But rather than accept that it's often just a popularity contest, the result of this discussion will be that we'll let them campaign more (not just put signs in people's lawns) and they'll get more power.

Governor says, be prepared to murder in the name of God.

---

Governor says, be prepared to murder in the name of God.

Geeze.
I have been prepared to murder in the name of Sweden as a conscript.
Not really:) Our commander of staff said it better.
"Dont act as your commander is like God".

My victims in the name of Sweden/God:)


Here is the order of command in Monarchies.

God -> King/Queen -> Subject.

Most of the religious right statists believe their God gave them free will, but enact laws to restrict the free will of others. They are against their God.

Most of the religious right statists believe their God gave them free will, but enact laws to restrict the free will of others. They are against their God.

But doesn't their God know everything, including the future, so surely their future is preordained and therefore they don't have free will. Because if they do have a free will then their God cannot know the future.

Most of the religious right statists believe their God gave them free will, but enact laws to restrict the free will of others. They are against their God.

But doesn't their God know everything, including the future, so surely their future is preordained and therefore they don't have free will. Because if they do have a free will then their God cannot know the future.

Thats only true if you follow the common human understanding of how time works. But God isn't human and I doubt that something that is all powerful and all knowing perceives time the same way we do.

That said, humans don't have free will, its just not because God knows everything already.

Most of the religious right statists believe their God gave them free will, but enact laws to restrict the free will of others. They are against their God.

But doesn't their God know everything, including the future, so surely their future is preordained and therefore they don't have free will. Because if they do have a free will then their God cannot know the future.

Thats only true if you follow the common human understanding of how time works. But God isn't human and I doubt that something that is all powerful and all knowing perceives time the same way we do.

That said, humans don't have free will, its just not because God knows everything already.

I have already indicated elsewhere specific reasons why I believe that free will is at the least limited. I can post them again in a current appropriate thread if desired.

But, you and WK are focusing on the wrong thing: most Christians believe God gave them free will, with the exception of those such as Calvinists. Since most, by and large, do believe they have it as a gift or curse from God, the fact that they try to get others to behave they do in accordance with the laws of their God, they in effect go against God's gift or curse of free will.

Therefore, the discussion of the paradox (real or not) is not gernane to this portion of the discussion.

As I said, The People wish a Voice in Their Government.

Мишель,

Really? Well you're doing it wrong then. Bureaucrats are just like regular employees, they have a contract and its perfectly possible to fire them for a bunch of valid reasons. At least, thats how it works over here. Apparently not so in the United States.

Why is it so hard to fire government bureaucrats in the USA? Three words... PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS.

How much easier would this Kim Davis situation be if they could just tell her that if she doesn't start following the law shes gonna lose her job?

It is ALREADY that way. She doesn't follow the law, she can get charged with a crime, and (if the charge is severe enough, as in felony) upon conviction she gets REMOVED on the spot and sent to jail. Quite a number of County Commissioners (elected officials in the 'legislative' parts of County Governments) in a number of counties in North East Texas and South East Oklahoma, about 35 years ago, got caught awarding road construction/repair contracts to friends & relatives, and not according to the legally mandated bidding process. They got convicted. They got removed from office and went to jail. The Texas Attorney General is currently under indictment for Securities Fraud of some sort. If convicted, he faces not only removal from office but a maximum jail sentence of over 100 years. If convicted, he will not likely EVER get out of jail (except in the proverbial 'pine box').

Just because he has strict limitations on his powers and requires congressional approval or support for most things doesn't mean the president isn't a leader who can have a tremendous influence on the direction a country takes.

Of course, the US President is a leader. Leader of the Executive Branch (the Branch of bureaucracy) of the US Federal Government. The President has little DIRECT power. The President's MAIN Power is an INDIRECT one... that of 'Communicator'. Reagan is the perfect example of this. Make a few speeches. Motivate the People. The People contact their Representatives in Congress, and motivate THEM.

