Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized - Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced!
Remnant ^ | 03/20/09 | Brian McCall

Posted on 03/20/2009 1:28:51 PM PDT by GonzoII

Last Catholic Monarchy Euthanized

Grand Duke Henri of Luxembourg Silenced!


Brian McCall
REMNANT COLUMNIST, Oklahoma

 

(Posted 03/20/09 www.RemnantNewspaper.com) The last act of the French Revolution came to a close on March 12, 2009, but hardly anyone was watching.  The demonic forces unleashed over two hundred years ago took on the aim of destroying all monarchial authority in Europe.  The rulers of the once Christian nations of Europe, or at least their governing authority, had all been executed, except for the tine nation of Luxembourg.  On March 12, without much fanfare, the parliament of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg voted to end government of their small nation by the Grand Duke. 

Luxembourg was the last European nation to be governed by a real monarch.  Although the tiny nation has had a parliamentary chamber, that body functioned as parliaments were originally designed to function.  It was an advisory body to the Grand Duke.  After new legislation was voted on by the Chamber of Deputies, Article 34 of the Constitution stated: “The Grand Duke sanctions and promulgates the laws. He makes his resolve known within three months of the vote in the Chamber.”  This provision permitted the Grand Duke to perform the proper function of a monarch in a mixed form of government. He served as a check on the potential excesses of political parties legislating when they encroached on the principles of the natural law.  As a hereditary ruler for life, the Grand Duke is immune from elector politics.  He can thus serve as an outside supervisor of the results of the legislative process.  This is exactly what he did last year in an act which precipitated the March 12 vote. 

In 2008, the Chamber of Deputies voted to approve a law which authorized the intentional killing of human beings, commonly referred to by its morbid proponents as euthanasia.  Such a law is contrary to the natural law.  For, as St. Thomas observed in his Summa the civil law can not always punish everything that the natural law forbids but it may never sanction such evil.  Now we know both by reason and divine authority that euthanasia is prescribed.  It violates the first principle of the natural law - self preservation.  The Church has confirmed this deduction of reason on several occasions by pronouncing euthanasia to be immoral.  Even the sensus Catholicus of this overwhelming Catholic nation was clear; the populace of Luxembourg opposed the bill pushed through by the Socialist and Green parties.

Henri, the current Grand Duke, fulfilled his moral obligation as a good Catholic monarch and refused to sanction this evil legislative act.  As a reward for doing the right thing, the so called “conservative” Prime Minister, Jean-Claude Juncker, called for an amendment to the Constitution stripping the Grand Duke of his authority to sanction laws passed by the Chamber of Deputies.  The March 12 vote approved the removal of the word “sanctions” from Article 34.  Prime Minister Juncker made clear the intention was to remove the right of the Grand Duke to approve of or reject laws.  According to Juncker he must be required to promulgate all acts passed by the Chamber.  The Luxembourg monarchy has thus entered the realm of Walt Disney monarchs inhabited by the remaining figure heads of Europe such as England, Spain and Belgium.  They can parade around for tourists in quaint costumes and live in nice palaces, but they have no authority to protect and defend their nation by governing it.

The old sly tactics of the spirit of Liberalism were visible in the way this final act unfolded.  The press and politicians called the Grand Duke’s prevention of this immoral euthanasia legislation a “constitutional crisis.”  Now a constitutional crisis occurs when an official violates the norms and rules constituting the mode of government of a civil society.  In this case the Grand Duke did not violate a single provision of the existing written constitution.  He merely exercised his legitimate and rightful authority to withhold his sanction from a proposed civil law which is contrary to the natural law.  And the reaction of Liberalism to his exercise of his legitimate right – strip him of that right!

  Liberalism has always been willing to grant freedom and rights so long as the recipients only exercise that freedom in accordance with the wishes of Liberalism.  Post French Revolutionary Liberalism claims to stand for the “rule of law,” a phrase that purports to mean that rules are not to be changed merely to reach a desired outcome.  The established rules of the game, Liberalism claims, are sacrosanct. 

In reality, the rules are changed whenever Liberalism does not get its way.  Like a spoiled child, it picks up its toys, which it previously claimed to have given away, and goes home.  A few years ago after several nations clearly voted to reject the proposed European Constitution, the forces of Liberalism decided that the right to vote on the proposed Constitution was no longer necessary.  The Constitution was repackaged as a treaty needing only the approval of the governments of the member states, not a vote of the population at large. 

