Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 9425

What if, America became a totalitarian gov with a Good moral or christian king.

Lets say he doesn't get corrupt, and makes sure people stay morally right. (makes premarital sex illegal, outlaws abortion, etc).

Is it still wrong?
I don't think so...
I think its right. I think that democracy is only valid if the people have morals and can control themselves when it comes to right and wrong. I think its becoming apparent that that the majority cannot.

DebateKing, The Debating Realm 40 Comments [2/6/2006 12:00:00 AM]
Fundie Index: 5
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Sierra

Because if people disagree with you, democracy can't work, right? It's only democracy if you're in the majority?

2/6/2006 8:35:49 PM

TDR

oh
my
fucking
god

someone kill me now.

2/6/2006 8:38:19 PM

Deus Ex Machina

Does this guy even know what democracy means???

2/6/2006 8:56:52 PM

Cicero

A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing.

Consider the mess the ‘Democratic’ Roman Republic got into in the 1st C BC, only to be redeemed by the unconstitutional criminal and tyrant – Julius Caesar – and his adoptive son Octavian (Augustus).

Great! Bring on the tyrants cos they have the power to do what’s necessary.

Just one small problem!

Here comes Caligula – everybody hide!

I guess this is covered by the ‘Future Governments theory’

2/6/2006 9:16:20 PM

Luffy

The problem comes when no such king exists or the successor is corrupt.

2/6/2006 9:46:50 PM

Phil

Every word out of this guy's mouth is just plain WRONG.

2/6/2006 9:49:01 PM

NonHomogenized

\"What if America became a totalitarian gov with a Good moral or christian king\"

Well, it wouldn't be the United States of America anymore. And I wouldn't want to live there, nor, I imagine, would most people.
Presumably, there would be a civil war, but, if not, nearly every worthwhile human being would leave, and take all of their knowledge, skills, and resources with them, leaving an (at best) second-rate nation, and, more likely, a third-world country with expansionist ambitions.

\"Is it still wrong?\"

That depends on whether he violates the social contract between himself and his subjects. It would, for example, violate the social contract between the citizens of the U.S.A. which underlies our government, so, if this hypothetical situation occurred in the U.S.A., then yes.

In an amusing twist of fate, I agree that democracy is really only a good idea when the people are capable of making good decisions, but DebateKing is exactly the sort of example I'd cite as to the people I don't really want participating in a democracy.

Now, if he wants to go somewhere else to form a society with other people who want to live that way, I have no problem with it, but that doesn't seem to be what he's looking for.

2/6/2006 11:21:46 PM

gregfl

I am just so sure if we could declare a king, this guy would crown Dubya king of Amurica.


2/6/2006 11:27:15 PM

Talisman

\"Now, if he wants to go somewhere else to form a society with other people who want to live that way, I have no problem with it, but that doesn't seem to be what he's looking for.\"

Anyone know why this hasn't happened yet? I mean with all the money this religion, or any religion, is capable of bringing in why haven't the \"True\" Christians gone off and bought an island somewhere to have their beloved theocracy?

2/7/2006 12:25:13 AM

Talisman

\"Now, if he wants to go somewhere else to form a society with other people who want to live that way, I have no problem with it, but that doesn't seem to be what he's looking for.\"

Anyone know why this hasn't happened yet? I mean with all the money this religion, or any religion, is capable of bringing in why haven't the \"True\" Christians gone off and bought an island somewhere to have their beloved theocracy?

2/7/2006 12:26:43 AM

Julian

\"Medieval Nostalgia Award\" anyone?

3 cheers for feudalism.

If the King sleeps with his sister, their descendants will be purer still. (and a haemophiliac)

Yes love these morals - pre-marital (read pre-female-enslavement) sex BAD. Bombing people you disagree with GOOD.

Can't wait to see the welfare policy -- throwing coins from the back of a truck at random?

2/7/2006 12:44:04 AM

Jade

Talisman, there is a movement for some Christian group to move to South Carolina and turn it into a Christian nation all its own. They're are going to have one hell of a time getting quite a few of the \"other\" Christians and many other faiths to go along with this idea.

2/7/2006 1:44:02 AM

Aesmael

What if the King were a Queen? Would that be ok with the DebateKing?

2/7/2006 3:29:58 AM

Julian


Would this Queen go to mardi gras?