Well except for the fact that the president can veto laws passed by congress, appoint judges and other important positions within the Federal government, sets out a policy agenda and generally has a lot of power in certain policy areas such as foreign policy. Also, he is the head of state. Of course he should be democratically elected.

Congress REALLY wants a law they passed to go into effect, the President's Veto gets overridden.

The President does NOT 'appoint' Federal Judges and other Senior members of the Executive (Bureaucratic) Branch of the Federal Government. He Nominates them. The US Senate then either confirms or rejects these Nominations.

The President makes a polite request for a certain policy agenda. The Legislative policy agenda is set by the Speaker of the House in the US House of Representatives and the Majority Leader in the US Senate. The Speaker of the House ('Boner') was just forced out for cooperating with the President too much. The Majority Leader in the US Senate (McConnell) is now under the cross hairs. I don't foresee much cooperation between Congress and the President during the rest of Obama's term.

Head of State. A ceremonial position.

Almost EVERYTHING the President does can be stopped, either by Congress or The Courts. The President can even be *fired* by Congress.

It makes just as much sense to Elect County Clerks as it does The President of the USA. After all, they are both just Bureaucrats.

There is such a thing as to much democracy and thats actually a pretty bad thing.

I agree. It is why the USA is a Representative Democracy (Republic). Or actually a Republic (Federal) that is a Federation of 50 Republics (the 50 States), with each of the 51 Republics subject to limitations of its own Constitution and not a Direct Democracy.

It also explains why the American government is so incompetent.

While from time to time there is some apparent incompetence, on the whole I would not describe things as incompetent, but as inefficient... by design.

And what 'American Government' is it that you speak of? There is NO single, unitary 'American Government'.

Government in the USA:

1 Federal Government.
50 State Governments.
3143 County and County-equivalent Governments.
19492 City Governments.
A very large number of other local governments such as school boards, water districts (some), etc. etc. etc.

Ms. Kim Davis is County Clerk of Rowan County in the State of Kentucky.

Government in the USA is inefficient BY DESIGN. We have a healthy amount of distrust of centralized authority. It WILL go bad, sooner or later. Power both corrupts and attracts the corrupt. We have a spread-out multi-layer, inefficient system of Government because we KNOW that, sooner or later, Government will go 'bad', a lesson that it seems that you Europeans need to learn rather urgently.

Bureaucratic Meritocracy does not work over the long haul. The bureaucrats will get above themselves, and the bureaucrats will become an unaccountable elite even ordering the elected politicians around. We need to have a periodic housecleaning of the bureaucratic leadership to stop it.

They decided to appoint the various department heads. This didn't work out too well. The 'spoils' system. The politicians started treating these appointed (and well paid) positions as rewards for their family, friends, and supporters. To fight this, it was decided in Texas (and many other States) to make these positions into Elected Politicians themselves.

Federal Judges are appointed for life terms. The question is, by WHO? Answer: Elected Politicians. This makes the process highly political, and it is difficult in the extreme to legally get rid of one that highly upsets the People.

Since they are highly political anyway, Here in Texas and quite a number of other States, it was decided to have State and Local Judges elected by the People to set terms. Makes it much easier to get rid of the occasional jerk of a judge. A case in point, a friend of mine by the nickname of Maximum Jack. He was a Local Judge, and earned his nickname by always handing out the maximum legally permissible sentence upon a guilty verdict, regardless of the mitigating circumstances. People tried to get rid of him, unsuccessfully. He lost the next election. Problem solved.

Our system may not be perfect, but it works for us.

As I said, The People wish a Voice in Their Government.

Мишель,

Really? Well you're doing it wrong then. Bureaucrats are just like regular employees, they have a contract and its perfectly possible to fire them for a bunch of valid reasons. At least, thats how it works over here. Apparently not so in the United States.

Why is it so hard to fire government bureaucrats in the USA? Three words... PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS.

Don't try and teach a ... tricks, it only annoys the ... .

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/civil-servant-protection-system-could-keep-problematic-government-employees-from-being-fired/

He is simply assumes everyone and every country is as he imagines.

