Comments on: Democracy Our Downfall http://catholicism.org/democracy-our-downfall.html An online journal edited by the Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Richmond N.H. Thu, 24 May 2012 03:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Robert Wilson http://catholicism.org/democracy-our-downfall.html#comment-2094 Robert Wilson Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:02:15 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13745#comment-2094 I'm sorry to post again before my opponents have a chance to respond, but I believe that this quote, by Patrick Henry during the Virginia Ratification Convention, sheds some light on the subject: "A trifling minority may reject the most salutary amendments. Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty? It is, Sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minority can prevent the alteration of the most oppressive Government; for it may in many respects prove to be such: Is this the spirit of republicanism? What, Sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the Bill of Rights of Virginia, which relates to this: 3d cl. "That Government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community: Of all the various modes and forms of Government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration, and that whenever any Government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath, an undubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal." This, Sir, is the language of democracy; that a majority of the community have a right to alter their Government when found to be oppressive: But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this? How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority? If then Gentlemen standing on this ground, are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished." I’m sorry to post again before my opponents have a chance to respond, but I believe that this quote, by Patrick Henry during the Virginia Ratification Convention, sheds some light on the subject:

“A trifling minority may reject the most salutary amendments. Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty? It is, Sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minority can prevent the alteration of the most oppressive Government; for it may in many respects prove to be such: Is this the spirit of republicanism? What, Sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the Bill of Rights of Virginia, which relates to this: 3d cl. “That Government is or ought to be instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community: Of all the various modes and forms of Government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration, and that whenever any Government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath, an undubitable, unalienable and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.” This, Sir, is the language of democracy; that a majority of the community have a right to alter their Government when found to be oppressive: But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this? How different from the sentiments of freemen, that a contemptible minority can prevent the good of the majority? If then Gentlemen standing on this ground, are come to that point, that they are willing to bind themselves and their posterity to be oppressed, I am amazed and inexpressibly astonished.”

]]> By: Robert Wilson http://catholicism.org/democracy-our-downfall.html#comment-2093 Robert Wilson Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:58:28 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13745#comment-2093 Your reply sir is very eloquent and well-reasoned, but we seem to have lost track of the original debate, namely, in terms of earthly government, is Democracy not the best that we humans can do? Now, nobody is perfect. Frankly, I think that even a theocracy under the Roman Pontiff would be a terrible thing, due to the type of corruption in breeds in the clergy, as seen during the era of Thomas More in the middle ages. Ideally a theocracy would be the perfect form of government, in practice, not at all. The same may be said of benevolent dictatorship, because no one man may know what is best for a million people. In Communism, we see the ultimate destruction of morality and religion, a clearly deplorable result. Even in its most ideal form, communism is unnattainable by mere humans due to the necessity for every citizen in such a system to hold to a system of honor. Democracy is superior to all other human forms of government because it allows for the greatest number of people to make the greatest number of relevant decisions, while still holding itself above anarchy. Your points regarding the perversion and abuses of the blessings granted by democracy by liberalism are very accurate, and again, I will say that no human creation is perfect, just that democracy is superior to our alternatives. Any system may be misused by those who are inclined to do so, even the hierarchy of the Church has seen a share of evils wrought by corrupt individuals manipulating the structure of the Church, even while the Magisterium and Church as a whole remained the pure bride of Christ. Regarding your apparent assertion that our founding fathers were liberal in their philosophy and political inclinations, I find no evidence to support such an assumption, and am curious as to how you could possibly have arrived at such a conclusion, or am I merely misunderstanding your point? But again, I wish to keep my argument centered on the real discussion at hand, namely, is democracy the best form of government attainable by man, or is it not, and I wait with interest for your response and evidence to that effect. Your reply sir is very eloquent and well-reasoned, but we seem to have lost track of the original debate, namely, in terms of earthly government, is Democracy not the best that we humans can do?
Now, nobody is perfect. Frankly, I think that even a theocracy under the Roman Pontiff would be a terrible thing, due to the type of corruption in breeds in the clergy, as seen during the era of Thomas More in the middle ages. Ideally a theocracy would be the perfect form of government, in practice, not at all.
The same may be said of benevolent dictatorship, because no one man may know what is best for a million people.
In Communism, we see the ultimate destruction of morality and religion, a clearly deplorable result. Even in its most ideal form, communism is unnattainable by mere humans due to the necessity for every citizen in such a system to hold to a system of honor.
Democracy is superior to all other human forms of government because it allows for the greatest number of people to make the greatest number of relevant decisions, while still holding itself above anarchy.
Your points regarding the perversion and abuses of the blessings granted by democracy by liberalism are very accurate, and again, I will say that no human creation is perfect, just that democracy is superior to our alternatives. Any system may be misused by those who are inclined to do so, even the hierarchy of the Church has seen a share of evils wrought by corrupt individuals manipulating the structure of the Church, even while the Magisterium and Church as a whole remained the pure bride of Christ.
Regarding your apparent assertion that our founding fathers were liberal in their philosophy and political inclinations, I find no evidence to support such an assumption, and am curious as to how you could possibly have arrived at such a conclusion, or am I merely misunderstanding your point?
But again, I wish to keep my argument centered on the real discussion at hand, namely, is democracy the best form of government attainable by man, or is it not, and I wait with interest for your response and evidence to that effect.

