeking to implement political actions that history and theology have repeatedly demonstrated will not work. I’ll withdraw my case, unless it is directly addressed in further comments.

      • Mark Noonan October 10, 2012 / 10:05 pm


        The only real point I’m making here is that a society which does not at least try for truth is doomed – right now we, as a people, subscribe to a host of lies by act or omission. Even most of us on the right buy in to at least some of them (when 75%+ believe their was a conspiracy to kill JFK then you know that even some conservatives can be suckered by a transparent hoax). The lies are large or small and some more destructive than others – but we have been drifting away, almost since 1776, from the bedrock, theological truth we were founded upon: that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights. Lincoln noted it in the run up to the civil war:

        As a nation, we began by declaring that “all men are created equal.” We now practically read it, “All men are created equal, except Negroes.” When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, “All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics.” When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty – to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

        We have heavily debased our public life with the base alloy of hypocrisy. People like Lincoln and Coolidge and Reagan did a good job but only of slowing down the decay. The election of Romney is vital but only because Obama is so very bad – but what we must have is a moral revival. Not necessarily that all of us go to Church (though it would be better if we did) but that we reach back, grasp the Declaration and made it our political lodestar.

      • Bob1 October 11, 2012 / 12:05 am

        Mark, I recognize that you were one of the founders of this blog, but that you have recently decided to stop writing for it on a regular basis. I can understand why you made that decision. Writing posts for a blog is not easy, and it takes a lot of time and thought. I was attracted to your blog because I share some of your concerns for the political processes for which we are engaged in this country. I have addressed some of these concerns in my blog on “What is good”. In my last comment yesterday to Amazona I failed to correct her assumption that my blog is a “religious blog”. By design it is not. My posts are written from a perspective that is mostly secular and pragmatic.I’m trying to get viewers to talk with me and others regarding what is good in their lives, what makes it good, and how long is it good for. I’ve commented on various posts in your blog to try to draw some attention to the real practical difficulties of trying to achieve civic benefits in a society of citizens who are so strongly divided that elections of “popular” candidates and representatives have little chances of making much practical difference in our political system of government. Your references to “theological truth” and divinely conferred rights and individuals being “created equal” no longer have any practical impact on these political processes and how we choose to live together in this divided country, and I don’t even think that grasping onto the “Declaration” can save our Democracy. It is another political statement that was written as a part of an earlier political process of revolutionary change, and it was only put into place by the courageous and bloody action of many patriots. I don’t think that there are enough “courageous” patriots left in these States to implement a non-violent revolutionary change that would make a practical difference in how our “Democratic” form of government operates for the “people” of this country. What practical steps would you like to see the voters in this country take to implement the “truth” that you believe needs to be the “bedrock” for our civic lives together? I’m sure that you recognize that “equality” is no longer a racial matter, and that “slavery” is not really a dead business procedure in this country because many of the “plantations” have only been moved to foreign locations where the benefits of “cheap” labor can be utilized by some businesses in this country. I don’t think that the election of Romney will introduce a “moral revival” into this country. It will take another kind of leader to do that. It is good to share further with you in this discussion. I’m glad to continue our dialogue.

  3. casper October 6, 2012 / 8:44 pm

    The idea of democracy predates Christianity by hundreds of years. Varies forms of democracy have been practiced by non Christian societies throughout the world including the Iroquois Confederacy here in America. There is no religious requirement in the Constitution.

    • M. Noonan October 6, 2012 / 11:20 pm


      Greek and Roman democracy was no real democracy – the citizen class was deliberately kept tiny (Greeks had not only no method of naturalizing aliens but no conception of it) and lorded it over a vastly larger population of metics and slaves. It was, as any pagan thing must be, the merest faint shadow of what it was supposed to be. It was not until Christianity arose that there began to be real democracy – the rough hewn idea that everyone gets to have at least some say in how things are governed. And this was because Christianity held, holds and always will hold that God is not partial – that God is the God of all and all are equal before God.

      While there is no religious requirement in the Constitution there is a religious dogma in the Declaration – that we are created equal by a Creator. That is as much a Christian dogma as the Trinity – the only other place you can find even an approximation of it is in Islam, which is nothing more than a heretical Christianity.

      You need to get in to a little more depth on this – Jefferson, a slave holder, trembled over our retention of slavery because, as he pointed out, God is just. A short 60 years after Jefferson trembled the dogma of the Declaration had so faded that the Supreme Court of the United States held that black men are not even human. Jefferson couldn’t see a way out of the evil of slavery – people later on started to assert that slavery is a positive good. Imagine for a moment if Douglas had won in 1860 – there would have been no Civil War and no end to slavery in the United States…and probably no end even to this day because far from turning away from the concept that black men were subhuman, more and more people were arguing that larger and larger numbers of people were just as subhuman as blacks. We would not, by 1900, have been asking for the tired, poor and huddled masses yearning to breath free but would, instead, have been buying industrial slaves…those Poles, Jews, Italians and others who were also considered lesser breeds – and who were believing this way by the lights of the most advanced science of the day. The science of that day being divorced from Christian dogma…as it is to this day.

