Archer is substantially right since in every religion there are cultural hangers on. You know the Christmas and Easter Christians etcetera. A lot of folks identify with a certain religious tradition but never go to their church but also would not think of switching to another. There are some however who do have heart felt religion and it effects their lives. Even those like Washington and Lincoln (who many considered irreligous) who did not wear religon on their sleeves were deeply by it.

Remember when Nixon tried to lead the "Silent Majority" to its' slaughter. Mike as far as Fox goes, I make it a point not to listen to someone who keeps patting themselves on the back and telling me how "fair and balanced" they are. I mean really should not the public make that decision for themselves. It is like the IRS telling you they are here to help you.

The words of a man and leader who had stepped across the line against the English Crown in behalf of political independence. He nor any of the unanimous and wealthy men in Philadelphia were at risk of losing anything until they commited treason against the King of England. Yes after that they had to fight maybe not so much for their very propetry but to keep their heads out of a noose. And thank goodness they valued liberty more than than their property or their lives.

Good government and a good and just society needs mutual respect among its' citizens. If a religion provides that then it is optimal. The Book of Hebrews says in one place, "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus, who finding himself in the fashion of a man thought it not robbery to say that he was equal to God. Even though he thought this way he humbled himself to be a servant to man." George was a servant and he was religiously broad minded. I suggest that his thinking above is how many Americans felt at the time. What Christianity teaches is equality among people and before God, that is a good start toward mutual respect and good government.

Republic and Democracy are not mutually exclusive terms. The debate is futile. The word Republic denotes soverignity, . Thus the subdivisions of the United States are not called Republics. Texas was a Republic until it joined the Union then it became a state. Virtually every nation in the world calls itself a republic. Democracy is a different concept than Republic and they are not in opposition to each other. Thus when Wilson said he was going to make the world safe, he did not say "safe for republics" but "safe for democracy", when Bush said he wanted to create a new type of government or society in Iraq to be an example to the Arab world, he did not say that he wanted to create an Iraq Republic but an Iraq DEMOCRACY. I have no belief that you will drop your mantra Mike.

Mobocracy is Warren's word. What BS you utter Warren. You brought up the term mobocracy on this site. Elections in this country in city councils, corporate board rooms, clubs, and everywhere else are predicated upon the 51% rule. Have you never heard of one man one vote. This does not say that the 51% can take away inalienable rights. But for you to call those persons who you may disagree with and in relation to whom you hold the minority position, for you to call them a mob is sheer childish nonsense. I don't know your political persuasion but as we know the Congress of the House and Senate held a preponderance of Republicans until the election of 2006. I heard no one refer to the prior Congress which was of the Presidents Party a mob rule congress. When the parties changed hands in 2006 I heard some folks start to talk about mob rule. Now let us stop being childish shall we. What the heck are you reading Mike, the quote says democracy depends on the renunciation of violence, and you say "democracy depends on vilolence". what ever is going on here? There are very few regulars on this site and it is easy to understand why. It is a little like being in a nut house.

You are shortchanging history Archer. The voluntariness of the states united (as some would have it) as I am sure you must know was never a settled question. Massachusetts had often argued the right of voluntariness to leave the union. The question was settled by the Civil War. Once in you are stuck. If you don't know this histroy that is a shame, if you know it and ignore it to further your own opinion of the matter that is a greater shame. You are correct however that once the question was settled it did change the nature of the Union and the nature of D.C. It seems that wars especially "successful" wars increase the power of the victor even if the victor did not start out to seek power. Maybe the "humble in victory" sentiment requires the victor to pick up the pieces and try to put every thing back together agian.

May be some of the pillars of learning.

I was taught Mike that Jesus died for me and if I was the only person who ever lived Jesus would have died for me, thus I in logic think I can say that I killed Jesus. Enough of this though. (Historical note: the Catholic Chruch Pope has apologized for this erroneous teaching that has caused so much pain.) I am writing back about mobocracy. This country was founded and its rock bottom foundation is based on mobocracy. The Declaration was passed with a super mob of 100%. Every corporate board room, city council, town meeting, clubs that I am aware of from VFW to service clubs, my antique car club are governed by mobocracy. I think people who prefer that things be turned on their heads and we be ruled by the minority are well I am just breathless about what to say next.

Albert Camus wrote that the only Christian he ever liked was the first one.

Socialim is an economic concept not a politcal one. Totalitarianism is a polictical concept. Using the word "republic" protects no one. Of course some use it facetiously, and Adams said in 1808 that he never knew what the word meant. Some of our nations best friends are socialists or have socilaist parties cf. Sweden, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Australia for example. It is time for America political rhetoric to mature so that we can discuss real issues and real solutions. As far as everyones heroine Ayn Rand I read this, "she was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents (and I might add not so adolescent) with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists." Archer is partly right because 2000 years of false Christian teaching that Jews killed Jesus fomented by a totalitarian Roman Church gave Hitler and easy politcal stump to climb up on. Many folks will vote for someone who is against their enemy and many considered Jews to be their enemy. Compare the gutter politcis of today where pols blame every thing on the IRS. True Christian teaching my friends is that we, yes you and I, killed Jesus

This should be a motto for America. From its beginnings much of Europe was waiting for it to fail, Britain slammed it in 1812, civil war almost destroyed it, need I go on? But here we stand with the world beating a path to us. Why don't they make their own countries decent places to live and prosper and leave us alone?