]]> By: Robert Boehm http://catholicism.org/democracy-our-downfall.html#comment-2089 Robert Boehm Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:04:40 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13745#comment-2089 Knowing that Brother Andre Marie has his hands quite full — http://catholicism.org/father-michael-jarecki-hospitalized.html — I offer the following thoughts of my own to address Robert Wilson's last comment. The Founding Fathers deplored democracy for what might appear to be good reasons. But it should be noted most of these sons of the Enlightenment also embraced the rising liberalism intended to supplant the Catholic teaching upon which Western Civilization was founded. After their deaths, in 1848, Karl Marx, another liberal, wrote “…the first step in the revolution is…to win the battle of democracy.” These apparent antagonists, however, were united in their protestation against the authority of the Catholic Church. PJB may be correct in stating our alliances will ultimately destroy us, but it is also useful to consider the battle Marx insisted must be won and how democracy might be our downfall. An observant James Burnham gave explicit reasons for our demise in Suicide of the West. His main reason: Because the liberal mind accepts no absolutes, it is ultimately unable to reason correctly, and is thus incapable of defending itself from error. Consider their clever use of “We the People” to convince us we live in a democracy. Immersed in liberalism, many Americans are convinced because we may choose our form of government and its leaders, the power to govern also comes from us, not God. The liberal mind certainly is capable of elevating democracy to idol status, but it is hardly “the god that failed.” Democracy has done exactly what its anti-Catholic proponents desired. Pope Leo XIII wrote: “The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature to insure the general welfare. But whatever be the nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State’ (Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885). Unless I misunderstand Pope Leo, it seems the form of government, including democracy, is not of prime concern. It is more important to consider how democracy is used as a tool by cunning enemies of the Church and the peace it fosters in the temporal order. Marx emphasized “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality…its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.” He listed ten measures useful for subversives to take over an otherwise free country. All ten have been accomplished in the USA to varying degrees; but the most important is the last-- which drives the rest—the takeover of education by the State. Our State controlled schools have “upgraded” the curriculum by replacing all things Catholic with liberalism. The result of this substitution: In thought, rationalism is supreme; in economics, greed, either that of capitalism or socialism; in politics, secularism; and in religion, indifference. Their “saints” are Marx, Darwin and Freud. In his first encyclical—Inscrutabili (The Evils Affecting Modern Society), April, 21, 1878—Pope Leo XIII wrote: “Now, the source of these evils lies chiefly, We are convinced, in this, that the holy and venerable authority of the Church, which in God’s name rules mankind, upholding and defending all lawful authority, has been despised and set aside.” Can a student in our government controlled schools, designed to despise and set aside the teaching of the Church, easily learn today that our FFs gave us a Constitutional Republic designed with special regard of the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine, one of the 33 Doctors of the Church? How many course books acknowledge the FFs admitted our newly established government could only be successfully perpetuated by a moral people? And will there be any discussion permitted of the divine commission of the Catholic Church as the guardian and infallible teacher of Faith & Morals? What of the intention of the FFs to limit our new government ONLY by its constitution, refusing in any way to submit it to the indirect but nevertheless ultimate limitation of the Catholic Church, also mentioned by St. Robert? Will there be any reasonable discussion of the condemnation of the separation of Church and State by Pope Pius IX? What of the necessity of grace to exercise properly the power given by God to govern? Or insisting there is no such thing as a RIGHT to believe whatever one likes? Mr. Wilson has an interesting speculation: While our founding fathers started a Republic, they also started a Democracy. Considering their ties with Freemasonry and the liberalism it spread, this does not strike me as a careless conclusion. However, this is not the case with the implication of his question: “What’s more, is there really any better system of government that you can name?” That there may presently be none better only indicates the precarious situation the entire world is in. But because politics, a part of ethics, is a normative subject (about what should be done), one need only read Catholic Social Teaching to be quite capable of naming a better system (e.g. the encyclicals of Leo XIII, or The Framework of a Christian State by E. Cahill, S.J.). But Mr. Wilson is quite honest, admitting: “I am having trouble understanding why anyone would criticize a system that is working so much better than the alternatives.” Our Lady of Fatima came to warn us of the damage our system and most alternatives were inflicting on the world, especially the eternal loss of souls. In 1946, while writing a book about Fatima, William Thomas Walsh, a Yale history professor, interviewed Sister Lucia, the lone surviving seer of the Fatima apparitions. He asked if the enigmatic phrase —the errors of Russia will spread—meant the whole world would become communist. Sister Lucia responded quite simply: YES. Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us. Knowing that Brother Andre Marie has his hands quite full — http://catholicism.org/father-michael-jarecki-hospitalized.html — I offer the following thoughts of my own to address Robert Wilson’s last comment.