Ireland stood as the only exception and allowed the Irish people to vote and they said no. Even this vote did not stop the forces of Liberalism who vowed to find another way.  Likewise, when Grand Duke Henri uses his legal right to withhold his sanction from a law, the right he thought Liberalism had conceded to his ancestors, the modern Constitution is seen for the illusion it is.  He has the right for only so long as he does not actually use it.

This pattern of give and take rights is as old as the French Revolution which began by proclaiming Liberty for all and then proceeded to guillotine those who did not use that Liberty in the way the Committee for Public Safety thought they should (i.e. by apostatizing from the Faith).  Liberalism means the right to be Liberal (as defined and redefined by the reigning generation of Liberals). 

Fortunately for Grand Duke Henri, his confrontation with the old enemy cost him only his legitimate governing authority and not his head.  Some Liberals have at least learned that the messy business of liberally severing heads always seems to turn on them, literally. 

Still, the Grand Duke is to be commended for his fortitude.  One can only imagine the subtle voices of temptation that were poured into his ears by the Machiavellian politicos.  “Just sanction the euthanasia law and avoid a ‘constitutional crisis.’ and conserve your rights.”  “You can compromise by expressing your personal disapproval but still promulgate the bill as the ‘will of the legislature.’”  “This is not an issue worth loosing your privileges and rights over.” 

But no, Grand Duke Henri’s Catholic conscience was too well formed for these deceits.  He refused and was duly reprimanded.  Again, in an absurdity of contradiction, the new “liberal” article 34 will prevent the Grand Duke from acting in accordance with his conscience.  Its terms require him to promulgate all laws, even those that violate his well formed conscience – so much for “freedom of conscience!” 

In lieu of tossing flowers to the Grand Duke as he makes his final bow on the decaying ruins of the theater of Christendom, I suggest all Remnant readers instead offer a rosary for His Highness that God, whose divine law leaves no good deed unrewarded and no evil deed unpunished, will bless him for his courage.  While you are doing that, perhaps you can utter a prayer for the tiny population of Luxembourg who are now defenseless against the enactment of euthanasia laws and all the other gruesome ordinances of 21st Century Liberalism.  These will all be possible now despite the will of their Grand Duke and, as in this case, even their own overwhelming sentiments.  Libera nos ab potestate tyrannico liberalismi, Christus Rex.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; catholic; euthanasia; luxembourg; monarchistbabble; monarchistnutjob; monarchistrabble; moralabsolutes; prolife; royals; stfu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-123 next last
To: Arguendo
But as a whole, the Western world—the region that clearly adopted Enlightenment thinking—was the only one that unambiguously rejected communism

ROFL!!!!!!!

51 posted on 03/20/2009 2:56:30 PM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilization is Aborting, Buggering, and Contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz
I see you are yet another Catholic monarchist.

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...

52 posted on 03/20/2009 3:00:34 PM PDT by BlueDragon (the "Bakersfield bump" had nothing to do with disco...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

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.


53 posted on 03/20/2009 3:04:45 PM PDT by Arguendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
A country can be part of the Commonwealth and not be a monarchy - there are a number of republics within the Commonwealh. For the others, the precise form the Monarchy takes differs depending on their history.

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".

54 posted on 03/20/2009 3:06:08 PM PDT by naturalman1975 ("America was under attack. Australia was immediately there to help." - John Winston Howard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Arguendo
I look like you don't really follow international politics. After collapse of Soviet empire western Europe turned to be more communistic than former soviet satellites. But western establishment already had a recipe how to solve such competition. They spent a lot of cash for propaganda purpose to convince people in the east that the EU is a second heaven. They want to bring all eastern European states on the board.

While Russia and Asian countries were always ruled by a despot. From their perspective commies were not so special. They belong to different civilization and should not be compared with European countries.

Democracies always degenerate, so is the US, once Republic turned to be pathetic democracy. The problem is that unlike in monarchies were aristocracy degenerate and might be replace by new cadres, in democratic system whole society degenerate and there is nobody to replace them.
55 posted on 03/20/2009 3:11:22 PM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

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”.


56 posted on 03/20/2009 3:14:55 PM PDT by tbw2 (Freeper sci-fi - "Humanity's Edge" - on amazon.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz
While Russia and Asian countries were always ruled by a despot. From their perspective commies were not so special. They belong to different civilization and should not be compared with European countries.

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.

