www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Immaturity of the President of the USA

Sharon,

I pray that this will happen. It usually does.

Dan L

Talking about immaturity!!! :rolleyes:

Sister Sharon I agree with you.

My expression of hog-wash is an old southern country term. It has to do with me being raised in the south and in the country. I apologize if I offened anyone with it, but that is about expressive as I get in derogitory terms, and I have to pretty upset with a statement to say that.

Again, I apologize!
Pani Rose

On the subject of monarchies I'll quote from 1st Kings.

I Kings 8:6-18 And the word was displeasing in the eyes of Samuel, that they should say: Give us a king, to judge us. And Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel: Hearken to the voice of the people in all that they say to thee. For they have not rejected thee, but me, that I should not reign over them. According to all their works, they have done from the day that I brought them out of Egypt until this day: as they have forsaken me, and served strange gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken to their voice: but yet testify to them, and foretell them the right of the king, that shall reign over them. Then Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people that had desired a king of him, And said : This will be the right of the king, that shall reign over you. He will take your sons , and put them in his chariots, and will make them his horsemen, and his running footmen to run before his chariots. And he will appoint of them to be his tribunes, and centurions, and to plough his fields, and to reap his corn, and to make him arms and chariots. Your daughters also he will take to make him ointments, and to be his cooks, and bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your best oliveyards, and give them to his servants. Your servants also and handmaids, and your goodliest young men, and your asses he will take away, and put them to his work. Your flocks also he will tithe, and you shall be his servants. And you shall cry out in that day from the face of the king, whom you have chosen to yourselves: and the Lord will not hear you in that day, because you desired unto yourselves a king.

God's message is quite clear. If you don't have a King don't ask for one. And personally, the idea of restoring Great Britain's dysfunctional royal family within the USA, with it's late Princess Diana, Duchess Sarah Ferguson, Princes Edward, Charles and Andrew and Lady Camilla Parker Bowles is about as appealing a concept as making the Osbournes are royal family.

Exactly! Of course, I was kidding. But my favorite saying is "age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill." As we get older, we have to get a little more devious, now don't we?

That's the way I read scripture. The people rejected God's leadership and asked for a king, instead. It doesn't sound to me like God is any big fan of kings.

One can only wonder if the Founding Fathers were consiously aware of this passage from the Book of Kings when they drafted the documents that are the foundations of our republic.

Specifically, did they think of God's word cautioning against an absolute king when they created a government "of the people, by the people and for the people."

I'll have to do some research on this one. Thanks for the food for thought.

Yours,

hal

There are passages that seem to indicate that God did in fact wish Israel to have a kingdom and not simply as his secondary will for the people.

Why do you believe God did establish a kingdom for Israel?

Dan L

Amen, sister Sharon!

Dear Alex,

In case you haven't noticed, we have recently established an hereditary dynasty in the USA.

Not only that, but we are now enjoying the reign of George III ???? :p

We are back exactly where we were.

I believe God wanted Israel to be a great nation. But the kings were something the people requested, and God gave them what they asked for.
I don't see that God was ever unhappy with the system he had put in place before the kings. Not that any of it matters today in a practical sense, since there are no kings in Israel anymore.

Dan

The passages I quoted from 1st Kings directly preceded the establishment of Israel's first king, Saul. Needless to say Israel's first king was a disaster as were the vast majority of his successors, though of course their were some notable exceptions. In fact with the division of the Kingdom into Israel and Judah, I believe that all but one of the Northern kings, and the majority of the kings of Judah are described in the Old Testament in various terms as being displeasing to God.

divine right of kings
Tbe claim of civil rulers to an authority, absolute and inalienable, in temporal and even in spiritual matters, without any responsibility for their use of such power to those whom they govern. It reached its highest pretensions under Henry VIII and James I, and appeared in later times under the Hohenzollern emperors and the czars. Such claim was approved by Luther and Melanchthon, but never by the Catholic Church. Theologians like Aquinas, Bellarmine, and Suarez have refuted it. Authority has its origin from God. It resides directly in the people who transfer or entrust it, not as its source, but as its channel, to those who exercise it for the good of the people and with responsibility to them.


New Catholic Dictionary

I remember that one of the shortcomings of former President George Bush (the elder) was a lack of exposure to work-a-day matters. He expressed his amazement at a magic wand cash register transaction in a supermarket, for instance, when it was no longer new to the general public. So, questions about wealthy New Englanders apparently transcend party lines.

What I find more interesting is that, although Kerry's position on abortion is very controversial, church hierachy has not unilaterally excommunicated him for it, but speaks of voluntarily passing up the Cup if not in agreement with the Church. Would an abortion proponent be accomodated that way by most Orthodox priests?

Dear Lawrence and Charles,

Personally, I think the age of quoting one scripture in support of this or that is over - or should be!

Yet, God did not reject King David or other Kings of Israel.

Perhaps the passage you quote is about heads of state altogether?

In those days, they didn't have too many presidents . . .

So to be fair, if we were to take that passage at face value, God may then have erred in using King David, King Solomon et al. in his plan of salvation for us. Christ Himself was descended from the Davidic Line.

"Zadok the priest and Nathan the prophet anointed Solomon King!" Nice ring to that.

As for absolutist monarchs, the ones the West had evolved into constitutional monarchs promoting democracy, such as King Juan Carlos of Spain et al.

And Queen Elizabeth II is internationally respected and known. I don't know of one modern U.S. president who approaches her on the same plane.

Diana, Princess of Wales was known internationally and loved by all. Surely there is no disagreement with that.

Of course, the U.S. won't return to its monarchic roots, but, as one American "Son of the Revolution" indicated during a talk up here, there is a sense in which "royal power" is vested in the U.S. president as "head of state."

The anomaly that you have in your country (that could very well have led to the disastrous Civil War) is that your head of state is ALSO the head of government.

This can actually work against democracy.

When you criticize the head of state, that could be an act of treason.

To criticize the head of government, that is one's democratic right.

But if one person is BOTH - is not some of that freedom imperiled?

I'm asking, not telling.

And when I said, somewhat jokingly, that the U.S. should return to its monarchic foundations, I did NOT suggest that it should acknowledge the British Royal Family.

It could develop its own royalty, although I don't think the Americans could (or would want to) pull that off.

And as for quoting Scripture like Protestants, lets put a stop to that, shall we?

Both Orthodox and Catholic church histories are replete with Emperors and Kings who not only did a lot of good for the Church, but who received great support from the Church.

Republicanism arose in France and elsewhere largely as a product of atheistic, rationalistic ideology that not only hated Christianity, but committed atrocities against the Church and her members.

Canada itself was built by American Loyalists who came up here not only to make a new life for themselves as subjects enjoying the protections of the Crown.

They also came because they faced severe persecution in the new republican democracy in their former American homeland.

I'm not against republicanism, but if someone were to tag it with the "democratic" label, I would tell them that they should reconsider the history of republicanism.

As one writer said, "Better a monarch who 'repubs' than a republican president who 'monarchs.'"

Alex