The Founding Fathers deplored democracy for what might appear to be good reasons. But it should be noted most of these sons of the Enlightenment also embraced the rising liberalism intended to supplant the Catholic teaching upon which Western Civilization was founded. After their deaths, in 1848, Karl Marx, another liberal, wrote “…the first step in the revolution is…to win the battle of democracy.” These apparent antagonists, however, were united in their protestation against the authority of the Catholic Church.

PJB may be correct in stating our alliances will ultimately destroy us, but it is also useful to consider the battle Marx insisted must be won and how democracy might be our downfall. An observant James Burnham gave explicit reasons for our demise in Suicide of the West. His main reason: Because the liberal mind accepts no absolutes, it is ultimately unable to reason correctly, and is thus incapable of defending itself from error.

Consider their clever use of “We the People” to convince us we live in a democracy. Immersed in liberalism, many Americans are convinced because we may choose our form of government and its leaders, the power to govern also comes from us, not God. The liberal mind certainly is capable of elevating democracy to idol status, but it is hardly “the god that failed.” Democracy has done exactly what its anti-Catholic proponents desired.

Pope Leo XIII wrote: “The right to rule is not necessarily, however, bound up with any special mode of government. It may take this or that form, provided only that it be of a nature to insure the general welfare. But whatever be the nature of the government, rulers must ever bear in mind that God is the paramount ruler of the world, and must set Him before themselves as their exemplar and law in the administration of the State’ (Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885).

Unless I misunderstand Pope Leo, it seems the form of government, including democracy, is not of prime concern. It is more important to consider how democracy is used as a tool by cunning enemies of the Church and the peace it fosters in the temporal order. Marx emphasized “Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality…its development involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.” He listed ten measures useful for subversives to take over an otherwise free country. All ten have been accomplished in the USA to varying degrees; but the most important is the last– which drives the rest—the takeover of education by the State.