57 posted on 03/20/2009 3:21:04 PM PDT by Arguendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon
I see you are yet another Catholic monarchist.

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.

58 posted on 03/20/2009 3:23:28 PM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz

Please explain how this Catholic monarch will be chosen, and who will do the choosing.


59 posted on 03/20/2009 3:29:38 PM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; vox_freedom; murphE; nickcarraway; redgirlinabluestate; TAdams8591

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


60 posted on 03/20/2009 3:31:12 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah (The government turns every contingency into an excuse for enhancing power in itself. - John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sawdring
The founding fathers of American got many of their ideas from the French revolution and understood that wisdom was not hereditary.

You have it backwards. The US Constitution was written on September 17, 1787 and ratified on June 21, 1788. The storming of the Bastille did not occur until 1789. It was the French who were (badly) trying to copy the ideas of the US Revolution.

61 posted on 03/20/2009 3:32:09 PM PDT by PapaBear3625 (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money -- Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Arguendo
Sorry but you don't understand Russia (you call only Russia to be "Eastern Europe?"). This doesn't matter that Russia was Christian, they always belonged to different civilization. Before the age of enlightenment Russia was also much different than other states of central-eastern Europe.

Humanism of enlightenment went beyond Catholic teachings. They tried to axe religion and replace it with sick humanism. During French revolution they even organised masses where they praised to humans. Anyway, there is nothing more disgusting than equality, every classical liberal or conservative must agree with such thesis.
62 posted on 03/20/2009 3:35:33 PM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz

I think you are confusing the return of Christ, and the establishment of His Kingdom, with going back to the days when the Roman Catholic Church both propped up, or placed upon a throne earthly kings, along with occasionally toppling them also.

I am under no such illusions.

63 posted on 03/20/2009 3:40:49 PM PDT by BlueDragon (the "Bakersfield bump" had nothing to do with disco...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

If we accept that monarchy will be established on the ruins of previous system then this is obvious that the new king will be chosen by God who give him courage to act and inspire some group of faithful Catholics to back his claims. This is the best interest of all member of the Church of the Christ to achieve this goal faster than every other leftist idiot willing to establish some dictatorship.


64 posted on 03/20/2009 3:41:52 PM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: BlueDragon

I think that your heretical claims will prevent us from reaching any agreement.


65 posted on 03/20/2009 3:44:53 PM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz

I agree the French Revolution was terrible, taking its humanism too far and focusing on the wrong Enlightenment values (equality rather than liberty). But as I said, the Enlightenment was not one monolithic movement, with both classically liberal and liberal/equality-focused branches. There’s a lot of merit in the former.


66 posted on 03/20/2009 3:45:38 PM PDT by Arguendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: BwanaNdege

I can’t advocate a monarchy where any mortal is the monarch. Men -will- fail. So it’s nice to have peaceful options to bring new folks in to leadership.

I am thinking something more along the lines of “term limits” rather than “monarchy”


67 posted on 03/20/2009 3:47:40 PM PDT by Miykayl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz
Well, I'm not Catholic, and I would not consent to his rule.

If he tried to exert unelected authority over me, there would be only one decision for you and your Catholic followers to make about your monarch; closed or open casket.

I will adjust my aim accordingly.

68 posted on 03/20/2009 3:58:37 PM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Arguendo

Liberty means very little for most of Enlightenment worshippers. Their understanding of liberty is seriously flawed, this is rather libertine anarchy. Average citizen of late European kingdoms was freer than citizen of modern democratic state (or rather pseudo democratic, because if Switzerland would not exist I would say that democracy is a total utopia).


69 posted on 03/20/2009 4:07:14 PM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Miykayl

Read something from Hans Hermann Hoppe about “time preference” under monarchy and democracy (term limits).


70 posted on 03/20/2009 4:08:41 PM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

I think that you would be free to vote by your foots...


71 posted on 03/20/2009 4:10:41 PM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz

The Lord's Kingdom is beyond the organizational & hierarchically bound & limited powers of men.

There are plenty in the Vatican who would not declare me a heretic for holding such views, nor would hurl the epithet for my speaking about various aspects of world history. Many there (I have faith) have deeper understanding of the Spirit, and the Word than I many times see exhibited here on FR threads, amongst certain [but not all] self-professing Catholics.

If you expect full agreement with what is your own limited understanding of true orthodoxy, then yes, we would most likely not be able to come to full agreement.

If that equates to "any agreement", it appears a shame that you would limit your own side of "things" so much.