---

Our system may not be perfect, but it works for us.

Not well enough for those who were wronged.

---

Our system may not be perfect, but it works for us.

Not well enough for those who were wronged.

Unfortunately it (lawyers / legal system) does place a dollar value on human life.

---

Our system may not be perfect, but it works for us.

Not well enough for those who were wronged.

That's why the Civil Liberties Union exists.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

Why is it so hard to fire government bureaucrats in the USA? Three words... PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS.

Can't you just cut their budgets? That usually works fine to get rid of excess bureaucrats.

It is ALREADY that way. She doesn't follow the law, she can get charged with a crime, and (if the charge is severe enough, as in felony) upon conviction she gets REMOVED on the spot and sent to jail. Quite a number of County Commissioners (elected officials in the 'legislative' parts of County Governments) in a number of counties in North East Texas and South East Oklahoma, about 35 years ago, got caught awarding road construction/repair contracts to friends & relatives, and not according to the legally mandated bidding process. They got convicted. They got removed from office and went to jail. The Texas Attorney General is currently under indictment for Securities Fraud of some sort. If convicted, he faces not only removal from office but a maximum jail sentence of over 100 years. If convicted, he will not likely EVER get out of jail (except in the proverbial 'pine box').

Thats not actually easier. The other people you mentioned were committing fraud, of course everyone understands when people like that get send to jail. But she was just 'following her conscious'. To turn that into a crime is to turn her into the biggest and most effective martyr for people who hate the whole gay marriage thing. And also, regardless of what you think of her anti gay feelings, is it worth sending someone to jail for that? Cuz I think its disproportional.

Thats why I don't like elected bureaucrats like this. The only way to get rid of them is when they commit a crime by breaking the law. But what if someone just isn't functioning well, what if going after someone like they are frauds or utterly corrupt officials is disproportional to what they have actually done wrong? Its much better to simply be able to transfer someone to another position or fire them.

Of course, the US President is a leader. Leader of the Executive Branch (the Branch of bureaucracy) of the US Federal Government. The President has little DIRECT power. The President's MAIN Power is an INDIRECT one... that of 'Communicator'. Reagan is the perfect example of this. Make a few speeches. Motivate the People. The People contact their Representatives in Congress, and motivate THEM.

So, a perfect reason to have someone like that get elected.

Congress REALLY wants a law they passed to go into effect, the President's Veto gets overridden.

The President does NOT 'appoint' Federal Judges and other Senior members of the Executive (Bureaucratic) Branch of the Federal Government. He Nominates them. The US Senate then either confirms or rejects these Nominations.

The President makes a polite request for a certain policy agenda. The Legislative policy agenda is set by the Speaker of the House in the US House of Representatives and the Majority Leader in the US Senate. The Speaker of the House ('Boner') was just forced out for cooperating with the President too much. The Majority Leader in the US Senate (McConnell) is now under the cross hairs. I don't foresee much cooperation between Congress and the President during the rest of Obama's term.

Head of State. A ceremonial position.

Almost EVERYTHING the President does can be stopped, either by Congress or The Courts. The President can even be *fired* by Congress.

It makes just as much sense to Elect County Clerks as it does The President of the USA. After all, they are both just Bureaucrats.

No, they really aren't both 'just bureaucrats'. Yes, if congress really wants it can overrule a presidential veto, and yes congress can make a president a lame duck. But that just shows that there are checks and balances, it just means the president doesn't have unlimited executive powers. But not having unlimited power does not equal having no power. The President has power by virtue of being the president. Yeah, his vetos can be overruled, but because he is the president, congress doesn't just overrule a veto on a whim. And in his capacity as 'instigator' of policy the president can effectively determine the legislative agenda. Tell me, would the Affordable Care Act have ever happened if it wasn't for Obama pushing it? Would the war in Iraq have ever happened if it wasn't for Bush pushing it?

Finally the president still have the power to sign executive orders. And while its possible for the next president to revoke such orders, it does bypass Congress as far as I understood it.

