Posted on 03/20/2009 1:28:51 PM PDT by GonzoII
Right, it mentions God.
The Constitution is a product of the Enlightenment. A different branch than, say, the French Revolution, but it absolutely reflects Enlightment thinking and classical liberalism. And if you hate the Enlightenment, you must really hate capitalism and the free market.
The Enlightenment was not some monolithic movement that culminated in communism.
But are you really going to go on record supporting the divine right of kings?
"In the year of our Lord" is not exactly a political mandate. It makes no religious requirements on the state, except to stay out of it.
I certainly wouldn't advocate a monarchy for the United States, because the US has also come up with a system that works well. That's the most important thing for any nation.
The question has been asked: So you think that a monarchy can be superior to the Constitution of the United States.
The problem is, in my country, the monarchy would not be replaced by anything like the Constitution of the United States. It's not likely to be in most monarchy's. America wound up with a wonderful constitution out of revolution - that's not really all that common.
A brave and honorable man who deserves our admiration.
So does being in the Commonwealth alone make you a monarchy, or is it some extra decree?
I refer you to my #26.
The United States, for one. But as a whole, the Western world—the region that clearly adopted Enlightenment thinking—was the only one that unambiguously rejected communism, while Asia and Eastern Europe accepted it, South America went back and forth, and even Catholic Southern Europe produced strong communist movements.
ROFL!!!!!!!
No matter how much you may wish, and fantasize, there will be no return to the days when it was "Popes" and Roman Catholic Church officers/politicians, who get to pick who is king, and who is not.
The only King "christian" religious authorities have proper right to call upon, is the Lord.
They overstepped their bounds in "going secular", making themselves to be the worldly king-makers in the past. History richly illustrates the mixed bag that brought the world. Thanks for the thought, though. I realize you are just trying to help, but no thanks all the same...
You’re being intentionally obtuse. Yes, there were pockets of communist sympathy in universities and such, but there was never any serious danger of communist government (even if some countries accepted something close to socialism). Contrast this with every other part of the world.
In the case of Australia, our Constitution first and foremost makes us a monarchy: The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives, and which is hereinafter called The Parliament, or The Parliament of the Commonwealth.
(Commonwealth in this case refers to the Commonwealth of Australia - the British Commonwealth/Commonwealth of Nations did not exist in 1900 when our Constitution was written and so there was no need to elaborate).
From 1953, onwards, the Queen within Australia has been known as the Queen of Australia (until 1973, "Queen of Australia, the United Kingdom, and Her Other Realms and Territories", since then as "Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth".
To paraphrase from the Dune Series, one advantage of monarchy: “Good king = good government, bad king = bad government, solve bad government by killing the bad king”.
And why do you think that is? Eastern Europe was also Christian, albeit their brand of Christianity was one that placed a lower value on reason. The Englightenment was just one part of a long Western tradition that has valued reason and humanism (which are not inherently in conflict with Christianity), and it was this tradition that resulted in our freedom.
Yes, number of Catholic monarchists growing slowly but steadily.
No matter how much you may wish, and fantasize, there will be no return to the days when it was "Popes" and Roman Catholic Church officers/politicians, who get to pick who is king, and who is not.
Before monarchies will be restored we will witness period of social-democratism turning into leftist totalitarianism. However the Holy Church of the Christ will overcome all obstacles as usual.
Please explain how this Catholic monarch will be chosen, and who will do the choosing.
There are several prophecies of the Great Catholic Monarch who will win the coming Civil War in Europe and rule 30-40 years until the coming of antichrist. Most all the saints say his name is Henri. He will be a military man of French and Belgium heritage although not necessarily a citizen of either country. He is estimated to be around 40 years old and may walk with a slight limp.
The Grand Duke fits the criteria except for the last two items. He is 53 y.o. and I don’t know about the limp. It may indicate a future injury if this is him. He is of the House of Bourbon-Parma which, IIRC, is one of two contesting for the rightful throne of France. Not sure about the last part. I will have to go back and read again.
Just an interesting thought that occurred to me now. He is one to watch for the future.
http://www.luxembourg.com.ua/en/grandduke.html
http://www.gouvernement.lu/dossiers/famille_grand_ducale/chregneuk/infobase/cvhenri.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri,_Grand_Duke_of_Luxembourg
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.