What are some of the domestic problems that if left unsolved will only get worse and, in time, do as much as bring the country down?
Critical infrastructure is a big one. The roadways in many areas are pathetic for how much taxes the population pays.
The National Debt. A few years ago, I had around five credit cards and found them creeping steadily higher. On paper, I had the ability and the means to continue paying them, but did not pay attention to the larger and larger percentage of interest and smaller and smaller percentage of principal that was getting paid. Soon, they overwhelmed me. The same will happen, I fear, with our national debt. Will the day come when every penny of taxes collected by the U.S. be used to pay only the interest payment on the growing debt? Will we as a country default?
Well, the first problem is that our fiat currency creates inflation. Revamping the economic system is simply a must. But more immediately government spending has to be put in check, because clearly it has not served us well. With Obama-Care looming on the horizon, which will cost trillions of dollars that we don't have, I don't see that happening any time soon.
Western Nations is getting older, even as we struggle with higher and higher debt repayments. Will there be a tipping point? Will the monopoly of power that the Western Nations hold come tumbling down?
All empires fall eventually and it almost always comes from within due to a cascading effect. Obviously the idea is to delay that eventuality for as long as possible. Some empires were better at it than others. The Roman Empire lasted a long, long time in comparison to others.
Will terrorism ever go away?
Just look at history to serve as a guide. There has always been some form of terror so, no, it will never completely go away.
In order to fix the problem, must we be the ones to fix it?
"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes." -- Thomas Jefferson
This is a truism that often hasn't happened as one generation passes the buck on to their children and grandchildren. It is therefore incumbent upon you and I not to fail for the next generation.
Can we fix it, given our own challenges?
Yes, where there is a will there is a way. But we must be smart about it and not procrastinate.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
I see extremely ignorant comments coming from both sides of the isle. I also see a lot of blameshifting going on as if the world's ills were as simple as religion versus secularism. Both are paranoid and both are delusional.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
Buzsaw, religion and secular education has nothing to do with one another in this republic. The only time religion should play a role in school is during religious courses or the semenary. It is the same thing as keeping mathematics and language, science, social science, etc separate. They just have nothing to do with the other. 2 X 2 doesn't = protoplasm and the square root of 30 does not = Habbukuk the minor prophet.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
None of our founders would agree to your statement above. They regarded the value of things like The Ten Commandments and other Biblical principles to the extent that they were implemented in many aspects of government including church services in the halls of Congress accompanied by the US Marine Band, the insistance that the Bible and Watts Hymnal be integral to public school education and commissioning missionaries to evangelize the pagan Indians into Christianity.
That's odd considering that the most influential ones were deist.
"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." -- Thomas Paine
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." -- Thomas Jefferson
More on this later.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
to quote mine means taking a quote out of context. Please show me where I took any of the quotes out of context.
The quotes of Adam and Jefferson implicated the oppressive Angican Church/state of England and the popes and bishops of Roman Catholicism during the dark ages. No central organized religion was to be established by the government in its Constitution or laws. This did not forbid the practice of religion in and out of government as the policies of Jefferson, Adams and all of the founders demonstrated.
I never said it forbids religion. I am quite pleased that it does not forbid religion and am quite displeased by some of the EvC members that insist on "abolishing religion."
The point of the Separation of Church and State is that people may practise freely in the New World without the fear of the government showing partiality towards a religion.
If, however, you feel that because the majority of people emigrating from Europe identified themselves as Christian, I would dare say that means very little. What exactly does a "Christian Nation" even mean? Please define your terms, because popularity seems utterly irrelevant in the face of the clear intent of the Framers; which is that no religion shall be a state religion, including Christianity of any denomination.
Now that the electorate has liberalized to a more secularistic mindset, the role of Christianity in government diminishes.
Nonsense. In fact, terms such as "In God We Trust" are late additions, as in, 1952. The government got progressively more religious (which is an infringement upon itself). It is only as of late that it is going back to its secular roots -- secular in this instance meaning that it intentionally refrains from honoring any religion at all, not that religion is disallowed.
The solution to one's wishes is to muster up majority vote in the poles; not to implement new laws, forbiding the exercise of religion and free speech which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights guarantees for our republic.
Buzsaw, I in no way intend whatsoever not to allow ANY citizen the right to freely congregate peaceably under the religious pretense of its choosing. That is not even part of the debate. We are debating what a "Christain Nation" is and what the entailments/repurcussions of that might include.
If America is a Christian Nation, what is that supposed to mean to people that aren't Christian?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
The nature of a republic is that the voters determine who represents them who in turn implement what is taught. In recent decades, secularist minded leaders have been elected by the voters of the republic. Consequently the educational agenda has become more secularistic.