2/7/2006 5:01:14 AM

Mr. Turquoise

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't the United States originally part of a monarchy, under the leadership of a Chrisitian king (head of the Anglican church, no less) appointed by divine providence? My history is a bit rusty, so perhaps DebateKing could tell me what happened to that apparently ideal situation.

Mr. Turquoise

2/7/2006 5:52:47 AM

clems

\"Talisman, there is a movement for some Christian group to move to South Carolina and turn it into a Christian nation all its own. They're are going to have one hell of a time getting quite a few of the \"other\" Christians and many other faiths to go along with this idea.\"

Yep, christianexodus.org. SC is my home state and this freaks me out. I think, with all of the fundies there, they might actually be able to pull it off.

2/7/2006 7:12:47 AM

Seomah

Well, I guess Roman Catholics make DebateKing sick, but for me, they are as true as any other christian. And they have Vatican City, that is an independent (at least officially) nation, and the head of the governement is the Pope.

If the different sects of christians keep fighting each other, true christians communities would be more like campings than cities.

2/7/2006 8:57:57 AM

Julian

Mr Turquoise - YES, but only if you believe divine providence was usurped from the papalcy by a fat fuck.....

- Henry the 8th wanted a divorce and Jesus categorically stated in the NT that the only grounds for divorce were female infidelity.

Solution - Henry started his own church where divorce was OK. Implications.
* 500 years of warring with Spain, France, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
* The colonisation race between Germany, England, Portugal, France and Spain - shaping not only the subcontinent, but also the New World. (Ahem that's the Carribean and the Americas)
* France supplying the rebels in the \"US\" War of Independance, to weaken England, ultimately leading to an unforeseen victory and the very existence of the US and all that entails...
* Catholic/Protestant unrest still in abundance today, especially in Northern Ireland.
* Evangelicals denouncing the Roman Catholic church, even though they truly owe them their very existence.

2/7/2006 10:29:03 AM

Cicero

Mr. Turquoise

Er, that king (George III) was a bit mad – mad as a fish, (genetic, kingly, inbred porphyria or poisoning by his son (George IV) are the 2 most popular theories).

So, not ideal - not ideal at all. That’s the problem with kings / queens - good, bad, sane or mad – you’re stuck with the fuckers!

Julian

Henry VIII was also a hypocrite as he died a fully paid up and practicing member of the Catholic faith.
He was a total bastard, but ironically, without his actions or his progeny there would never have a British Empire or a USA, as Britain would’ve remained a pawn of the Pope and Spain.
Mexico would’ve been a fuck-site bigger though!

2/7/2006 3:01:34 PM

Mr. Turquoise

Julian, Cicero, thanks for the info, but when I said \"rusty\", I didn't mean that I was completely oblivious. I also said \"apparently\" ideal (i.e., according to DebateKing's views). Also, regarding the \"fat fuck\" comment, by definition, all monarchs are appointed by divine providence - a monarch's authority is always considered to be derived from a \"higher power\" of some sort.

However, I was only trying to highlight the irony of DebateKing's statements. Note, he said \"Good moral OR Chirstian king\". His ancestors had a Christian king (if not a moral one), and at the time, premarital/extramarital sex would get you severely punished (if you were a woman, anyway). But instead of continuing to live in DebateKing's ideal nation, those individuals opted to found a nation \"of the people, for the people and governed by the people\".

Now, I readily admit that my history is \"rusty\", but DebateKing clearly has no idea. And you know what they say - \"Those who do not know the past are doomed to repeat it\".

Mr. Turquoise

2/8/2006 12:54:24 AM

Peachy

King = Valid Democracy. Got it.

2/8/2006 3:49:10 PM

Darwin's Lil Girl

As I said in a previous response to some one else, premarital sex is the only reason I'm alive right now. And abortions can be more humane, if not downright necessary. Must I keep repeating myself?

2/10/2008 7:20:37 AM

Marlowe

You say people are too fallible for democracy to work, but take for granted that a totalitarian ruler will resist? WOW.

12/6/2008 9:55:38 PM



This is the DebateKing? I'd hate to read from the losers

12/6/2008 11:40:10 PM

dg

Where is a large tract of reasonably non-lethal land, not currently occupied, where these people could settle? I think everyone would be better off if the pseudo-Christian theocrats went and did this on their own -- without foreign aid, of course.

12/7/2008 1:50:13 AM
1 2