Political Systems/society And The Church

[The Joey-O]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1298927' date='Jun 20 2007, 11:20 AM']I have to agree with budge there Kujo. Our Politicians aren't lead by the holy spirit, but a spirit of something very, very dark.[/quote]

I think the point is that if we were to work to improve the government, politicians could be guided by the Holy Spirit. Nobody thinks that all (or even the majority of) American politicians are willfully guided by the Holy Spirit.

[kujo]

[quote name='GodChaser' post='1298927' date='Jun 20 2007, 12:20 PM']I have to agree with budge there Kujo. Our Politicians aren't lead by the holy spirit, but a spirit of something very, very dark.[/quote]

I think it's pretty sanctimonious of you or Budge or anyone else to presume to judge the hearts and intentions of EVERY politician in our country.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Budge' post='1298604' date='Jun 19 2007, 05:42 PM']"MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD"

Does that ring a bell?

I think that one is in the catholic BIble too.[/quote]
Are we not called to build God's kingdom on earth? I seem to remember that some where... "Thy will be done [b]on earth[/b] as it is in heaven." Is there no kingdom of heaven on earth?

Do you disagree with [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/567.htm"]this[/url]?
[quote]567 [b]The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ[/b]. "This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ" (LG 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.[/quote]

What about the last line of [url="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/782.htm"]this paragraph[/url]?
[quote]782 The People of God is marked by characteristics that clearly distinguish it from all other religious, ethnic, political, or cultural groups found in history:
[clipped]-Its destiny, finally, "is the Kingdom of God which has been [b]begun by God himself on earth[/b] and which must be further extended until it has been brought to perfection by him at the end of time."[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1298868' date='Jun 20 2007, 08:20 AM']A Christian should be working on preaching the gospel, letting the Holy Spirit change hearts not giving in to the temptation to use theocracies which are always corrupt, and force of law to FORCE "moral" behavior.[/quote]

Yeah, whenever anyone suggests that abortion should be outlawed or even restricted, that any prayer or religious display be allowed in public, or that homosexual "marriages" or "civil unions" should not be legally recognized by the state, or that homosexuality/transexuality should not be taught to public school children, etc., the secularist liberals start screeching about the dangers of "theocracy."

And whenever anyone suggests that civil law should in any way reflect basic morality, rather than oppose it, Budge predictably chimes in babbling about "Dominionism," and spouting off inane conspiracy theories.

But it is rather touching to see the Bible-thumping Budge joined in such cozy unity with the militant atheists, radical secularist liberals, and "gay-rights" activists on this matter.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1298581' date='Jun 19 2007, 04:04 PM']The one America had for some time....when the Constitution was still adhered to.[/quote]
You mean back when abortion was a crime, not a "right," when the states enforced anti-sodomy laws, when obscenity and pornography were not considered protected "free speech," and when the Ten Commandments could be posted in courtrooms and public school classrooms without some Federal judge ordering them hauled away?

Edited June 21, 2007 by Socrates

[journeyman]

I never thought I'd see the day . . . but (at least on this page,) I'm with Budge

Just reflecting on the American experience, where to be a "full" citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you had to be a Puritan; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, you had to be an Anglican; I wouldn't want to go back in history and live in a place where I would be persecuted by the rest of the population because they don't think I'm a person because of my beliefs

Law making started out as "life and death" morality . . . thou shalt not kill is a shared moral belief, for which there is little or no objection from persons of any faith background, or none at all . . . thou shalt not steal . . . same deal

When any group uses the force of the state to make others conform to something that is not the equivalent of a life or death threat common to all . . . realizing that the force of law aka the power of the state is wielding a power of life and death . . . that's coercion . . . coerced behavior is involuntary . . . and at least in the Judeo/Christian environment, immoral

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1299168' date='Jun 20 2007, 09:35 PM']I never thought I'd see the day . . . but (at least on this page,) I'm with Budge

Just reflecting on the American experience, where to be a "full" citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you had to be a Puritan; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, you had to be an Anglican; I wouldn't want to go back in history and live in a place where I would be persecuted by the rest of the population because they don't think I'm a person because of my beliefs

