Many think that democracy provides the best way for achieving fairness and equality before the law. However, this is far from the truth. Democracy is really rule by majority. That is, the masses dictate what should be the law. Thus, because masses dictate what should be the law, its values as to what should be the law are paramount. Morality and ethics are not necessarily paramount in determining what the law should be. Indeed, law is a set of values enforced by authority.
Within the democratic framework, it is what people think or believe the right moral framework is that determines the law. There is a great deal of faith placed in human 'wisdom' and philosophy. Democracy, as such is anti-Christian because it elevates human thinking above God's. This explains not only why laws made within a democratic framework are anti-Christian, but the conundrums that arise within the democracy are anti-Christian. The most stark example of an anti-Christian conundrum that arises within a democratic framework is 'religious tolerance' which concerns equal treatment of all religions.
Democracy is a bastion of secularism. Democracy and secularism are inextricable. Applying 'religious' beliefs to making laws is deemed utterly deplorable in a democracy because religious beliefs are deemed to be private, and not compatible with the democratic framework that purports that all laws must be made for all the people. This inclusivism is one that is against all religions and Christianity (which is not a human-made religion, but from God), since Christianity and all other religions are that which seek to adhere to a prescribed moral framework or not act against it.
The goal of inclusivism, however, is not to adhere to a prescribed moral framework but to increase happiness or pleasure for the greatest number. Applying the ethic of inclusivism more often than not disregards a prescribed moral framework because its only moral framework is to 'do as one chooses, as long as one does not "hurt" anyone'. This is against the Biblical ethic of doing the will of God, and fearing to offend God by thought, word or deed.
On the surface, it may seem that democracy provides a framework for fairness and equality because it does not favour any religion. It may appear that it is tolerant of all religions because it seeks to please everyone. Interestingly enough, despite its religious tolerance, it is against Christianity. This is because Christianity is the only religion that is based on a framework that is against the core of democracy and all human-made religions - humanism. Christianity is the only anti-humanist worldview because it is from God, not humans. Therefore, Biblical values and thinking is unacceptable within a democratic framework because it is of God, not humans.
Notions of fairness and equality from the democratic perspective have changed over time because society has changed. Such notions change because they are seen as social or political goods, and not as moral values. Where they may be regarded as moral or ethical values, they are seemed as such for the interests of society. Since democracy is a materialist worldview, as opposed to a spiritual one, the usefulness of moral values are determined according to social and political interests, not as rules to be followed. As such, the law will reflect social and political notions of fairness and equality, that which is based on human thinking.
The result is that a fallen world determines fairness and equality to suit themselves - fairness is deemed unfairness, equality is deemed inequality, good is deemed evil, moral is deemed immoral, and ethical is deemed unethical. Such is democracy.
Within the democratic framework, it is what people think or believe the right moral framework is that determines the law. There is a great deal of faith placed in human 'wisdom' and philosophy. Democracy, as such is anti-Christian because it elevates human thinking above God's. This explains not only why laws made within a democratic framework are anti-Christian, but the conundrums that arise within the democracy are anti-Christian. The most stark example of an anti-Christian conundrum that arises within a democratic framework is 'religious tolerance' which concerns equal treatment of all religions.
Democracy is a bastion of secularism. Democracy and secularism are inextricable. Applying 'religious' beliefs to making laws is deemed utterly deplorable in a democracy because religious beliefs are deemed to be private, and not compatible with the democratic framework that purports that all laws must be made for all the people. This inclusivism is one that is against all religions and Christianity (which is not a human-made religion, but from God), since Christianity and all other religions are that which seek to adhere to a prescribed moral framework or not act against it.
The goal of inclusivism, however, is not to adhere to a prescribed moral framework but to increase happiness or pleasure for the greatest number. Applying the ethic of inclusivism more often than not disregards a prescribed moral framework because its only moral framework is to 'do as one chooses, as long as one does not "hurt" anyone'. This is against the Biblical ethic of doing the will of God, and fearing to offend God by thought, word or deed.
On the surface, it may seem that democracy provides a framework for fairness and equality because it does not favour any religion. It may appear that it is tolerant of all religions because it seeks to please everyone. Interestingly enough, despite its religious tolerance, it is against Christianity. This is because Christianity is the only religion that is based on a framework that is against the core of democracy and all human-made religions - humanism. Christianity is the only anti-humanist worldview because it is from God, not humans. Therefore, Biblical values and thinking is unacceptable within a democratic framework because it is of God, not humans.
Notions of fairness and equality from the democratic perspective have changed over time because society has changed. Such notions change because they are seen as social or political goods, and not as moral values. Where they may be regarded as moral or ethical values, they are seemed as such for the interests of society. Since democracy is a materialist worldview, as opposed to a spiritual one, the usefulness of moral values are determined according to social and political interests, not as rules to be followed. As such, the law will reflect social and political notions of fairness and equality, that which is based on human thinking.
The result is that a fallen world determines fairness and equality to suit themselves - fairness is deemed unfairness, equality is deemed inequality, good is deemed evil, moral is deemed immoral, and ethical is deemed unethical. Such is democracy.
Comments
Post a Comment