Our State controlled schools have “upgraded” the curriculum by replacing all things Catholic with liberalism. The result of this substitution: In thought, rationalism is supreme; in economics, greed, either that of capitalism or socialism; in politics, secularism; and in religion, indifference. Their “saints” are Marx, Darwin and Freud.

In his first encyclical—Inscrutabili (The Evils Affecting Modern Society), April, 21, 1878—Pope Leo XIII wrote: “Now, the source of these evils lies chiefly, We are convinced, in this, that the holy and venerable authority of the Church, which in God’s name rules mankind, upholding and defending all lawful authority, has been despised and set aside.”

Can a student in our government controlled schools, designed to despise and set aside the teaching of the Church, easily learn today that our FFs gave us a Constitutional Republic designed with special regard of the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine, one of the 33 Doctors of the Church? How many course books acknowledge the FFs admitted our newly established government could only be successfully perpetuated by a moral people? And will there be any discussion permitted of the divine commission of the Catholic Church as the guardian and infallible teacher of Faith & Morals?

What of the intention of the FFs to limit our new government ONLY by its constitution, refusing in any way to submit it to the indirect but nevertheless ultimate limitation of the Catholic Church, also mentioned by St. Robert? Will there be any reasonable discussion of the condemnation of the separation of Church and State by Pope Pius IX? What of the necessity of grace to exercise properly the power given by God to govern? Or insisting there is no such thing as a RIGHT to believe whatever one likes?

Mr. Wilson has an interesting speculation: While our founding fathers started a Republic, they also started a Democracy. Considering their ties with Freemasonry and the liberalism it spread, this does not strike me as a careless conclusion. However, this is not the case with the implication of his question: “What’s more, is there really any better system of government that you can name?” That there may presently be none better only indicates the precarious situation the entire world is in. But because politics, a part of ethics, is a normative subject (about what should be done), one need only read Catholic Social Teaching to be quite capable of naming a better system (e.g. the encyclicals of Leo XIII, or The Framework of a Christian State by E. Cahill, S.J.).

But Mr. Wilson is quite honest, admitting: “I am having trouble understanding why anyone would criticize a system that is working so much better than the alternatives.” Our Lady of Fatima came to warn us of the damage our system and most alternatives were inflicting on the world, especially the eternal loss of souls. In 1946, while writing a book about Fatima, William Thomas Walsh, a Yale history professor, interviewed Sister Lucia, the lone surviving seer of the Fatima apparitions. He asked if the enigmatic phrase —the errors of Russia will spread—meant the whole world would become communist. Sister Lucia responded quite simply: YES.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

