As America is a Constitutional Republic, it serves as a representative democracy. Rather than people voting directly on issues themselves, they elect representatives to do so for them. So in respect, would not representatives voting on an issue be the equivalent of people voting on the issue? This whole, "will of the people" argument seems awfully fishy since the United States of America is not a democracy and the founding fathers of the country foresaw the danger in allowing the majority to rule over the rights of the various minorities. So why do people insist that things like income tax were not voted on "by the people" when they were voted on by the people who were elected by the people?
Last edited by CriticalThought; 08-14-09 at 10:11 PM.
Based on my understanding of the bible, the Jesus character would not support 'charity' forced at gunpoint.
So if our Representatives no longer represent us, what are we to do?
It's like the bail outs. The majority did not support the bailouts yet most in congress voted for them. Then they said they know what we need. Are we being represented here or bull ****ted? I think it is the later.
Comes a time when the people need to rise up and remind those in power who they serve.
PS: The people do vote directly on issues at a state and local level.
Last edited by Black Dog; 08-14-09 at 11:16 PM.
No Lives Matter
By electing them out of office!Comes a time when the people need to rise up and remind those in power who they serve.
Which is how the Constitution laid it out. Each state gets to decide how to run its own affairs.PS: The people do vote directly on issues at a state and local level.
However, that doesn't address my original question. Would not representatives voting on an issue be the equivalent of people voting on the issue? Even if they don't represent your particular view, they do represent the view of those who got them elected.
The separation of organisation and morals is clear, useful and applicable.
Thats your fundamental failing here, its not irrelevant. They are one and the same, jesus may have said render unto God, what is Gods etc etc, but that didnt mean he was letting Ceasar off the hook, or Pontius Pilot. This is more relevant now in a representative democracy where our vote contributes to decisions made.Several of us already said why. Go back and read.
There's a distinction between the heavenly, which is eternal, and the earthly, which is minuscule. Earthly governments are just that -- minuscule and meaningless. Completely irrelevant to your individual standing with God. Jesus spoke from God's point of view, not man's.
As Southern Democrat has pointed out to quote him;You see in scripture kings are told to be righteous and just as well
Its no more forced than any other contract that one enters into. In the case of the state, you are immediately protected and contracts you enter are held binding, that protects you and others, from birth.
If you dont want to live in a place where majority counts, and are contracts held binding there is always somalia. Bring your guns.
If you don't like that you can argue for only paying for the things you agree with.
This highlights the immaturity of the right, they feel resentful over things such as taxes for road building because they dont want to accept the will of the majority, yet theyd happily expect others to accept that will of something they did agree with. Whatsmore they have no solution for making roads only used by those who wish to pay for them. Or defence, justice or anything else.And I never said that people shouldn't pay taxes
Last edited by creation; 08-15-09 at 03:46 AM.
Last edited by Black Dog; 08-15-09 at 04:36 AM.
No Lives Matter