      We got lucky in Abraham Lincoln – who’s entire political philosophy is summed up in the Declaration of Independence. The Abolitionists even in 1860 were a tiny minority in the North…only LIncoln’s skilled (and rather ruthless) leadership brought about that fundamental change of mind which turned the Civil War in to an anti-slavery war, and so checked for a time our slide in to an un-Christian degradation.

      Now (but only for now) we wouldn’t dream of allowing anyone to buy and sell another human being – and yet human beings are bought and sold all the time in the United States. To be sure, we pretend it is by their free will but upon close inspection it is easily ascertained that no person possessed of the least Christian knowledge would allow himself to be treated as so many of our people allow today. The degradation of our society is highly advanced – and getting worse all the time. Freedom is being stripped away from us. Real freedom – not the absurd substitutions for freedom that the ruling class has foisted upon us (the difference is the prohibition against someone offering a prayer in a public institution – a real freedom – and someone being allowed to defecate on the American flag in public – a fake freedom).

      Freedom will go away entirely unless we re-assert the dogma: all men are created equal. But only Christians can assert that because only Christians believe that.

  4. Ms Miller October 6, 2012 / 10:24 pm

    Our Christian Nation of America is a Republic with democratic ideals. This is why we can repair the damage done by the crooks in Wash. DC. TERM LIMITS…

  5. js03 October 6, 2012 / 10:37 pm

    If you believe in God, you have no option but to believe in Satan.

    Jesus told us that the World hates Him. If we love Him, then the world will hate us as well. The Bilbe explains that in the end days there will be a great falling away from faith. We see that today in abortion, homosexuality, wars, even down to the moral behavior of our youth in public, forming mobs to rob stores.

    Our Government is Corrupt. We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic founded on the laws of nature, and of natures God. In a Democracy, mob rule is prelevant, thats why its easy to push in Islamic theocracies, and how it worked in the USSR and other places that claim to be America’s equal today. In the Republic under our Constitution, we guarantee the rights of everyone, not just the ruling mob, so that the mob rule doesnt violate natural law or the moral truth. No, the rights of the many should not violate the rights of the few. When they try to redefine what rights are however, we became silent. The only rights the Government has are those we gave them from the beginning, which they have trampled upon because they are running this country like a Democracy.

    Is it too late? Sometimes I think so, but then…God is omnipotent. I try to understand Him, but its not in me to get a complete grasp of His Will, so I just ponder what it would be like if….they held a constitutional convention, and forced change to return back to our roots.

  6. tiredoflibbs October 7, 2012 / 9:45 am

    The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.

    Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    History is a gallery of pictures in which there are few originals and many copies.

    Liberty cannot be established without morality, nor morality without faith.

    A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.

    There are many men of principle in both parties in America, but there is no party of principle.

    We succeed in enterprises which demand the positive qualities we possess, but we excel in those which can also make use of our defects.

    As one digs deeper into the national character of the Americans, one sees that they have sought the value of everything in this world only in the answer to this single question: how much money will it bring in?

    In the United States, the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own.

    In politics shared hatreds are almost always the basis of friendships.

    In other words, a democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it.

    I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.

    I cannot help fearing that men may reach a point where they look on every new theory as a danger, every innovation as a toilsome trouble, every social advance as a first step toward revolution, and that they may absolutely refuse to move at all.

    What is most important for democracy is not that great fortunes should not exist, but that great fortunes should not remain in the same hands. In that way there are rich men, but they do not form a class.

    The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair her faults.

    In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them.

    All those who seek to destroy the liberties of a democratic nation ought to know that war is the surest and shortest means to accomplish it.

    Those that despise people will never get the best out of others and themselves.

    In a revolution, as in a novel, the most difficult part to invent is the end.

    The Indian knew how to live without wants, to suffer without complaint, and to die singing.

    It is the dissimilarities and inequalities among men which give rise to the notion of honor; as such differences become less, it grows feeble; and when they disappear, it will vanish too.

    The surface of American society is covered with a layer of democratic paint, but from time to time one can see the old aristocratic colours breaking through.

    Life is to entered upon with courage.

    There is hardly a pioneer’s hut which does not contain a few odd volumes of Shakespeare. I remember reading the feudal drama of Henry V for the first time in a log cabin.

    In no other country in the world is the love of property keener or more alert than in the United States, and nowhere else does the majority display less inclination toward doctrines which in any way threaten the way property is owned.

    He was as great as a man can be without morality.

    When the past no longer illuminates the future, the spirit walks in darkness.