Does a county clerk have the ability to successful push a certain legislative agenda to whatever legislative body controls the county? Can a county clerk veto new laws from coming into effect? Can a county clerk sign executive orders that bypass the legislature?

I agree. It is why the USA is a Representative Democracy (Republic). Or actually a Republic (Federal) that is a Federation of 50 Republics (the 50 States), with each of the 51 Republics subject to limitations of its own Constitution and not a Direct Democracy.

Given the number of democratically elected positions in the American and local governments, you might as well be a direct democracy.

And what 'American Government' is it that you speak of? There is NO single, unitary 'American Government'.

Yeah there is. As long as all your states are part of the Federal Republic of the United States, there is an American government. Sure, that government consists of layers and is to a large degree decentralized into smaller governments (states), but in the end they all end up being part of a greater whole.

Government in the USA is inefficient BY DESIGN. We have a healthy amount of distrust of centralized authority. It WILL go bad, sooner or later. Power both corrupts and attracts the corrupt. We have a spread-out multi-layer, inefficient system of Government because we KNOW that, sooner or later, Government will go 'bad', a lesson that it seems that you Europeans need to learn rather urgently.

Actually, being spread out and multilayered is not inefficiency by design. Its actually quite efficient. You know, division of labor. You know what is inefficient? One big centralized government that controls everything. You know, what the Soviet Union tried.

The fact is, government is involved in so many aspects, and has to be involved in so many aspects, that it just makes no sense to do all of it in Washington. Its much better to divide the country into county's and have each of those county's set up their own local governance structure that deals with local matters. And its also a lot more efficient to keep those states around and have them deal with a lot of things like education, local crime, etc. They know what they need better than Washington. So that when we actually get to Washington, the people there only need to deal with things that affect all the states in a select few policy areas. Policy areas where its better to have all 50 states act as one, such as foreign policy and national defense.

So inefficient by design? Not really, the Federal model is actually a very efficient model.

Bureaucratic Meritocracy does not work over the long haul. The bureaucrats will get above themselves, and the bureaucrats will become an unaccountable elite even ordering the elected politicians around. We need to have a periodic housecleaning of the bureaucratic leadership to stop it.

It works fine in the private sector and its one of the reason the private sector does act more competent from time to time. The whole point of a meritocracy is that competent people advance while the incompetent people remain stuck. Does that result that bureaucrats get ideas above their station? No, it should actually create less of that because it are only professionals who advance.

Also, it aren't bureaucrats that order politicians around, it are bureaucracies. The organization takes a life on its own, and this is inevitable. Its just what happens when you put a bunch of people together and tell them to work together. An organization will develop its own culture and with that come priorities, agendas and of course the continuation of the organization itself. Even if you remove a bunch of top bureaucrats every couple of years because they have to get reelected, the vast majority of the bureaucracy won't, so the organization itself won't really change much in terms of culture. Furthermore, bureaucracies have informal powers that simply stem from the work they do. They control information flows and as a result can manipulate politicians into favoring whatever solution the bureaucracy has come up with.

Now that may sound horrible, but in practice it isn't that bad. Usually a bureaucracy is infinitely more knowledgeable about the particular subjects they work on, and the actions they favor are often the better ones. As such, bureaucracies can be vital in softening the edge of particularly dumb and stupid politicians, and will also prevent radical policy shifts every time a new politician gets elected. But of course, this only works best if the bureaucracy consists of professionals who only wish to see the particular subjects they handle, get handled as best as possible.

They decided to appoint the various department heads. This didn't work out too well. The 'spoils' system. The politicians started treating these appointed (and well paid) positions as rewards for their family, friends, and supporters. To fight this, it was decided in Texas (and many other States) to make these positions into Elected Politicians themselves.

Well, it doesn't matter much who ends up getting the position of department head or how. The real power lies with the people working below them.