]]> By: Robert Wilson http://catholicism.org/democracy-our-downfall.html#comment-2041 Robert Wilson Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:39:47 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13745#comment-2041 Well, I will grant you that. However, I'm afraid that you have made a few assertions here that are simply not true: 1. The war in Iraq did not "dechristianize" the middle east. In fact, it allowed Christian refugees to return to Iraq, and cleared the way for Muslims to help them, rebuilding Christian churches and calling for their return (Moment of Truth in Iraq, Michael Yon). In addition, that same book tells of Iraqi troops learning from our troops, emulating them, because American troops are so admired there. And while there are some troops who oppose what we do in Iraq and Afghanistan, as you said, I would assert, as one who has lived with military troops all over the world, from England to Korea and now in Colorado, that the majority of those troops support what we are doing there. 2. Our national interests are, in fact, served, because through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and through the conversion of their government system to a more America-friendly democracy, we put a severe dent in the terrorists' capacity to attack us, gain stronger allies in that part of the world, and, perhaps most importantly, gain major footholds all around Iran. 3. The interests of the people in these countries are, in fact, served. For example, Uday Hussein, a rapist, murderer, and deplorable despot, is no longer in a position of power in Iraq, deposed as his father.(Babylon's Ark, Lawrence Anthony) Because of this, the people are safer, more secure in their health and their belongings, and no longer need to fear their own government. This is also a significant step towards dissolving shariah law (which is almost gone in Iraq today), and the barbaric practices it enforces, such as the mutilation of children for petty crimes. 4. I'm homeschooled, so I've never taken a Civics class per se (does Constitutional Law count?), but let me cite you an example: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature." Now, the definition of democracy is: "Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law." (wordiq.com) While the definition of Republic is basically a "constitution-based government." (wordiq.com) While our founding fathers started a Republic, they also started a Democracy, as clearly demonstrated by the system laid forth in our Constitution. What's more, is there really any better system of government that you can name? Any system that hasn't backfired in some way more violently than has democracy? When and how has democracy failed before? I am having trouble understanding why anyone would criticize a system that is working so much better than the alternatives. I'm afraid Mr. Buchanan is severely wrong on this issue, and is behaving in a rather Moore-esque fashion by biting the hand that feeds him. Well, I will grant you that. However, I’m afraid that you have made a few assertions here that are simply not true:
1. The war in Iraq did not “dechristianize” the middle east. In fact, it allowed Christian refugees to return to Iraq, and cleared the way for Muslims to help them, rebuilding Christian churches and calling for their return (Moment of Truth in Iraq, Michael Yon). In addition, that same book tells of Iraqi troops learning from our troops, emulating them, because American troops are so admired there. And while there are some troops who oppose what we do in Iraq and Afghanistan, as you said, I would assert, as one who has lived with military troops all over the world, from England to Korea and now in Colorado, that the majority of those troops support what we are doing there.
2. Our national interests are, in fact, served, because through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and through the conversion of their government system to a more America-friendly democracy, we put a severe dent in the terrorists’ capacity to attack us, gain stronger allies in that part of the world, and, perhaps most importantly, gain major footholds all around Iran.
3. The interests of the people in these countries are, in fact, served. For example, Uday Hussein, a rapist, murderer, and deplorable despot, is no longer in a position of power in Iraq, deposed as his father.(Babylon’s Ark, Lawrence Anthony) Because of this, the people are safer, more secure in their health and their belongings, and no longer need to fear their own government. This is also a significant step towards dissolving shariah law (which is almost gone in Iraq today), and the barbaric practices it enforces, such as the mutilation of children for petty crimes.
4. I’m homeschooled, so I’ve never taken a Civics class per se (does Constitutional Law count?), but let me cite you an example: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.”
Now, the definition of democracy is: “Democracy is a form of government under which the power to alter the laws and structures of government lies, ultimately, with the citizenry. Under such a system, legislative decisions are made by the people themselves or by representatives who act through the consent of the people, as enforced by elections and the rule of law.” (wordiq.com)
While the definition of Republic is basically a “constitution-based government.” (wordiq.com)
While our founding fathers started a Republic, they also started a Democracy, as clearly demonstrated by the system laid forth in our Constitution. What’s more, is there really any better system of government that you can name? Any system that hasn’t backfired in some way more violently than has democracy? When and how has democracy failed before? I am having trouble understanding why anyone would criticize a system that is working so much better than the alternatives.
I’m afraid Mr. Buchanan is severely wrong on this issue, and is behaving in a rather Moore-esque fashion by biting the hand that feeds him.

]]> By: Brother André Marie http://catholicism.org/democracy-our-downfall.html#comment-2039 Brother André Marie Fri, 22 Jan 2010 02:31:59 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13745#comment-2039 Robert: Fair question. The answer is that the founding fathers did not give us a democracy. They gave us a republic. There is a considerable difference, although that difference is blurred in most civics classes. Many patriotic Americans, including the editors of this site, do not believe it our duty to send our boys in harm's way all over the world to impose regimes of our choosing on people who did not ask for it. Our national interests are not served, and neither are the interests of the people we are supposedly helping. The folly of this policy is manifest and is leading us into various disasters. For one, it has helped to dechristianize Iraq. Mr. Buchanan's facts speak for themselves. Pope John Paul II opposed US intervention in Iraq. I believe he was right, because the war simply does not meet the requisites of the Catholic Just War doctrine. There are many patriotic American Catholics, including military personnel, who agree with this assessment. Robert: Fair question. The answer is that the founding fathers did not give us a democracy. They gave us a republic. There is a considerable difference, although that difference is blurred in most civics classes.