72 posted on 03/20/2009 4:16:43 PM PDT by BlueDragon (the "Bakersfield bump" had nothing to do with disco...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz
So you're going to kick me out of my home and my state with your Catholic dictatorship?!

I think you should come visit a Texas gun show sometime. There's enough ammo here to kill millions of theocrats, and enough of us to make sure your King was dead before he crossed the Red River.

73 posted on 03/20/2009 4:25:52 PM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
And what is your justification for threatening an assassination of this man?

PS thanks for giving gun shows a bad name. This from someone who goes to them often.

74 posted on 03/20/2009 4:52:27 PM PDT by vox_freedom ("If God be for us, who is against us?" -- Romans 8:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

You are correct.


75 posted on 03/20/2009 5:06:09 PM PDT by Sawdring
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah; GonzoII
So tragic. All around us evil seems to be winning. I will say some rosaries for the Grand Duke, the people of Luxembourg and us all.

Thank you for the post Gonzo and thank you for the ping, Deb!

76 posted on 03/20/2009 5:39:16 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (Bush's recession, Obama's depression.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom
And what is your justification for threatening an assassination of this man?

A theocrat who asserts his rule over me because he claims God crowned him monarch?

How could you expect me to not fight back.

I think it's amazing there's Freepers who believe this type of hokum. I'd just like to give the theocrats out there a heads up as to what will happen if you try to establish a dictatorial religious regime. You're no different than Ahmadinejad and you'll be dealt with as such.

77 posted on 03/20/2009 5:51:47 PM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
You're no different than Ahmadinejad and you'll be dealt with as such.

Buzz off, jerk. I didn't assert anything about this fellow and God proclaiming his monarchy. And now you threaten me, after threatening him with an assassination?
Shut up, and go threaten someone who might be deserving.

78 posted on 03/20/2009 6:29:04 PM PDT by vox_freedom ("If God be for us, who is against us?" -- Romans 8:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom
I think you're a little confused. I was responding to post #64, and referring to the theoretical monarch mentioned by another Freeper, who according to the post, would rule us after the American system fell.

"If we accept that monarchy will be established on the ruins of previous system then this is obvious that the new king will be chosen by God who give him courage to act and inspire some group of faithful Catholics to back his claims."

That's what my assassination comment was referring to.

My comments were in no way directed at the Grand Duke of Luxembourg, who in post #4 I called "a good guy."

79 posted on 03/20/2009 6:41:56 PM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
Apology accepted. I'm sure you can understand my confusion when the quote "from you to me" was as stated.
Hey, I'm a good guy -- as is the Grand Duke.
80 posted on 03/20/2009 7:33:56 PM PDT by vox_freedom ("If God be for us, who is against us?" -- Romans 8:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: vox_freedom
Yes, sorry for the confusion.

It was a strong comment, but it was directed only at those who would forcibly establish an unelected dictatorial religious monarchy without the consent of the governed.

81 posted on 03/20/2009 7:47:53 PM PDT by GunRunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
Got it and thanks.
We'll see what happens to the consent of the governed in our country.

Obama is off to a heck of a start. The list of offenses is growing:

Renew America

82 posted on 03/20/2009 8:06:38 PM PDT by vox_freedom ("If God be for us, who is against us?" -- Romans 8:31)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; informavoracious; larose; RJR_fan; Prospero; Conservative Vermont Vet; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment

Obama: “If they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

83 posted on 03/20/2009 8:08:42 PM PDT by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

Ping


84 posted on 03/20/2009 8:12:37 PM PDT by dfwgator (1996 2006 2008 - Good Things Come in Threes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arguendo
...but those countries most strongly influenced by the Enlightenment were the ones that stood most strongly against communism in the 20th century.
Not hardly. France embraced the red movement as did much of Europe. Socialism was rampant during the 20th Century. Still is.
85 posted on 03/20/2009 8:13:08 PM PDT by narses (http://www.theobamadisaster.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

thanks for this article


86 posted on 03/20/2009 8:20:35 PM PDT by MissDairyGoodnessVT (Off Hunting--- for the COLB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

THank you, if this is not pinged out by tomorrow I will. Actually I will admit at heart I am a monarchist...


87 posted on 03/20/2009 9:24:31 PM PDT by little jeremiah (Asato Ma Sad Gama Tamasi Ma Jyotir Gama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arguendo

I am a monarchist because I am a Conservative and a Christian. Monarchism is the only divinely-ordained system of government, and the only system of government that is based upon Conservative principles.


