Representative Democracy; what on earth were our fore fathers thinking?

I have been watching with interest and sadness all the protest and vitriol in response to Trump being the president elect.  There is simply no precedent for this level of reaction to the civilized exercising of our civic responsibility in voting for our top leadership.  Calls for the elimination of the Electoral College, threats to move out of the country combined with American flag burning, vandalism and chants of “not my f***ing president” and “stupid rural people” are being seen and heard in the streets and college campuses coast to coast.  And not just a few people in a few places, 10s of thousand in dozens of places across America.  So, what were our fore fathers thinking?

Well first of all I can tell you they were in fact thinking and even though I am solidly one of those rural people who grew up in West Texas cotton country, I did at least learn to read which, when applied to history books, has enabled this “stupid rural” person to learn a few things.

There are subtle yet vital differences between a pure democracy (i.e. popular vote) and a representative democracy (Senate & House of Representatives and Electoral College).  And it was in fact history which caused our founders to choose something other than a pure democracy as our form of government since all previous democracies had ultimately destroyed themselves.  They also had a central founding principal which was that all men are created equal in stark contrast to the ruling elite practices of the countries they had come from.  It was this commitment to equality which caused them to choose a representative democracy.  Keep in mind; it was in fact the ruling elite of the day which penned the documents upon which we launched our union.  But those ruling elite saw the wisdom in structuring our government in such a way that smaller or less populated communities and states (where our food, manufactured goods and raw materials came from) were represented in such a way that the highly populated cities and states couldn’t “run rough shod” over the “rural” people groups.  A very simple example might be 10 groups who collectively use a particular venue.  8 groups have 10 members each and 2 groups have 50 members each.  If run in a purely democratic fashion the 2 larger groups, which would likely have similar “wants” for the venue, could band together and completely ignore the “wants” of the other 8 groups even though the other 8 groups use the venue 4 times as often.  But a wise manager (government) would see the wisdom in giving measured control to the 8 smaller groups so they feel like they have equal ownership.

That is a very brief and incomplete explanation, but it hits most of the high points as to why they did what they did.  They simply wanted to put into practice, and not just words, the principals that would support the revolutionary concept that all men are created equal.

So today you have pockets of those “ruling elites” (college students, millennials and Hollywood types to name a few) out there on the streets and social media attempting to undo the framework put in place to try and insure the longevity of our “union”.  So what if the “stupid rural” people carried the day.  It’s not the end of the world as some are acting like!  Put your big girl panties on, stop your crying and strategize how you’re going to work to change things over the next 4-8 years and perhaps flip the leadership back over the next few election cycles.  Because, let me tell you, the rash of colleges who have canceled test, handed out hot cocoa, offered therapy dogs and passes to skip classes to those students traumatized by the election results only reinforces your privileged mindset and won’t help one bit in the end.  As a country, we will get through this, but we need each other, the smart ones, the “stupid” ones, everyone – warts and all.


If only we really did have freedom of religion!

What would you call it if someone respectfully declined to participate in a different religion’s religious ceremony because it would violate your religious principals?  And what if that other religion attempted to force you to “convert” to their way of thinking and you still refused?  So then that religion went to the organization who oversees religious rulings and they handed down what I will call “a different religion tax” of $135,000 because you didn’t agree with their religion?

Freedom of or freedom from religion is the growing mantra, meme and outcry of society and special interest today.  They want to force you to accept their way of life without reserve.  And if that was all then we might be able to just move on down the road and “get along”.  But no, they insist that you actually participate in their religion.  And further still, they want you to keep your mouth shut about your personal beliefs, your convictions and the Holy Scriptures.  They want freedom to practice what they believe without any interference from the church and in fact they are pushing further and further into the realm of forcing you to agree and join with them.

Take the case of Kim Davis who was refusing to issue same sex marriage licenses.  I can perhaps understand her getting arrested for refusing a court order, but they took it to a whole new level with one official stating that she would remain in jail until she has a “change of conscience” and many calling for a huge monetary fine.  And the situation I described in the opening chapter is the final ruling, judgment and fine against the bakery in Oregon who refused to knowingly bake a cake for a same sex wedding.

I want to be perfectly clear!  Christianity is a religion and should not be forced on anybody.  But the foundation of society today is secular humanism which is also defined as a religion (as confirmed by the Oregon federal court in 2014).  Even SCOTUS referred to Humanism as a religion as far back as 1961.  So don’t be mistaken, this is not about freedom of or from religion but the replacement of Christianity by Humanism.  But in practical terms, this is entirely about vain attempts by the unchurched to hopefully assuage their collective guilty conscience from the inborn knowledge that there is a Supreme Creator and Lord whom they have rejected.  They have done this in exchange for the god of me and the religion of self worship.  They don’t want you to be quiet.  They don’t want you to keep to yourself.  They don’t really even want you to bake their cake.  What they have done is to embraced the tactic commanded in the religion of Islam.  They insist you to convert to their way of thinking, pay huge monetary fines and judgments if you don’t and ultimately they want you to die or disappear from the face of the earth altogether so as to eliminate the constant reminder of their rejection of Christ.

So in exchange for the Judaeo/Christian principles upon which our country was founded, “the state” is simply replacing one religious foundation with another.  This action is hypocrisy at the highest level as they now establish and force the state sponsored religion of Humanism down our throats all the while decrying and limiting the religious practices of Christianity.  If only we really did have freedom of religion instead of the state church of Humanism being embraced and legislated before our very eyes.  Isn’t this the very thing we were fighting against in the founding of this country?

Ben Carson & Islam comments

This will be brief and to the point.  Ben Carson was rightly quoted as having said this weekend that he would not advocate a Muslim in the White House and that the Muslim faith is inconsistent with the principals of the Constitution of the United States.  And there is “outrage” over his “racist” comments.

The 1st amendment gives us freedom of religion or freedom from religion depending on your view.  There are two houses in Islam or abodes.  One is the Abode of Islam (worldwide implementation of Sharia law) and the other is the Abode (house) of War.  The Koran requires all Muslims to maintain the Abode of War until all the people of the book (Jews and Christians) come under the Abode of Islam by means of conversion, taxation or death’.

The above primary tenant of Islam is the antithesis of freedom of any kind, much less relating to religion and therefore in direct contradiction to the founding principals of this country and the constitution of the US.  Mike drop!!!