This obviously from Le Ancien Regime. Who shakes hands anymore? It is either high five or even more modern tapping of clenched fists together.

Having democracy among and within the territory required violence to drive out the despot. Democracy within does require the renunciation of violence and a respect for each other and patience with the 51% majority. I agree Mike it is a lousy conglomeration of words.

Yes Eric I realized I used the wrong amendment but I was taking my cue from what Mike said and I misread him. Archer you are the one who appeared to say that "we" cannot tell the truth from a lie. That sentiment expresses to me an elitism or judgement against most people. I respectfully suggest that having such an opinion against most people can be the beginning of a dictatorial mind. I agree that in a democracy and republic we can be ruled by the lowest common denominator. The least educated states (according to the US Census) are the most red states. So there you have it! Eric I believe it is a lie or at least futile to believe that guns can take on tanks and never has it been tried in our free and democratic republic, Thank God. Archer I still believe from your numerous postings on this site that you think you have knowledge that no one else has. The arms were called awake once Eric and the gentleman was morally right and in the end although he was hung he got his way - the slaves were freed. I speak of course of Mr. Brown.

I find all of the men above to be men of little faith and truly undemocratic and anti-republican in their comments. Mike for one says if the minority cannot effect the change they want they should take up guns: sounds like dictatorship by gun to me. Archer is obviously the only one who knows the truth: that is the beginning of dictatorship. Ken as usual expresses his elitist mind. Warren confuses the politcal issue with economic ones: free speech in this country means the right to speak for and vote for nazi's, bigots, communists, and socialists, democrats and republicans. Given the opportunity I feel certain most of the folks above would take away this freedom if given half a chance. Have faith gentlemen and be patient with democracy.

A just society now that is peace. Peace does not come from an armed population but from an organized and just population. Taking up guns against ourselves is suicide. Some call pointing a gun at a law enforcement officer or government "suicide by cop". Mike is on to something. All organizations of man do to some extent take away independent action and freedom. On the other hand there must be some benefits to organization and government or else why do we do it.

Sadly I met a young man recently who said what we need is a dictatorship. I ask which is more dictatorial the rule of an elitist minority (as in some African countries and recently in Iraq) or the rule of the 51% "mob" majority. Like Churchill I will take democracy every time.

From what I read Huckabees populism is turning the Established Religious Right off! I am not up on what Romney said or stands for on that subject. Apparently the two are as far apart on their sensitivities and priorities as two republicans can be.

A great example of acting from your heart and not your head.

To not deal or do business with people you don;t like or who you feel don't like you is a basic human right. To refuse to do business with them in consort with others is what the nonviolent movement was all about. Mike do you have problems with Huckabee and Romney personally concerning bigotry or with their denominational affiliations.

Logan I took your advice and read some of John Adams quotes concerning Republic. A notable quote came I think later in his life around 1808 when he said "I never knew what a republic is." I think that understanding still exists. As far as minority rights, they are non existent unless we have majority rule. If the minority will grant the majority the right to rule then the majority will grant the minority its rights. They are opposite sides of the same coin which I call democracy. Can't have one without the other.

The guy was great, I am trying to square his philosophy with the history of war and where we would be without war. As in 1776, 1860, 1941 etcetera.

The practice of this method comes from the true knowledge of knowing that you are right and that you know your opponents will see the truth in time because the truth is absolute.

Thanks Logan for your extensive efforts. I agree with you that we are a republic. One posting in my dictionary says that a republic is any government that is not a monarchy. Britain is a monarchy, it is not a republic, yet it is considered one of the greatest democracies in the world. The idea of the republic revolutionized Europe with the overthrow of the monarchy in France. Churchill called democracy the worst type of government in the world, except for all of the others. I like the term republic, I have no quarrel with the term republic, I do have a quarrel with those who say that it is fundamentally different than a democracy. I think the term is a little more mystical or unclear to some as what it means. I have always understood the place and respect that minority views have in a democracy and was taught this in PUBLIC school. Democracy takes patience. I still feel you enthusiasts for the Republic Vs. Democracy argument are wasting your time and have probably been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh (is he in or out of jail now or drying out from drugs or what). I cast some aspersions on F. Lee Bailey the other day so I have looked him up. He was disbarred in Florida and Massachusetts and was jailed for about 6 months for "stealing" his clients funds. After returning the funds he was freed. We all make mistakes. He may like the Bill of Rights for its protections from forcible siezures and stuff but he did not practice them himself. Sounds like the law/government enforced the Bill of Rights upon him for him trying to seize the property of others. Hypocrite!