Since they are highly political anyway, Here in Texas and quite a number of other States, it was decided to have State and Local Judges elected by the People to set terms. Makes it much easier to get rid of the occasional jerk of a judge. A case in point, a friend of mine by the nickname of Maximum Jack. He was a Local Judge, and earned his nickname by always handing out the maximum legally permissible sentence upon a guilty verdict, regardless of the mitigating circumstances. People tried to get rid of him, unsuccessfully. He lost the next election. Problem solved.

What do you mean problem solved? He still send god knows how many people to prison with maximum sentences. See, I much rather have judges be professionals who don't have to pander to the lowest common denominator and promise to be as tough on crime as possible.

And not to mention the fact that judges have to take money from other parties in order to fund their election campaigns. How can people be comfortable knowing that their judge took money from some prison corporation to fund his campaign promising to be tough on crime. You think that prison corporation gives judges money because they love democracy just that much, or because it means a judge is beholden to them and will be more likely to send people to their private prison?

Can it be true that 44% of republicans don't believe in the constitution?
http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/10/07/christianity-as-americans-official-religion-forty-four-percent-of-republicans-say-yes/?google_editors_picks=true

Forty-four percent of Republican voters endorse having Christianity as America’s official religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling national survey that underscores the influence of the Christian right in the party’s 2016 presidential selection process.

---

They didn't ask me. Registered republican since 1970. I don't agree with many of the party's positions but the Dems are even worse. If there is ever a real libertarian party I would switch in a minute.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

But, you and WK are focusing on the wrong thing: most Christians believe God gave them free will, with the exception of those such as Calvinists. Since most, by and large, do believe they have it as a gift or curse from God, the fact that they try to get others to behave they do in accordance with the laws of their God, they in effect go against God's gift or curse of free will.

Therefore, the discussion of the paradox (real or not) is not gernane to this portion of the discussion.

The paradox, is perhaps germane to this Subject.

Some Christian Government Officials (Kim Davis for one), believe their God forbids them to issue Marriage Certificates to those committing 'a sin'. Therefore 'The Sinner' has no free will to commit 'the sin', and must be stopped.

Other Christian Government Officials, do not believe their God forbids them. Because 'The Sinner' has free will to commit 'the sin'. And must accept the consequences.

The paradox you describe is not the one Michel describes.
Michel speaks of a God that exists outside of space and time and immune to paradoxes.
I, and now you, speak of paradoxes we humans face.
I believe emphasis should be put on something leading to your last sentence: the so-called sinner is the one that faces the consequences.
Outside of "eternal damnation", what are the Earthly consequences of being a homosexual and a homosexual marriage? At earlier points in time, it might have meant greater susceptibility to STDs. It can lead to being stigmatized. But what harm does it cause, if any? (I know there are studies, for example, on children raised by same sex parents and, at least early on, they were finding no ill effects.)
Supposing it hurts no one during life on Earth, except God doesn't like it and will eternally damn the gays (supposedly), what does Kim Davis and her kind fear? Clearly, God won't be eternally damning them for being gay, because they're not gay! So, they must (?) fear being damned for allowing others to sin. Yet, in giving free will, God gives people the choice whether to sin or not and I know of no commandment type thing that says "Thou shalt not be happy, and shallst burneth in the Burning Lake of Gehenna, if thou seest of another person that breaks one of my other thou shalt nots!"

I saw on Charlie Rose's program last night that Kim Davis has been married and divorced several times, has by her own admission committed adultery and had a child out of wedlock. It looks to me like her strict faith in God has some holes in it.

---

Bob DeWoody

My motto: Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow as it may not be required. This no longer applies in light of current events.

I saw on Charlie Rose's program last night that Kim Davis has been married and divorced several times, has by her own admission committed adultery and had a child out of wedlock. It looks to me like her strict faith in God has some holes in it.

I don't suppose your post was directly a reply to mine.
However, her answer to what you've pointed out (and many have pointed out, many times) is that she was "saved" after these events.

I saw on Charlie Rose's program last night that Kim Davis has been married and divorced several times, has by her own admission committed adultery and had a child out of wedlock. It looks to me like her strict faith in God has some holes in it.

She fails as per Deuteronomy 24 verses 1-4.