Buzsaw, there is no religious connotation in mathematics or language. There is no pertinent need to introduce such. Anything less is a direct infringement on the Separation of church and State.
What exactly are you calling for? Prayer in school? Creationism to be mandatory reading material? Compulsory attendence to bible classes?
The observed reality relative to your OP and message four, i.e. your notion that more education is the solution, happens to be that the more secularist and hostile to religion the education and all aspects of life in America have become, the more complex and extensive the problems in America become. Thus, more of secularist direction we go, the more and the greater problems will become as per Occam's Razor.
If you feel that education is hostile to religion, I would find that an embarassment if I was part of your religion. Because that would mean that it cannot stand up to legitimate scrutiny, and in order to keep the masses suckling on the teat of the Lamb you have to force them.
"Seek and you shall find," not "ram down their throats until the accept it and submit to the Eternal Lawgiver."
You are vague as to what kind of direction for America you want. What do you seek for American education systemand what kind of American government do you seek?
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
I'm calling for whatever the local elected school boards decide upon for their schools. If they decide that the New England Primer, having religious connotations would be good for their school, there should be no laws from the state or feds forbidding that. If they decide that prayer is allowed before classes so be it.
Votes don't usurp the Constitution. If you want to discuss God in school, that's why private schools exist.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
No it wouldn't! It would be no different to me being arrested and condemned to death as a result of my violating some current law proposed by government and voted by parliament. The only difference is that currently my death would be the application of the will of a minority while in a direct democracy it would be the application of the will of the majority, hence somehow more palatable.
It may appear more palatable, but I for one am thankful I don't live in a direct democracy, but rather a republic because of mob rule -- mob rule just being a colloquialism for majority rule infringing on inherent rights.
Here's a very interesting, detailed explanation. It is 10 minutes long, but I think you'll be able to appreciate it.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
It wasn't exclusively for private schools in the days of the founders, in whose public schools prayer and Bible were everyday events. Why? Why didn't the founders rise up in protest as you people would rather than supporting it?
Is there any credible evidence that the bible was being taught in schools in the infancy of the nation? After all, what purpose does church serve then? And if they intended on teaching the bible in schools, why did they make a provision in the Constitution explicitly separating religion from the public government?
I don't doubt that various Sunday schools existed and certainly taught the bible. But that is in its rightful place and I have no problem with that. I also have no problem with private schools desiring to come under the pretense of religious faith if they so desire.
The sole issue is that public schools are funded by taxes. The government runs the schools. It would be unconstitutional to make an obligatory bible study.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
It's a common misconception that in a Democracy the majority will infringe on minority rights. This is a myth, no more applicable to a Democracy than to the representative Republics of today. A constitution and individual rights are by no means incompatible with a Democracy. That's how the myth probably originated
I don't think anyone thinks that the system would fall in to disarray using a form of Direct Democracy, but only offer scenarios to avoid when revisiting history. At first glance it appears very attractive in terms of fairness. But then, so does communism. It has a good premise, but upon closer inspection it fails to protect those of the minority position, whatever that may be.
In the UK government currently has the support of around 30% of the populace. So they continue to make decisions -and will continue to do so till the next election- which are unsupported by the majority. In your very own country the electorate has a choice of two (2) ticks on the ballot (three if they're lucky), between parties with very little deviation between their policies and values. You can't surely even entertain the idea that these two parties (three with the odd independent) fully represent the minorities of the US!
The electorate has innumerable choices. They could even vote for themselves on a ballot to be president. The issue is that no one else knows who the hell you are, so you have nearly impossible odds of ever being elected.
As well, on the ticket is several representatives of a party from which to choose from who you think best represents your position.
So yes, if you really care about minority rights you should be favouring a Democracy, where *everyone* has a voice.
Who doesn't have a voice?
Lets suppose you have someone who wants to vote on abortion. But what if there is no election to be run? You send in your vote saying how you favor/dislike abortion, but who is listening to you if no vote was ever organised?
It's no coincidence that many of the Founding Fathers who so vividly criticise democracy (as per your video), were Freemasons, a system that is emphatically and inherently un-democratic. So it's no suprise they went for a representative Republic where the decisions and made by a select few on behalf of the many!
The Founding Fathers were not opposed to democracy. Republicanism is a form of democracy. The kind of democracy they were opposed to was a direct democracy, such as what you seem to be describing. As the video illustrates, the Framers had a clean slate to write on. They could have chosen any form of government they wanted. However, revisiting history served as the best guide in avoiding earlier pitfalls.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams
™ Version 4.2