Law making started out as "life and death" morality . . . thou shalt not kill is a shared moral belief, for which there is little or no objection from persons of any faith background, or none at all . . . thou shalt not steal . . . same deal

When any group uses the force of the state to make others conform to something that is not the equivalent of a life or death threat common to all . . . realizing that the force of law aka the power of the state is wielding a power of life and death . . . that's coercion . . . coerced behavior is involuntary . . . and at least in the Judeo/Christian environment, immoral[/quote]
Perhaps you might care to explain specifically what proposals you see as currently threatening the institution of "theocracy" in America.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1299168' date='Jun 20 2007, 10:35 PM']Law making started out as "life and death" morality . . . thou shalt not kill is a shared moral belief, for which there is little or no objection from persons of any faith background, or none at all . . . thou shalt not steal . . . same deal[/quote]
Little or no objection? You do realize there is an abortion debate going on? Because I see abortion as murder and believe the government should protect the innocent life of the unborn, does that mean I want to setup a theocracy? Did Bush setup a theocracy by vetoing an embryonic stem cell research bill twice?

Ditto for stealing. There are large arguments going on as to what is theft. Do a search on just about any copyright or patent case.

The truth is we do legislate morality. That's no question. The question is whose morality will be backed by law. [url="http://www.amazon.com/Legislating-Morality-Wise-Legal-Possible/dp/0764222287"]Here is a great book on the issue[/url].

I don't believe in establishing a theocracy, but I also don't believe any intersection of faith and government is a theocracy.

[quote]When any group uses the force of the state to make others conform to something that is not the equivalent of a life or death threat common to all . . . realizing that the force of law aka the power of the state is wielding a power of life and death . . . that's coercion . . . coerced behavior is involuntary . . . and at least in the Judeo/Christian environment, immoral[/quote]
History does not support this.

[Socrates]

[quote name='journeyman' post='1299168' date='Jun 20 2007, 09:35 PM']I never thought I'd see the day . . . but (at least on this page,) I'm with Budge

Just reflecting on the American experience, where to be a "full" citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, you had to be a Puritan; and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, you had to be an Anglican; I wouldn't want to go back in history and live in a place where I would be persecuted by the rest of the population because they don't think I'm a person because of my beliefs[/quote]
I am not aware of any modern-day attempts in America to bring back official state religions (and the bit about people not of the state religion not being considered "persons" is bunk, anyway).

[quote]Law making started out as "life and death" morality . . . thou shalt not kill is a shared moral belief, for which there is little or no objection from persons of any faith background, or none at all . . . thou shalt not steal . . . same deal

When any group uses the force of the state to make others conform to something that is not the equivalent of a life or death threat common to all . . . realizing that the force of law aka the power of the state is wielding a power of life and death . . . that's coercion . . . coerced behavior is involuntary . . . and at least in the Judeo/Christian environment, immoral[/quote]
Several major problems with your statements here.

You seem to almost be implying that law should simply reflect unanimous popular opinion.

As Kamiller pointed out, "thou shalt not kill" is far from unquestioned today, either by the law or by the people's opinion, as the legalization of abortion and the controversy surrounding it proves. And many people are also now ok with human euthanasia.
There are very few actual "shared moral beliefs" which no one questions.
And are you implying that if, say, a majority of people decided that stealing was ok, then it should no longer be against the law?

And the enforcement of [i]all law[/i] involves "coercion," and there are many laws which do not involve a "life and death threat."
Should we abolish traffic/parking laws, building codes, all taxes, poaching and trespassing laws, etc.? After all, these all involve "coercion" and obeying them may go against the wills of many.
Interestingly, most liberals who scream at any restrictions on behaviors regarded as immoral, have no problem with such laws and regulations, and often want more of them than many of us conservative so-called "theocrats" do.

[Budge]

With you there.

One bad thing about the Catholic church is its fornication with kings as warned of in Revelation...

Diplomatic corps, UN promotion, involvement in every governmental agency, visits from every world dicator from Chavez to formerly Arafat...theres a problem there.

