What If Our Democracy Can't Survive Without Christianity?

Morality and Christianity are not the same thing. You are correct about this. The question that should be asked is "Is there a causal relationship that exists between the two?" Or to use a metaphor, often used in the Old and New Testaments, the fruit of plant and the root of the plant are not the same thing. You could remove the root of a plant and leave the fruit of a plant. The fruit of the plant might not immediately die, but without the root the fruit cannot be sustained. A gardener might pluck up all of the roots in his garden. For a short time, he might boast that his garden does not need roots, but his boasting would not last very long. He would soon be exposed as a fool who killed all the fruit in his garden. Many people will lose their souls in this way.

 

How are India and Taiwan (each only about 2% Christian) functioning democracies?

I would tend to agree that Christianity, with its emphasis on forgiveness and multi-culturalism (Jesus frowned upon looking down upon Samaritans and other groups of people), gives societies in general an advantage over religions that emphasize "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", but I don't see that it provides a direct benefit to government.

 

That's not how Madison ran his republic. Madison, Jefferson, and Monroe were the first Party-First politicians (republicans) in America. They hated Federalism (they preferred states to have more power, have standing armies, etc.) and did everything that they could to crush it AND the people that promoted it, including Alexander Hamilton, who created many of the features of the U.S. government that made it successful. The Federalists supported the British style of government, except with a temporary president instead of a monarch. The republicans supported a weak president (the first two presidents were Federalists) and a strong Congress. They also supported the French Revolution and all of the senseless bloodshed that occurred with it. As vice-President, Jefferson committed treason, undermining John Adams' agreements with England and France. Madison was essentially Jefferson's attack dog (Jefferson wanted to be seen as above petty politics). As President, Madison offended England enough (with threats to push England out of Canada, among other things) that the Brits invaded Washington, D.C. and burned the White House down.

 

Who was "little Miss Curio"? Wikipedia left no clue.

 

Gaius Scribonius Curio (consul 76 BC) - Wikipedia

 

You could replace a few names here with current ones and you'd never know this happened 2075 years ago. I always pictured Ruch Limbaugh saying this about Obama.

 

Ironic considering Christians have given us the most anti-democracy president to date..

Democracy works until it doesn’t…….for Christians

 

Thanks. Reading that, one is also most transported back to those times. My wife and I visited Greece for two weeks twenty years ago on a Smithsonian tour, and it remains the best vacation we ever took.

 

Democracy inevitably devolves into totalitarianism.

Well-known democracies: French Reign of Terror, Bolshevik Revolution, Third Reich, Maoist China, etc.

 

None of those outcomes were the results of free and fair elections.

 

I think he's from another planet. What do you even say to the claim that Mao was in favor of democracy, or that China EVER experienced democracy in it's 5000+ year history. Never mind that the Reign of Terror happens at the BEGINNING (i.e. it didn't "devolve" to it) of French democracy. Like, Dude, maybe wait until noon to open the bottle of Jack Daniels.

 

Voting is arguably a hostile act, literally the imposition of one’s will upon another.

 

The Reign of Terror was an intensely democratic phenomenon which is still celebrated in France today.

 

But it happened at the beginning. France didn't "devolve" into it as you claim all democracies do. This basic lack of knowledge or ability to tie basic facts together is why we don't take anything you write seriously.

 

Lee Harvey is what we call a "new age historian". Mao might have been in favor of democracy, as long as there was no voting and everyone else did what they were told to do. The guillotine is a peaceful instrument of change, while "voting" is a hostile act. Up is down, left is right, etc. It's what happens when a simple mind tries to be sophisticated.