Many patriotic Americans, including the editors of this site, do not believe it our duty to send our boys in harm’s way all over the world to impose regimes of our choosing on people who did not ask for it. Our national interests are not served, and neither are the interests of the people we are supposedly helping. The folly of this policy is manifest and is leading us into various disasters. For one, it has helped to dechristianize Iraq.

Mr. Buchanan’s facts speak for themselves.

Pope John Paul II opposed US intervention in Iraq. I believe he was right, because the war simply does not meet the requisites of the Catholic Just War doctrine. There are many patriotic American Catholics, including military personnel, who agree with this assessment.

]]> By: Robert Wilson http://catholicism.org/democracy-our-downfall.html#comment-2038 Robert Wilson Fri, 22 Jan 2010 01:14:23 +0000 http://catholicism.org/?p=13745#comment-2038 In defense of Democracy Hi there. My name's Robert Wilson, seventeen, and I thank God every day that America is a democracy. Why? Because democracy is the most citizen-centric form of government. I am disgusted that Mr. Buchanan would launch such an assault on democracy, especially since he most certainly would not be able to do so were he under any other regime. Please try to imagine living in China and trying to say that Mao Tse-Tung had criticized communism. The people of Arab countries do like the US, far more than in the past, because we have shown that we're willing to go the extra mile to help them, and because, quite simply, they know we're better than the Taliban. This is a subject I have researched extensively, and one with which I have had an interest in for a long time, ever since my own father deployed to Iraq. I will submit the example of a young man from my parish (St. Gabriel's in Colorado Springs) who went to Afghanistan as part of a mission trip. With some exceptions, everyone he met was grateful and welcoming. People would salute him in the streets, assuming he was with the military. A local shiek directly defied the Taliban by befriending him, later mentioning that if the Taliban leaders tried to kill him, the shiek would in turn kill them. I'm sorry, but your article is very ignorant, and as the son and friend of troops who risk their lives to defend democracy, I find it repulsive that you would dishonor their sacrifices by slandering the thing they protect. Pat Buchanan claimed that the founding fathers said Democracy is "nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49," but I consider that to be far better than a system where one person may take away the rights of 100 percent of the population. And if the founding fathers really did despise democracy as you seem to suggest, why did they create a democracy in the first place? Thank you for your time in reading this. God Bless, Robert Wilson In defense of Democracy
Hi there. My name’s Robert Wilson, seventeen, and I thank God every day that America is a democracy. Why? Because democracy is the most citizen-centric form of government.
I am disgusted that Mr. Buchanan would launch such an assault on democracy, especially since he most certainly would not be able to do so were he under any other regime. Please try to imagine living in China and trying to say that Mao Tse-Tung had criticized communism.
The people of Arab countries do like the US, far more than in the past, because we have shown that we’re willing to go the extra mile to help them, and because, quite simply, they know we’re better than the Taliban. This is a subject I have researched extensively, and one with which I have had an interest in for a long time, ever since my own father deployed to Iraq.
I will submit the example of a young man from my parish (St. Gabriel’s in Colorado Springs) who went to Afghanistan as part of a mission trip. With some exceptions, everyone he met was grateful and welcoming. People would salute him in the streets, assuming he was with the military. A local shiek directly defied the Taliban by befriending him, later mentioning that if the Taliban leaders tried to kill him, the shiek would in turn kill them.
I’m sorry, but your article is very ignorant, and as the son and friend of troops who risk their lives to defend democracy, I find it repulsive that you would dishonor their sacrifices by slandering the thing they protect.
Pat Buchanan claimed that the founding fathers said Democracy is “nothing more than mob rule, where 51 percent of the people may take away the rights of the other 49,” but I consider that to be far better than a system where one person may take away the rights of 100 percent of the population. And if the founding fathers really did despise democracy as you seem to suggest, why did they create a democracy in the first place?
Thank you for your time in reading this.
God Bless,
Robert Wilson

]]>