As for the hearts and minds of politicians

Actually the town mayor and council members are probably ok people with good intentions, but higher up you go the deeper the corruption. I really believe that to get high up in politics, means a certain degree of selling out and connections to moneyed and other interests...sad to say but that is the reality of the world today.

[quote]
Do you disagree with this?
QUOTE
567 The kingdom of heaven was inaugurated on earth by Christ. "This kingdom shone out before men in the word, in the works and in the presence of Christ" (LG 5). The Church is the seed and beginning of this kingdom. Its keys are entrusted to Peter.

[/quote]The second coming has not happened yet.

The millenial kingdom is not yet here.

This is more of the distortions of amillenialism.

[quote]
What about the last line of this paragraph?
QUOTE
782 The People of God is marked by characteristics that clearly distinguish it from all other religious, ethnic, political, or cultural groups found in history:
[clipped]-Its destiny, finally, "is the Kingdom of God which has been begun by God himself on earth and which must be further extended until it has been brought to perfection by him at the end of time."[/quote]

When was every tear dried?

to think THIS is the millenial kingdom, this world full of war, evil and moral decade, you folks are sadly mistaken.
[quote]

Yeah, whenever anyone suggests that abortion should be outlawed or even restricted, that any prayer or religious display be allowed in public, or that homosexual "marriages" or "civil unions" should not be legally recognized by the state, or that homosexuality/transexuality should not be taught to public school children, etc., the secularist liberals start screeching about the dangers of "theocracy."[/quote]Actually are you naive enough to think outlawing abortion is actually going to STOP it?

I used to be a UU, and UUs are of course hooked into the feminist world, they already have the abortion underground set up. It is far easier to induce an abortion now, you dont even need medical training any more. They dont need to go back to the days of the wirehangers anymore.

Also most gays are not interested in marriage or even hetero notions of "monogamy" The few cases where they have fought for marriage has had more to do with financial matters. If you think that a theocracy or more RULES and regulations is going to STOP homosexual people from having sex, youre dreaming.
[quote]
And whenever anyone suggests that civil law should in any way reflect basic morality, rather than oppose it, Budge predictably chimes in babbling about "Dominionism," and spouting off inane conspiracy theories.[/quote]

Civil law that is accountable not run by a church to independent and free Christian people actually is far more moral.

Some here almost seem to dream of a theocratic Fascist state to take sin out of the world.


[quote]
But it is rather touching to see the Bible-thumping Budge joined in such cozy unity with the militant atheists, radical secularist liberals, and "gay-rights" activists on this matter. dry.gif
[/quote]Actually they are far less likely to convert to Jesus CHrist when they see all these fascist theocratic supporters running around who want to FORCE them to be good via sending them to jail. I am not talking about matters of violent crime or protecting the weak from strong, but those who want to change the world to be Christian not through the gospel and change of hearts but via force of law. They think Christians are more about power and control rather then about Jesus Christ. Another way that the Catholic Church has led more people to reject the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
[quote]
You mean back when abortion was a crime, not a "right," when the states enforced anti-sodomy laws, when obscenity and pornography were not considered protected "free speech," and when the Ten Commandments could be posted in courtrooms and public school classrooms without some Federal judge ordering them hauled away?[/quote]

So did those laws STOP abortions or homosexuality? Was Prohibition a success? I think there is a place for laws like that, but when a Christian thinks law is going to solve all the worlds problems and that the govt and courts can remake the world for God, there is a BIG TIME PROBLEM.

Your imagined Theocracy, would cancel free speech, would bring back inquisitions, would bring back torture {oops thats already happened}
[quote]

When any group uses the force of the state to make others conform to something that is not the equivalent of a life or death threat common to all . . . realizing that the force of law aka the power of the state is wielding a power of life and death . . . that's coercion . . . coerced behavior is involuntary . . . and at least in the Judeo/Christian environment, immoral

[/quote]Im with you there.

Im glad to have someone agree with me for once.


