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.
43 comments
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’
"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.
"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?
"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?
"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?
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
"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.
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.
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.
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!
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
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.
So, in other words, since the majority disagree with you, that means democracy doesn't work. Democracy only works when conservative fundamentalist christians are getting their way. When it doesn't, they act like two year olds and throw fucking temper tamptrums and cry foul, and start to try and force a theocracy on the people. This is why christianity always has, and always will, be history's biggest failure.
"History's biggest failure"? Well, except for the Aztec religion, and pretty much every religion that practiced human sacrifice, and all the ones that were vastly more militant than even medieval Christianity...
Lets say he doesn't get corrupt, and makes sure people stay morally right. (makes premarital sex illegal, outlaws abortion, etc).
That isn't possible. People are not perfect, even according to your own Bible. If you give one person too much power, they get corrupt. It's like communism. It's a nice idea, but it doesn't work out in the real world.
This is ripe for the old joke
George W and the Queen were having a discussion.
George - So if a King is in charge of a Kingdom and a Prince is in charge of a Principality what am I in charge of.
Queen - I would stick with Cuntry
Ask Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Ceaucescu, the Taliban and Hussein how well totalitarian government worked out for them.
He does have one point: Our founding fathers were well aware that a republic lives and dies by the capabilities of its electorate. They knew that no republic can survive if it its electorate is apathetic, ignorant or unable to put its own desires aside for the greater good. Cal me cynical, but I see a lot of that in my country these days.
The problem is that when the electorate does fail, a dictator often steps forward to "put things right." These dictators always portray themselves as good and moral, and more than a few have portrayed themselves as Christian. But how many stay that way once they are in power?
Lets say he doesn't get corrupt
Power corrupts.
Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
And religion is the best proof of that,
What if, America became a totalitarian gov with a Good moral or christian king.
Fluttershy: "NO!"
Lets say he doesn't get corrupt...
I assure you: he will.
It would probably be as free and prosperous as Iran or Afghanistan.
Power breeds corruption, silly.
Like they say; democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other forms that we've tried.
Right and wrong for you seem to be forcing others to comply with your narrow little worldview. Right and wrong for most people are to not cause harm to others if you can avoid it, support human rights for all, and don't infringe on the rights of others.
If you want to decide for others what they are to do with their bodies, you clearly can't control yourself, that's right.
If your case rests on a stupid hypothetical, you are unworthy of your crown, DebateKing. We demand that you abdicate your throne and go into exile.
Long Live the True King of Debate, His Illustrious Potentate...REASON!
"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."
image
Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith
'By the Grace of God'. 'Defender of the Faith '. Queen Elizabeth II is head of the Protestant Church of England, so we have a state religion all ready to go, if you're ready to go, King(Of Mass)Debate(rs). [/King George III]
Enjoy your paradox, pal. >:D
"What if, America became a totalitarian gov with a Good moral or christian king.
Someone claims to be 'Born Again'.
Over 50 former Trump models describe Trumps distrust of women, his numerous affairs and his habit of forcing himself onto women half his age while making unwanted sexual advances
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/15/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html
image
'If. ' [/Spartan Laconic Wit]
"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."
Via his claim to be 'Born Again', Donald Fart has already set himself up for the biggest fall imaginable.
PROTIP: Those ultra-conservatives in the Southern states.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.