    The health of a democratic society may be measured by the quality of functions performed by private citizens.

    Grant me thirty years of equal division of inheritances and a free press, and I will provide you with a republic.

    There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.

    The main business of religions is to purify, control, and restrain that excessive and exclusive taste for well-being which men acquire in times of equality.

    The power of the periodical press is second only to that of the people.

    Consider any individual at any period of his life, and you will always find him preoccupied with fresh plans to increase his comfort.

    Nothing seems at first sight less important than the outward form of human actions, yet there is nothing upon which men set more store: they grow used to everything except to living in a society which has not their own manners.

    The whole life of an American is passed like a game of chance, a revolutionary crisis, or a battle.

    An American cannot converse, but he can discuss, and his talk falls into a dissertation. He speaks to you as if he was addressing a meeting; and if he should chance to become warm in the discussion, he will say “Gentlemen” to the person with whom he is conversing.

    The debates of that great assembly are frequently vague and perplexed, seeming to be dragged rather than to march, to the intended goal. Something of this sort must, I think, always happen in public democratic assemblies.

    The French want no-one to be their superior. The English want inferiors. The Frenchman constantly raises his eyes above him with anxiety. The Englishman lowers his beneath him with satisfaction.

    No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.

    There are two things which a democratic people will always find very difficult – to begin a war and to end it.

    The genius of democracies is seen not only in the great number of new words introduced but even more in the new ideas they express.

    The Americans combine the notions of religion and liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive of one without the other.

    Notice the themes that are the antithesis of the rhetoric from the left.

    • tiredoflibbs October 7, 2012 / 9:49 am

      The above quotes are from Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America.

      • neocon1 October 7, 2012 / 10:03 am

        Ronald Reagan quotes

        “Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”
        ― Ronald Reagan

        “If we ever forget that we’re one nation under God, then we will be one nation gone under.”
        ― Ronald Reagan

        “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.”
        ― Ronald Reagan

        “The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

        ― Ronald Reagan

    • Retired Spook October 7, 2012 / 10:12 am

      Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

      Tired, I suspect de Tocqueville never imagined governments would get around this by simply calling themselves Democratic Socialists. The Left has only maintained itself as an entity by constantly redefining itself and the words associated with it.

      • neocon1 October 7, 2012 / 10:30 am

        more insanity from the regime that boos God

        Obama Waives Child Soldiers Law for Muslim Brotherhood’s Libyan Forces ^ | 10/05/2012 | Daniel Greenfield

        Obama said, “When a little boy is kidnapped, turned into a child soldier, forced to kill or be killed — that’s slavery. It is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in a civilized world.” And then Obama went ahead for the third time and waived the Child Soldiers Prevention Act signed into law by President Bush and co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of senators, including Obama and Biden.

        Obama not only waived a law he had co-sponsored, claiming that it was in the national interest, he did it after denouncing the very activity that he waived…

  7. bozo October 7, 2012 / 10:46 am

    My choice is for the lesser of evils. I’ll be voting for the one defined by C. S. Lewis as the only true Christian candidate.

    • J. R. Babcock October 7, 2012 / 11:04 am

      You’re voting for Gary Johnson?

    • neocon1 October 7, 2012 / 11:33 am

      you will be

      • neocon1 October 7, 2012 / 12:40 pm

        Looking back thru the past 4 years, many “Whens” pop up. Read them all to
        better understand where we are going as a country….

        – he refused to disclose who donated money to his election campaign, as
        other candidates had done, people said it didn’t matter.

        – he received endorsements from people like Louis Farrakhan, Muramar
        Kaddafi and Hugo Chavez, people said it didn’t matter.

        – it was pointed out that he was a total newcomer and had absolutely no
        experience at anything except community organizing, people said it
        didn’t matter.

        – he chose friends and acquaintances such as Bill Ayers and Bernadine
        Dohrn who were revolutionary radicals, people said it didn’t matter.

        – his voting record in the Illinois Senate and in the U.S. Senate came into
        question, people said it didn’t matter.

        – he refused to wear a flag lapel pin and did so only after a public
        outcry, people said it didn’t matter.

        – people started treating him as a Messiah and children in schools were
        taught to sing his praises, people said it didn’t matter.

        – he stood with his hands over his groin area for the playing of the
        National Anthem and Pledge of Allegiance, people said it didn’t matter.

        – he surrounded himself in the White House with advisors who were
        pro-gun control, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage and wanting to
        curtail freedom of speech to silence the opposition, people said it
        didn’t matter.

        – he said he favors sex education in kindergarten, including homosexual
        indoctrination, people said it didn’t matter.

        – his personal background was either scrubbed or hidden and nothing
        could be found about him, people said it didn’t matter.

        – the place of his birth was called into question, and he refused to
        produce a birth certificate, people said it didn’t matter.

