If democracy is the best way to govern a country.  Then how do you determine right and wrong??  In the US the basic right and wrong came from the bible, and it seems that the people reject the bible because it is from a religion and we need to seperate the church and state.  How then do we determine right and wrong?  What method should we use?
126958
Israel had the best form 3500yrs ago, it was a Theocracy. God said it, that's the end of discussion. Man being a fallen creature rebelled at that & has been in a worse state since then. Jesus will fix it when He returns.
165520
While I think it's fine to have religious beliefs, I think that religion and democracy are antithetical. \n\nIf democracy entails "majority rule," then religion merely segregates people into "us" vs. "them" categories. \n\nReligion has no place in democracy.
196822
Democratic is a better option if you have people in your country who aren't Islamic.  And, pretty much every country has people who aren't Islamic.  Also, the various sects disagree on certain points of Islam, so basing your laws on a specific religion like that is going to cause a lot of friction between the sects.
509958
How do you know if anything is right? Most of the time you ask questions and you do research and based on what you've learned, you either choose the religion you were raised on or you choose another path. It's okay to choose for your self. Ask your self does it speak to me, am I drawn to it, and why am I drawn to it?
476643
I see the moral issues, as they pertain to politics, as growing pains for a country with our form of government, largely populated with people who claim to be Christians.\n\nFor me, the Supreme Court started this decline with legislating morality, when the Constitution leaves this matter to the States.  \n\nEvery group will not be made happy.  Christians are wrong to believe our rights come from the Bible, although I still believe the Bible is where our forefathers got their ideas of freedom.\n\nHomosexuals are equally wrong to believe they have Constitutional protection for marriage.  This was not something the forefathers imagined or intended.  \n\nThe S. Court started down this slippery slope with decisions most of us think were good.\n\nConsensus is impossible to achieve, which is why our forefathers implemented the safeguards.  This is not a democracy, and the majority does not rule.  Sorry if that's what you were taught in school.\n\nI think the current approach, sending homosexual marriage to the States is a right decision, based on the 10th Amendment to the C.\n\nThe easy short answer is that both camps are wrong.  Christians cannot make laws just to please themselves, and individuals and other minorities cannot either.
1003
All is point of view, however Right and Wrong are judgments of action based upon point of view.\nA psychopath has no conception of Right or Wrong.  A human who is not a psychopath as some conception of what is Right and what is Wrong, but these may not be relative.\nAlmost every culture of humans believes that it is Wrong to hurt another human on purpose.  Does that make not hurting another Right?\nKeep in mind, no matter what your religious background, Divinity is the only real judge.  All judgments made by humans might be in error and will probably cause you to be judged.
482714
This country supports democracy. Part of democracy is saying what you feel in any form as long as it doesn't defame someone's character or break a law. Freedom of speech is everyone's right in this country---you don't have to agree with it.
465934
Judgement and condemnation are the American way.\n\nIf there is anything that is consistent in American history it is hate.
122574
It's one of the United State's most fundamental issues to protect each individual's freedom of religion.  Of course our government has no right to have any say in religion whatsoever (unless the religion requires others to be harmed like it said above).  It is even more important to note that its a FREEDOM of religion.  It should not be encouraged or discouraged.  Many politicians today quote biblical phrases and speak of their beliefs according to how government should be applied.  This is wrong, because there are those who do not believe in Christianity.  We have to remember the basis of this country.  The puritans came over here in the first place to escape religious persecution!
226843
That's a very good question.  I would say the quality of a democratic government depends on how democratic the government actually is and also on how capable of making wise decisions the people of the country are.  The ancient Greeks were among the first people to have democratic governments, and in their literature we can read about democratic governments that were disastrous because of the unwise decisions the people made.  That led some Greek philosophers to theorize that the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship by a person so wise that they would have preferred not to be in power, but accepted it as their duty, but that because of the instability of that situation, a democracy was the next best thing.  In modern times, we have seen many governments that claimed to be democracies but in reality were dictatorships of a rather less benevolent kind.  The founding fathers of the United States (by the way, I am from the USA) wisely formed a government of checks and balances, where the people of the country had a voice, but no one institution had absolute authority.  I would say that in our country today, democracy is sometimes in danger of being compromised by the influence of powerful business and special interest groups over corrupt politicians, and by the apathy of many voters who are not as informed about political issues as they could be.  But overall, the institutions are sound and democratic, so I would give the U.S. good grades as a quality democracy overall.
592770
Actually, your assumption is wrong. Most of the people of the world believe in some kind of supreme being or an afterlife.\n\nAs far as politics goes, I have this to say: Our elected representatives and 'leaders' don't seem to represent ALL of their people. In the case of Geo. W. Bush, he brings a more radical Christian perspective with him to office. That dictates his stand on the war, gay marriage, etc. He is not fulfilling his duty by representing the whole of the United States. He, like many of his kind, use a "majority rules" attitude, thereby inflicting his ideals on those who do not share his beliefs.\n\nEver heard of "separation of church and state"? Do you know what that means and what that implies? In our above example, it means that the President, elected members of Congress and the Senate should not be bringing their own, personal religious agendas to the table. They should be working for the common good of ALL our country's people. \n\nLikewise, prayer does not belong in public schools. Note I said PUBLIC schools because they are funded by the government and not, say, the Catholic Church. Private schools are allowed to have prayer because they are entities unto themselves and are not funded by the public trust.\n\nAs for "In God We Trust": You should probably understand that our "Founding Fathers" were highly religious people. Puritans to be exact. As such, they founded the United States as the direct result of their persecution in England. It is archane (at best) to say, "In God We Trust" because not everyone believes in God. They may believe in Allah, Buddha, Earth Mother, or may not believe in a god at all. That doesn't make them wrong. It just makes them different.\n\nMany people (not all) believe the "God" should be removed from our currency, from the Pledge of Allegance because "God" is not something that all peoples of the United States believe in. Constitutional ammendments allow us our freedom of religion (and thereby LACK of religion), so why make everyone else do when they do not want to do. That's like saying that everyone should eat peanuts -even if they don't like them, or - more deadly - if they're allergic.\n\nAs for times changing, you're right. Times are changing. It always has and it always will. Hemlines, dancing, music, attitudes towards the human body - all of it. It's called progress. We've moved on from witchhunts and spirits into understanding multiple personalities, seizures, and other conditions we once thought to be the work of the devil.\n\nDon't fear change. Try to embrace it. Or at least try to understand it. You don't even have to like it. While it may not be best for you, it doesn't mean that it's wrong for everyone. Whether that mean believing in a god, our differing political views, or our belief in UFOs.\n\nI hope you try to adjust peacefully.\n\nBest of luck.
