In a democracy 51% of the population oppress the remaining 49%, but in a Republic each town, county, and state is free to decide its own laws. Since Christians make up the majority of the population, they should want a democracy, and since atheists make up a slim percent of the population they should want a Republic where they could have their own little strongholds. They cannot have this in a democracy.
Do you follow? Personally I am a Jeffersonian Republican (a true Republican). Modern Republicans are like Lincoln... nationalist pigs, not much different then democrats. But still, if I (as a Christian) wanted to have my way for everything I would push for democracy since my brethren make up a majority. Atheists in a democracy cannot do much until they make up a large percent of the population, hence they should be Republicans.
Jefferson and I are very different in matters of religion, but close when it comes to politics. Separation of Church and State and such.
2007-08-10 23:15:18 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Did you really just end this question by saying "Separation of Church and State and such"? Look at your question, look at this last line....
2007-08-10 23:22:07 · answer #1 · answered by Shane M 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I may have not been the best christian by example before.
I am a precious member of the church. I am reminded of a discussion with a buisness/entrapaneour major type (IT myself) about capatilsm and what our country stands for. I described my views and how I would like society to be. This friend pointed out that I was describing communism, only with good intentions. I'm not really saying anything. I don't follow politics or even keep an ear out for that matter. God is getting smaller and smaller in this universal and comfortable way of life we are taught to live.
2007-08-10 23:27:42 · answer #2 · answered by Jerome54 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Separation of church and state is OK, but we're forced by economics to go to state schools. That's not right, if you see what I mean. National standards for accreditation should be enough. I'm not concerned so much with what party, as the two couldn't give a good party, but I'm concerned with the way the media controls thought. There's no real diversity of ideas in mass communication and thinking is not taught in schools, any of them. The idea of democracy to force ideas on people is not my idea. With a freer marketplace of ideas we could be said to make an informed decision, but much of what the gov does is in closed meetings and so much false information in politics. The Internet seems to be the freest source. It's always been a government thing to homogenize people as ideas are thought of as dangerous to this day. That way we don't know what people are thinking to talk with them. It's a passe system to control thought. We'd best deal with thought instead of suppress it, if we're ready as a world, or maybe, especially, if we're not, so we will be. The're afraid Ben Laden will send our a secret code, he can do that on the internet, by video, or on email, for heaven sakes. We need to deal with the problems, ideas, as a people and stop waiting for retro government to do it. Jefferson didn't wait for England and King George. In a battle of ideas you don't need a revolution or bombs. Truth be told, I suppose govenments are most afraid of thinking, being disarmed as they are in that arena and having disarmed the public.
2007-08-11 00:14:13 · answer #3 · answered by hb12 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think atheists are just hanging back and waiting for the current trend to continue. That way, one day, 85% of the population will be atheist and atheists will be able to just get rid off the remaining few nutcases.
2007-08-10 23:21:51 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, using fact of this I by no capacity use passive aggressive questions or snarky solutions. I in trouble-free terms answer harshly to questions that are being intentionally impolite or the place the questioner intentionally tells untruths.
2016-10-14 23:12:11 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Im Independent
2007-08-10 23:31:35 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ethically, the Christians aren't THAT bad... I don't see why we shouldn't let them vote. The only problem is that they are suckers, and they vote in people like Bush.
2007-08-10 23:24:58 · answer #7 · answered by The Instigator 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I hate to burst your bubble, dude ... but R&S is frequented by an international audience. This site is NOT exclusively American!
.
2007-08-10 23:35:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Weird, since it seems to be pretty much the opposite.
2007-08-10 23:24:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are confused and twist things to support your distorted views.
2007-08-10 23:20:46 · answer #10 · answered by DrIG 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