Abortion should be illegal in that it is protecting weak from the strong and could save a few lives, but to think that govt is going to do away with abortion totally considering where abortion technology is now, where you can just take a pill [and there are other methods] youre being hopeless naive to think the force of law could end abortion.

[quote]
I don't believe in establishing a theocracy, but I also don't believe any intersection of faith and government is a theocracy.[/quote]

Churches are to remain seperate from the state, when they intertwine they become totally compriomised, and I say this of all the Protestant and evangelicals who signed up.

I will have nothing to do with a chuch that takes state money for its charities or services for instance, because of all the rules, I posted on this a long time ago, faith based intiatives was going to make even prolestyzation of those being served illegal. That is the sort of stuff I am talking about.

[quote]You seem to almost be implying that law should simply reflect unanimous popular opinion.[/quote]

well when most of America was protestant Christian it did and it reflected Christian values.

Considering YOUR church is the one that promotes multicultualism, and the values of other religions and cultures, it is interesting how you see their being intertwined with govt as a good thing.

As for you being "conservative" Socrates, I dont think so...

conservative used to mean smaller government.

[SJP]

I found some interesting quotes that might be food for thought:

Pope Pius XI. "Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a great evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater or higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do."

St. Augustine on the advantage of small states over large ones:

What reason, what prudence is there in wishing to glory and greatness and extent of the empire? ... Let us suppose the case of two men ... one is poor, or rather of middling circumstances; the other very rich. But the rich man is anxious with fears, always pining with discontent, burning with covetousness, never secure, always uneasy.... But the other man of moderate wealth is content with small and compact estate, most dear to his own family, enjoying the sweetest peace with his kindred neighbors and friends, in piety religious, benignant in mind, healthy in body, in life frugal, in manners chaste, in conscience secure. I know not whether anyone can be such a fool, that he dare hesitate which to prefer. As therefore in the case of these two men, so in two families, in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquility holds good.
St. Augustine, City of God, Book 4, sec. 3.

Aristotle: "A great state is not the same thing as a state with a large population. But certainly experience also shows that it is difficult and perhaps impossible for a state with too large a population to have a good legal government. . . . The activities of the state are those of the rulers and those of the persons ruled, and the work of the ruler is to direct the administration and to judge law-suits; but in order to decide questions of justice and in order to distribute the offices of merit, it is necessary for the citizens to know each other's personal characters, since where this does not happen to be the case the business of electing officials and trying law-suits is bound to go badly; haphazard decision is unjust in both matters, and this must obviously prevail in an excessively numerous community." Politics, book vii.

Lord Acton: Of all the checks on democracy, federation has been the most efficatious and the most congenial. . . . The federal system limits and restrains the sovereign power by dividing it and by assigning to Government only certain rights. It is the only method of curbing not only the majority but the power of the whole people

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."[7]

2209 The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family's prerogatives or interfere in its life.

[Budge]

This one is interesting...

[quote]so also it is an injustice and at the same time [b]a great evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater or higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do."[/b]

IRONY ALERT.....[/quote]
[quote]Pope Calls for a New World Order
UN's failure to halt US war on Iraq leads to new initiative
by John Hooper in Rome


Pope John Paul II launched one of the most important diplomatic initiatives of his long papacy yesterday when he called for a new international order to replace the one that emerged from the second world war.

Though he did not offer a detailed plan, his words appeared to show he wanted the UN replaced in light of its failure to block the use of force by America in Iraq.

The Pope called last month for the reform of world institutions and deplored any failure to respect international law. But in a sermon during a mass at St Peter's in Rome yesterday, he went much further, referring to the UN as if it were already a part of the past.

"More than ever, we need a new international order that draws on the experience and results achieved in these years by the United Nations," he declared during a service to mark the Roman Catholic Church's World Day of Peace, celebrated on January 1.

He was flanked at the altar by two of his most senior international representatives: the secretary of state, Cardinal Angelo Sodano, and the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Cardinal Renato Martino, who outraged many Americans last month by expressing "pity" and "compassion" for the captured Saddam Hussein.

The congregation included the heads of all the diplomatic missions accredited to the Holy See.