580729
Why would this majority rule then be correct? As in, who gives you the right over someone else? You'll force them? That doesn't make sense. Beyond this, I'd love to see a transcultural model that actually works. It won't. Because guess what? Are you going to let everyone practice religion? Whatever one they want? Even if it goes against your code? If you don't, this won't work. Also, if you apply certain moral codes, and someone doesn't ascribe to them, so what? What are you gonna do? Punish them for bad morals? If you don't, then what was the purpose in the first place? If you do, then you have become an oppressive society. And before you become one of those you had better be sure you know what you're doing. Another point, because everyone believes it doesn't make it right. What if you wanted to amend it later on to say that killing is OK? Would it then be OK? If you have a universal standard of morality, then it can't change, otherwise what's the point? If it can't change, then majority rule is not the determining factor of universal moral guidelines. So what makes your first majority any more special than the ones to come? This is illogical, impractical and unfeasible at best.
339174
You might do well to remember that the USA was founded on the separation of church and state.\nRemember this famous quote; "Freedom can be measured by the distance between the state and the church."
64776
the funny thing about the constitution is that it is exactly as democratic as anyone wants it to be (or doesn't).  basically it can be anything based on your interpretation of it.\n\nan example.  the constitution protects our freedom of speech.  meanwhile, there are a thousand laws limiting this freedom.  some are for legitimate reasons and some aren't.  someone like george w. bush reads the constitution and believes that we as americans have very few civil liberties, that it is okay for him to put restrictions on our "constitutionally protected" rights of free speech, religion, assembly, privacy, due process, and many, many more, and that these rights can be sacrificed in order to protect "national security".  other people and organizations, such as the ACLU or the democratic party before its spine mysteriously disappeared a few years ago, believe that these rights should not be infringed, ever, for any reason.  \n\nthis just goes to show how two different people can read the same thing and come away with two completely different opinions about what it actually means.
423220
The USA is not a democracy we are a Republic.\nThis is a Republic\nOur Nation, The United States of America, is a REPUBLIC UNDER LAW not a democracy which was anathema to our founding fathers. The Constitution is the law, not popular opinion. \n\nA democracy is basically a 'majority rules' form of government, which is great for those who are part and parcel of the 'majority' but has the ability to deprive the minority of life, liberty and property. They can do this because all laws are determined by majority opinion which has no higher authority to answer to. A republic, on the other hand, is governed by law which cannot be changed by just any whim of the majority. \n\nOur nation is made of 50 states each with it's own Republican form of government [a prerequisite to statehood] and governed by it's own constitution.  In order to function as a whole, the states needed some form of federal government to handle matters which were beyond the scope of any one state's government; thus was born the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution granted clearly defined and limited powers to the Federal government in the areas of national defense, international affairs, interstate commerce and little else; the rest was left up to the individual states just as it was for the previous 150 years under their Charters from Great Britain [it was the usurpation and misuse of those powers by the King of Great Britain that eventually resulted in the war for independence]. \n\nThe Declaration of Independence says that God, our creator, has given us "certain unalienable rights" among which are "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". The Constitution gives teeth to the Declaration by providing a permanent [they hoped] rule of law which would extend these blessings to many generations of our posterity. \n\nLiberty is precious, many have died for it. Obviously in any society liberty must be limited to prevent one person's liberty from encroaching upon the liberty of another, thus the need for governments [in our case the Constitution]. When one person uses their liberty to deprive another person of his or her life, liberty or property; it is the job of government [state government under the Constitution] to mete out justice which may require a loss of liberty, property and possibly life for the offender as he or she is forced to make restitution. \n\nThe founding fathers knew very well that men are easily corrupted when given too much power as any reading of James Madison's notes on the Constitutional Convention will make very clear. In light of this they went to great pains to assure that our new federal government would stand the test of time without degenerating into tyranny of which they were sorely afraid. All states were given equal representation in the Senate regardless of population and the government was divided into three branches: executive, judicial and legislative with a design to provide checks and balances on each other so no one of them would get out of hand. It has indeed stood the test of time and, if fact, has become the model for many other constitutions worldwide.
542663
The Founding Fathers built checks and balances into our system of government,but the constitution was based on the Bible. Diversity is a correlative, but not a cause.
467737
The Bible was not given to us as a basis of government.  We are supposed to apply it to our personal lives.  If more people applied the Bible to themselves (don't steal, lie, commit murder, commit adultery, etc.), the country would be better off because of fewer broken lives and fewer people in prisons.  That is how the Bible should play a bigger part in society.  I think that too many Christians get caught up in trying to turn the Bible into law rather than convincing other individuals to use the Bible's guidance.