Liberty for the good of mankind establishes the evidence of successful self-government in light of the abject failures and evils of the collective enterprises of China, Cuba, Fascist Germany, Japan, and Italy, Communist Soviet Union, as well as the Islamo-fascist sharia states of Afghanistan under the Taliban, Iraq under Saddam, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the designs of the Islamists and fascist greens.

I wonder, since many of those countries are not Christian, if they can succesfully establish democracy in spite of the above truths through the will of their people, now that the whole world is being exposed to what democracy is. What's the goal, a democratic, capitalistic world or a Christian democratic world or something else?

A Christian democratic world (by force) would be an un-Christian and un-democratic world. The idea is the philosophical foundation, but you raise a very good point because the writer of this article speaks to that very issue in a later article. The idea is not that liberal democracy succeeds because it is Christian, rather it succeeds because it recognizes the condition of man, the concept of liberty in that it DOES require government, and the relationship of man to that government. That was a good question deb2012.

I would suggest that Christianity is the key component for the founding and continual existence of a functioning democracy. Despite the fact the much of Europe has become secularized, there can be very little doubt that Europeans are raised in a value system that is based still in Judeo-Christian ethical thought. Liberal democracy can succeed in a non-Judeo-Christian framework but with out a doubt a moral foundation is necessary. Unfortunately, many of the world's existing religions lack the necessary freedoms for a liberal democracy (free-market) to thrive.

On one side we have black, on the other white. There is no middle ground and no situation that calls for adaptive or creative remixing. It's either one or the other at all times and in all situations.

On one side we have black, on the other white. There is no middle
ground and no situation that calls for adaptive or creative remixing.
It's either one or the other at all times and in all situations.

Thank-you for the insight into your world. My experiences are vastly different. Of course I live in a place that has had a cathartic transition in the 60's and is somewhat relunctant to the Leftist entrapment of minorities. I find the "progressive" segregation in the midwest and northeast disturbing, but it seems to me to be more about social control than racism, still not a very good thing.

those same children of the Calvinist revolution: the United Kingdom, the United States, and our cousins, the Aussies and Canucks.

Speaking of race...

I guess the Calvinist revolution which begot democracy (wow, didn't know that Calvin was around in ancient Greece) was not too concerned for the democracy of Africans or Native Americans or Aboriginals considering the history of these children of the Calvinist revolution's systematic enslavement and genocide.

Reaction or response?

Hm. Very surprised by your response in removing my comments. Not consistent with how I thought of you. But consistence is the hobgoblin of little minds and maybe you did not wish to pursue this any further. Still not replying seems a more honest approach.

I am not going to allow you to lie on my clips. Simple.

Personal attack

Continuation of CA # 2. Very surprised...