88 posted on 03/20/2009 9:28:48 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz
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.

Exactly right, my friend. The International Revolution is moving toward its final phase. Only after it crashes and burns will order be restored and Christendom be revived.

We have to let man's ugly attempt at self-deification play out to the bitter end.

89 posted on 03/20/2009 9:40:44 PM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah
"Actually I will admit at heart I am a monarchist..."

Don't let that get out...(grin).

90 posted on 03/21/2009 3:34:40 AM PDT by GonzoII ("That they may be one...Father")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Catholic Ping List
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


91 posted on 03/21/2009 5:39:32 AM PDT by NYer ("Run from places of sin as from a plague." - St. John Climacus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

The point, which you seem to have missed, is this:

The drive-by-media and the other leftists pitched a fit because a conservative office-holder exercised the rights and duties of his office. The same leftist groups then stripped the conservative office-holder of his authrority, despite the popular sentiment of the people.


92 posted on 03/21/2009 6:04:33 AM PDT by Notwithstanding (Member of the Long Grey Line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king." -1 Samuel 8:6-7

Doesn't sound all that divinely ordained to me.

Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." -1 Samuel 8:10-18

Doesn't sound all that pleasant either.

93 posted on 03/21/2009 7:04:13 AM PDT by Arguendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Lukasz; ArrogantBustard

Both of you:

Well done.


94 posted on 03/21/2009 7:41:27 AM PDT by Lorica
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Arguendo
Dear Arguendo,

“Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, ‘This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers.

"He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.’ -1 Samuel 8:10-18”

Other than that the “king” now takes 4/10s of one’s “grain,” “vintage,” and “flock,” (unless you work for AIG, in which case he takes upwards of 9/10s) how is this much different than the present system?

Our republic, as established by the founders, was something of a bet, a gamble, that a people could truly govern itself with stability and that the nation-state of a self-governing people could be very long-lasting. The bet was that such a nation would not devolve into a democratic tyranny, an oligarchy or some sort of empire.

Here we are, a little more than two centuries later, and it seems that perhaps we will devolve into something that is a bit of all three.


sitetest

95 posted on 03/21/2009 7:58:19 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ArrogantBustard

Ping to 95.


96 posted on 03/21/2009 7:59:11 AM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner; B-Chan
I wouldn't call that being ultra-conservative. It could more accurately be described as extremely idiotic and stupid.

A democracy of self-centered "idiots" will be far worse than any benevolent monarchy. As our founders knew all too well, democracy can only succeed when voters put their own limited self-interests behind those of future generations. Those who do not understand the need for sacrifice in self-governemnt vote in the welfare-state or socialistic fascism that inevitably destroys it.

You would be well advised to familiarize yourself with Plato's "The Republic" before casting insults like "extremely idiotic and stupid". Until then you describe no one but yourself.

97 posted on 03/21/2009 8:45:42 AM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
So you're going to kick me out of my home and my state with your Catholic dictatorship?!

Well, everything is wrong In his comment. Firstly Catholic Church is known from its respect to private property. So you could stay if you would wish. If you would see better alternatives for yourself aboard then you could vote by your foots. Of course if you would publicly question and contest his right to rule then your future become less colorful. In this case there is no difference between political systems, if you want to change status quo, you risk your life.

Secondary, this is really democratic illusion that you think that state is yours. I have a piece of advice for you. If this state is yours indeed, why don’t you change it as you wish??? Just don’t tell me about ‘public property’, this is slogan from communist handbooks.

Thirdly political science recognize monarchy and dictatorship to be separate political systems with various consequences in short-term and long-term perspective.

I think you should come visit a Texas gun show sometime. There's enough ammo here to kill millions of theocrats, and enough of us to make sure your King was dead before he crossed the Red River.

I’m not a theocrats, Catholic monarchs are secular rulers. I’m afraid that you imagine of tradition Catholic monarchy is far from reality. On other hand I support modern model upgraded by scientific achievements (on all fields) of modern times.

98 posted on 03/21/2009 9:48:15 AM PDT by Lukasz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: kjvail

ping


99 posted on 03/21/2009 11:55:23 AM PDT by TradicalRC (Conservatism is primarily a Christian movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: royalcello

ping


100 posted on 03/21/2009 11:57:17 AM PDT by TradicalRC (Conservatism is primarily a Christian movement.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-123 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson