President Calvin Coolidge, in one of his addresses, has given us the following excellent thoughts:
"Our government rests upon religion. It is from that source that we derive our reverence for truth and justice, for equality and liberality, and for the rights of mankind. Unless the people believe in these principles they cannot believe in our government. There are only two main theories of government in the world. One rests on righteousness and the other on force. One appeals to reason, the other appeals to the sword. One is exemplified in a republic, the other is represented by a despotism.
The government of a country never gets ahead of the religion of a country. There is no way by which we can substitute the authority of law for the virtue of men. Of course we can help to restrain the vicious and furnish a fair degree of security and protection by legislation and police control, but the real reform which society in these days is seeking will come as a result of our religious convictions, or they will not come at all. Peace, justice, humanity, charity—these cannot be legislated into being. They are the result of a Divine Grace."
He mentions that "Unless the people believe in these principles they cannot believe in our government" in other words the Constitution was created for a religious and moral people.
The Lefts attempts to socialize the nation, legalize what most would consider to be immoral, and the abuse of the Constitution is a result of them not believing in our government, in respect to constitutional principles.
I believe what he says when he said, "Peace, justice, humanity, charity—these cannot be legislated into being. They are the result of a Divine Grace." We cannot have the redistribution on wealth and other aspects of socialism and force charity. The most effective medium for charity is through private contribution. Obama however wants to legislate these things.
(Source of Collidge quote, The Progress of Man.)
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Two Theories of Government
Posted by Nate at 10:56 AM
Labels: Constitutional Principles
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Good thoughts from President Coolidge! This makes sense to me and I agree with what he said. This is why Obama leaves me with an "unsettling" feeling - a waryness that I can't dismiss. I don't know what he is really going to do if he becomes President, and it's looking like he just might be....
Nice quote. I like to think that good government could be established regardless of the influence of religion. Just like President Coolidge said about those human qualities being the result of Divine Grace, the Spirit of Christ is given to all men, whereby they may know good from evil. I think non-religious people are completely capable of forming an effective government. It may have not happened very often in the world's history, but then again, all the governments in the world that were established by religious people ended up going to war with each other over their religious differences anyway, so where's the peace, justice, humanity and charity there?
A government formed on the foundation of religion doesn't mean it will be a good government either. History is full of that fact, without doubt. Which brings up another point that most American's don't seem to understand: All major world religions have been successful in forming their varied forms of government, whether recent or ancient history. All major world religions promote and produce people with the human qualities President Coolidge listed. In other words, when it comes right down to it, all major world religions are astonishingly similar in their teachings of how to treat your neighbor: with peace, kindness, brotherhood, charity, love.....Islam included.
So when President Coolidge said "Unless the people believe in these principles they cannot believe in our government", he was not excluding any person of any other major world religion. This therefore means, according to Nathan's interpretation of President Coolidge's words, that the Constitution was created for all those who belong to any of the major world religions...even Muslims.
Now, regardless of whether someone believes that the Constitution was created for a religious and moral people, obviously non-religious people benefit from a form of government patterned after the our Constitution. I'm not exaggerating when I say that the governments of half of the world's countries have been patterned somewhat after the Constitution of the United States, even in places of the world where Christianity is not significantly influential.
Lefts attempting to socialize the nation are not abusing any constitutional principle. Last time I checked, Adam Smith and the Wealth of Nations wasn't quoted in the Constitution. The word "capitalism" doesn't appear in one of the articles, does it? If so, I stand to be corrected.
The Constitution does not protect capitalism. It protects the people's ability and right to choose what form of economy they want, whether capitalistic of socialistic in nature. If the people want a Robin Hood-type economy, then they shall have it and the Constitution protects that right.
Now, just because someone gives money doesn't mean that person has charity. All it may mean is that that person has money to give and is charitable. Charity and being charitable are not the same thing.
Redistribution of wealth doesn't force charity, which is unforcable. Redistribution of wealth is one way to tackle the capitalistic problem of poverty, which heavily influences other problems like crime, drug use, disease, and domestic abuse.
I agree that private organizations utilize contributions well. But, they only exist because government is incapable of supplying sufficiently to everyone in need. The problem with most private charitable organizations is only specific groups of people receive the help, or those groups of people are out of reach. Private is good but it can only do so much, and relies on "the goodness of men's hearts" for money, whereas the government has power to tax those who partake in society, which we all do.
Taxes are part of the unwritten social contract we make with each other, not the government. We sign this contract as we participate in society. Because we are members of society, we are under obligation to care for one another...to a certain degree, of course.
When Obama says "redistribute the wealth", conservatives try to interpret that in several negative ways. However, he could be refering to a wealth of opportunity, knowledge, access to things like health care. America is wealthy, not only financially (well, used to be.....wealthy minus $700 billion), but also wealthy concerning the things I've listed.
There's no need to fear. Honestly, people! The Constitution will not hang by a thread if Obama is elected. It will hang by a thread because of the unrighteousness of the people, not because the government decided to increase taxes.
I'm excited to vote for Obama!
You're right it won't hang by a thread if Obama is elected because I already see it hanging by a thread as it is. We are there!
This is why Conservative people fear Obama because he is very vague in his policy ideas which leave his words open for interpretation. Just as you demonstrated with the "redistribution of wealth" you interpret it one way and do another but we could really find out what Obama means if the media would actually ask him what he means, but they don't because they are a mechanism to promote the leftist agenda. We really don't know what Obama will do! Do we? This is why conservatives are afraid of him.
The Constitution doesn't mention capitalism there is no need since capitalism doesn't restrict freedom that the constitution guarantees but socialism does restrict freedoms. Also the Constitution limits the governments control in our lives whereas socialism practically gives the government total control of our lives.
It has been proven throughout history that such socialistic economies end up with Oligarchy forms of government.
Also, has it ever occurred to you why the world loves Obama? Could it be that he would bring our nation on levels less that it has been. It would equalize us with the world in certain terms to where America will no longer we view as the land of opportunity because we are no different than other nations. Those nations that hate us because of our prosperity would love nothing more than to see us become more like them. I don't really know why they love him but this thought entered my end as to a reason why.
You are entitled to feel happy about voting for Obama but I feel very concerned about him. Not to mention complete control of the democrats doesn't help me concerns.
Constitutional abuses are being made all over the place by both parties. I implore you to recognize this. We are ending in a direction we shouldn't be going.
I have my right to life, liberty, and property and socialism will take away a lot of those rights.
Disclaimer: First, let's agree on some term definitions: The capitalism and socialism we're talking about are both economic theories that incorporate each other to some extent, right? Capitalism is not 100% pure, neither is socialism, at least the kind we're talking about. In our nation, for example, the government has partially nationalized some banks and other aspects of the capitalistic market, therefore making our economy more socialistic in nature. I think we can all agree on that.
Your interpretation of what economic rights the Constitution protects is your perspective.
Arguing about socialism and capitalism is futile because it comes down to a matter of perspective. The rich man blames right deprevation on socialism. The poor man blames right deprevation on capitalism.
In some people's eyes, capitalism does restrict freedoms that the Constitution guarentees: life, liberty, and property. And in other's eyes, socialism restricts those rights. There will always be winners and losers.
I think Conservatives need to chill out. They all cried "Socialism" and "it's the end of the world as we know it" when Clinton was elected, and history now shows how moderate Clinton ended up being. The same will be the case with Obama. Much of the economic and domestic suggestions he made last year that many called naive and ratical are actually now being adopted by the Bush administration. I'll list those in a future post.
A specific economic policy does not give the government power. The people do. Which means the people can take it away. It's changable. There are far more efficient socialist democracies in the world than there are capitalistic democracies.
If you want to find out why the rest of the world likes Obama so much, I encourage you to actually investigate the positive side of Obama's philosophy and positions on issues, as opposed to getting all your info from negative sorces. From an international perspective, Obama represents 100% common sense.
Now, you might say that an international perspective doesn't and shouldn't carry any weight. But infact it does, since America is so influencial in the world.
Our nation is already on low levels. This economic crisis sealed the deal, so to speak. The world knows that America is vulnerable. Obama will strengthen us internationally because he's not stuck in Cold War era foreign policy philosophies like the Republicans are. He will work to bring back and foster trust among other countries, a trust that was lost during the Bush administration's complete disregard for the power of diplomacy and relevance of international law.
I do recognize that both parties abuse the Constitution at the expense of others, but does that mean I shouldn't vote? We all hope for the best no matter who we initially support, and I'm simply hoping for the best.
You may think that socialistic policies will take away your constitutional rights, but others think socialistic policies will give them those rights.
It's a double-edged sword, or lightsaber....take your pick.
What right does the poor man have to the fruits of my labors? It is my right to keep and do as I will with the fruits of my labor.
How is it fair to take from me and give away. The less fortunate think it is fair because they benefit!
Socialists have this mentality of entitlement which in all due respect you are only entitled to what you can produce for yourself.
And what if one can't produce for oneself? Who are you to judge the less fortunate?
"For behold, are we not all beggars? Do we not all depend upon the same Being, even God, for all the substance which we have, for both food and raiment, and for gold, and for silver, and for all the riches which we have of every kind?
"And now, if God, who has created you, on whom you are dependent for your lives and for all that ye have and are, doth grant unto you whatsoever ye ask that is right, in faith, believing that ye shall receive, O then, how ye ought to impart of the substance that ye have one to another." (Mosiah 4:19,21)
Whether people give freely of their substance or not, the need still exists. Hence, social programs are there to make up the necessary difference.
If society were to completely rely on the "goodness of men's hearts" to freely give of their substance to the poor and needy, you can only imagine the social problems that would exist.
Disclaimer: Directed only to Nathan. Not to be understood by other authors of this blog as religous propaganda.
Chris I agree, I really do but there is one detail we appear to disagree on.
You think that men should be compelled to give for their substance (if I understand you correctly) when I believe that it is my divine right from God to make the decision for myself (free agency) if I am to impart of my substance to the needy and the Lord will then Judge me according to my works.
When I am compelled to do what is right, whose plan does that remind you of?
As Chris Mentioned
Disclaimer: Directed only to Chris. Not to be understood by other authors of this blog as religious propaganda.
That's true, Nate. It does remind me of a certain someone. I do believe that we have the right to enjoy the fruits of our labors and we shouldn't be compelled to give it up. Your concern is completely natural and valid.
So, in reality, I think we agree. Maybe where we disagree is not on taxes alone (obviously they are necessary), but on the extent of those taxes and the role taxes should play in society.
Like I said before, if taxes were not enforced but rather volunteer-based, how many people would actually pay into the system?
So, some level of compulsion is necessary, albeit low. I mean, we all benefit one way or another.
Post a Comment