In his homily, the Pope said the new world order he wanted "would be able to provide solutions to the problems of today ... based on the dignity of human beings, an integrated development of society, solidarity between rich and poor nations, and on the sharing of resources and the extraordinary results of scientific and technological progress."

The Pope believes that not enough of these goals are being achieved with the present system of international organizations that emerged in the late 40s, including the UN, the IMF and the World Bank.

But the central issue, seen from the Vatican's point of view, is the growing irrelevance of a painstakingly constructed body of international law which is being ignored by the US administration during its "war on terror".

Cardinal Martino first signaled the Pope's disquiet last month when he presented a document written by the pontiff to mark the World Day of Peace. Without naming the US, the Pope warned: "Peace and international law are closely linked to each other: law favors peace". He also pointedly observed that "democratic governments know well that the use of force against terrorists cannot justify a renunciation of the principles of the rule of law".

The Pope acknowledged that current international law was ill-suited to dealing with rebels or terrorists and called for new treaties and reform of the UN. But yesterday's appeal was for an altogether more sweeping change.

With observer status at the UN and a network of diplomats covering 174 countries, the Holy See is in a strong position to lobby for its goals.

Its concerns over US attitudes are unlikely to be assuaged by the latest statement of policy from President George Bush's secretary of state, Colin Powell. In an article for the New York Times yesterday, Mr Powell said: "President Bush's vision is clear and right: America's formidable power must continue to be deployed on behalf of principles that are simultaneously American, but that are also beyond and greater than ourselves."

Senior members of the Catholic Church of England and Wales endorsed the Pope's comments. "We welcome the words of the Vatican and fully support what the Holy See says in this," said Ollie Wilson, a spokesman for the Catholic media office.

They cast doubt however on whether he had meant to imply that the UN had had its day and should be replaced.

Peter Jennings, press secretary to the Most Reverend Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Birmingham, said: "The Pope is a great advocate of the UN."[/quote]

[SJP]

[quote name='Budge' post='1300504' date='Jun 24 2007, 11:54 AM']This one is interesting...[/quote]


Hey Budge, we're trying to have a discussion about the ideal political system. Please don't hi-jack the thread.

If you want to discuss another topic, please start another thread.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Budge' post='1299938' date='Jun 22 2007, 04:23 PM']Also most gays are not interested in marriage or even hetero notions of "monogamy" The few cases where they have fought for marriage has had more to do with financial matters. If you think that a theocracy or more RULES and regulations is going to STOP homosexual people from having sex, youre dreaming.
Civil law that is accountable not run by a church to independent and free Christian people actually is far more moral.

Some here almost seem to dream of a theocratic Fascist state to take sin out of the world.
Actually they are far less likely to convert to Jesus CHrist when they see all these fascist theocratic supporters running around who want to FORCE them to be good via sending them to jail. I am not talking about matters of violent crime or protecting the weak from strong, but those who want to change the world to be Christian not through the gospel and change of hearts but via force of law. They think Christians are more about power and control rather then about Jesus Christ. Another way that the Catholic Church has led more people to reject the true gospel of Jesus Christ.
So did those laws STOP abortions or homosexuality? Was Prohibition a success? I think there is a place for laws like that, but when a Christian thinks law is going to solve all the worlds problems and that the govt and courts can remake the world for God, there is a BIG TIME PROBLEM.

Your imagined Theocracy, would cancel free speech, would bring back inquisitions, would bring back torture {oops thats already happened}[/quote]
Actually, Budge, that's [i]your[/i] imagined theocracy, which has nothing to do with anything being promoted by anyone here.
(But we all know it's much more fun and easy to make up ridiculous strawmen then attack them, than it is to address actual arguments. But then, addressing actual arguments has never been your modus operandi on here.)

So are you implying that the good "Bible Christian" should always vote in favor of "gay rights" or other legislation favoring immorality (lest we risk bringing back "theocracy," torture, and inquisitions by the state not granting sodomy legal benefits)?
I'd like to see where in the Bible you get [i]that[/i] one from!