        – he had an association in Chicago with Tony Rezco – a man of
        questionable character and who is now in prison and had helped Obama to
        a sweet deal on the purchase of his home – people said it didn’t matter.

        – it became known that George Soros, a multi-billionaire Marxist, spent
        a ton of money to get him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

        – he started appointing White House Czars that were radicals,
        revolutionaries, and even avowed Marxist /Communists, people said it
        didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he stood before the Nation and told us that
        his intentions were to “fundamentally transform this Nation” into
        something else, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – it became
        known that he had trained ACORN workers in Chicago and served
        as an attorney for ACORN, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he
        appointed cabinet members and several advisers who were tax cheats and
        socialists, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he appointed a
        Science Czar, John Holdren, who believes in forced abortions, mass
        sterilizations and seizing babies from teen mothers, people said it
        didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he appointed Cass Sunstein as Regulatory
        Czar who believes in “Explicit Consent,” harvesting human organs without
        family consent and allowing animals to be represented in court, while
        banning all hunting, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he
        appointed Kevin Jennings, a homosexual and organizer of a group called
        Gay, Lesbian, Straight, Education Network as Safe School Czar
        and it became known that he had a history of bad advice to teenagers,

        people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he appointed Mark Lloyd as Diversity Czar who
        believes in curtailing free speech, taking from one and giving to
        another to spread the wealth, who supports Hugo Chavez, people said it
        didn’t matter.

        WHEN – Valerie Jarrett, an avowed Socialist, was
        selected as Obama’s Senior White House Advisor, people said it didn’t

        WHEN – Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director,
        said Mao Tse Tung was her favorite philosopher and the person
        she turned to most for inspiration, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he
        appointed Carol Browner, a well known socialist as Global Warming Czar
        working on Cap and Trade as the nation’s largest tax, people said it
        didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he appointed Van Jones, an ex-con and
        avowed Communist as Green Energy Czar, who since had to resign
        when this was made known, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – Tom Daschle,
        Obama’s pick for Health and Human Services Secretary could not be
        confirmed because he was a tax cheat, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – as President of the United States , he bowed to the King of
        Saudi Arabia , people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he traveled around the world criticizing America and never once
        talking of her greatness, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN –
        his actions concerning the Middle East seemed to support the
        Palestinians over Israel , our long time ally,
        people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he took American tax dollars
        to resettle thousands of Palestinians from Gaza to the United
        States , people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he upset the Europeans by removing plans for a
        missile defense system against the Russians, people said it didn’t

        WHEN – he played politics in Afghanistan by not sending
        troops early-on when the Field Commanders said they were necessary to
        win, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he started spending us into a debt that was so big we could

        not pay it off, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he took a huge spending bill under the
        guise of stimulus and used it to pay off organizations, unions, and
        individuals that got him elected, people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he took over insurance companies, car companies,
        banks, etc., people said it didn’t matter.

        WHEN – he took away student loans from the banks and put it through

        the government, people said it didn’t matter.

        – he designed plans to take over the health care system and
        put it under government control, people said it didn’t matter.

        – he claimed he was a Christian during the election and tapes were later
        made public that showed Obama speaking to a Muslim group and ‘stating’
        that he was raised a Muslim, was educated as a Muslim, and is still a
        Muslim, people said it didn’t matter.

        – he set into motion a plan to take over the control of all energy in
        the United States through Cap and Trade, people said it didn’t matter.

        – he finally completed his transformation of America into a Socialist
        State , people woke up— it was too late.

      • bozo October 10, 2012 / 6:17 am

        So many lies. So little time. So little attribution for your cut and paste plagiarism.

      • Amazona October 10, 2012 / 10:59 am

        You got him on his lack of attribution, but “lies” ??????

        I know you guys are playing fast and loose with this word lately, it being all you can do given the facts, but still….

        What, exactly, is a “lie” in the list given by neo? What happened, or that “people said it didn’t matter”?

        I went back through it and found every single comment to be completely true. Please do point out the “lies”.

      • tiredoflibbs October 10, 2012 / 12:31 pm

        Creepy assclown, why don’t you attack the message rather than attacking the messenger. You proggy drones are famous for that. If neo’s post is so easy to refute then do so, rather than whining about attribution.

        Typical and pathetic.

  8. tiredoflibbs October 10, 2012 / 6:16 am

    Can Democracy survive?

    Only in a civil society, which the DEMOCRATS are tearing down…..

    …just look at the behavior of their supporters. If these are the people who are voting, we have to wonder why they are supporting DEMOCRATS? Do DEMOCRATS represent their electorate?

    WARNING – a few parts have harsh language.

    Democracy cannot survive in a society that is uncivil and intolerant. As we have seen in ads, interviews and behavior, they are uncivil and intolerant to their opposition, who only want to uphold the Constitution and oppose their radical agenda.


Comments are closed.