Granting legal benefits to sodomistic "unions" and using government institutions to promote homosexuality and other immorality is neither Biblical nor Christian, but simply following modern p.c. secular liberalism.
Talk about "fornication with kings" - sounds like you're advocating fornication with Hillary Clinton! (A thought which never particularly appealed to me personally.)

And no one is claiming that laws will stop all abortion, sodomy, etc.
That does not mean that the law should support immorality, rather than morality.

Have laws against murder, rape, and theft STOPPED murder, rape, and theft?
Does this mean we should get rid of all laws against those things? (Lest we force morality on others, and thus follow the slippery slope to theocracy?)

Unless you are prepared to argue for total and absolute anarchism, your argument is nonsensical.

[quote]Im with you there.

Im glad to have someone agree with me for once.
Abortion should be illegal in that it is protecting weak from the strong and could save a few lives, but to think that govt is going to do away with abortion totally considering where abortion technology is now, where you can just take a pill [and there are other methods]youre being hopeless naive to think the force of law could end abortion.
Churches are to remain seperate from the state, when they intertwine they become totally compriomised, and I say this of all the Protestant and evangelicals who signed up.

I will have nothing to do with a chuch that takes state money for its charities or services for instance, because of all the rules, I posted on this a long time ago, faith based intiatives was going to make even prolestyzation of those being served illegal. That is the sort of stuff I am talking about.
well when most of America was protestant Christian it did and it reflected Christian values.

Considering YOUR church is the one that promotes multicultualism, and the values of other religions and cultures, it is interesting how you see their being intertwined with govt as a good thing.

As for you being "conservative" Socrates, I dont think so...

conservative used to mean smaller government.[/quote]
Well, its good you agree that abortion should be illegal.
So what's the issue? (Other than your silly straw-man nonsense about "theocratic fascism")

Or do you just feel compelled to always be the adversary?

This isn't about bigger vs. smaller government -it's about the government not promoting immoral activity, and simply restoring what most Americans took for granted prior to the 1970s.

The government promoting immoral behavior and godlessness has nothing to do with conservatism, nor Christianity.

Edited June 24, 2007 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='SJP' post='1300099' date='Jun 23 2007, 12:06 AM']I found some interesting quotes that might be food for thought:

Pope Pius XI. "Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a great evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater or higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do."

St. Augustine on the advantage of small states over large ones:

What reason, what prudence is there in wishing to glory and greatness and extent of the empire? ... Let us suppose the case of two men ... one is poor, or rather of middling circumstances; the other very rich. But the rich man is anxious with fears, always pining with discontent, burning with covetousness, never secure, always uneasy.... But the other man of moderate wealth is content with small and compact estate, most dear to his own family, enjoying the sweetest peace with his kindred neighbors and friends, in piety religious, benignant in mind, healthy in body, in life frugal, in manners chaste, in conscience secure. I know not whether anyone can be such a fool, that he dare hesitate which to prefer. As therefore in the case of these two men, so in two families, in two nations, in two kingdoms, this test of tranquility holds good.
St. Augustine, City of God, Book 4, sec. 3.

Aristotle: "A great state is not the same thing as a state with a large population. But certainly experience also shows that it is difficult and perhaps impossible for a state with too large a population to have a good legal government. . . . The activities of the state are those of the rulers and those of the persons ruled, and the work of the ruler is to direct the administration and to judge law-suits; but in order to decide questions of justice and in order to distribute the offices of merit, it is necessary for the citizens to know each other's personal characters, since where this does not happen to be the case the business of electing officials and trying law-suits is bound to go badly; haphazard decision is unjust in both matters, and this must obviously prevail in an excessively numerous community." Politics, book vii.

Lord Acton: Of all the checks on democracy, federation has been the most efficatious and the most congenial. . . . The federal system limits and restrains the sovereign power by dividing it and by assigning to Government only certain rights. It is the only method of curbing not only the majority but the power of the whole people

The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1883 Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."[7]

2209 The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family's prerogatives or interfere in its life.[/quote]
Some very good quotes. Things the bleeding hearts on here might do well to read.