Citizen or subject? (death, Canada, election, elect)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a great article that explains the difference between a Citizen and a subject and what every person in this country needs to understand in order to return our country to the land of the free it was intended to be.
This is a great article that explains the difference between a Citizen and a subject and what every person in this country needs to understand in order to return our country to the land of the free it was intended to be.
In a mass society like ours its a distinction that makes zero difference.
Seriously, we CAN'T "return" to the past because things are not as they used to be. We either adapt or die.
The adaptation you argue for is already a form of death. Our government either works for us or we work for them. If the latter, we have returned to serfdom and have already "return[ed] to the past."
The adaptation you argue for is already a form of death. Our government either works for us or we work for them. If the latter, we have returned to serfdom and have already "return[ed] to the past."
But things can never stay the same forever. I can't think of anything that has.
This is a great article that explains the difference between a Citizen and a subject and what every person in this country needs to understand in order to return our country to the land of the free it was intended to be.
The country was intended to be ruled by white male property owners, women, minorities and the landless need not apply. Is that the return of which you speak?
The country was intended to be ruled by white male property owners, women, minorities and the landless need not apply. Is that the return of which you speak?
With respect, I'd like to answer this.
True, there were many things undesirable, bad, and even downright evil that existed, and was allowed to exist, back in the day. But that's not what I thought about when I read the OP. We were founded as a nation of citizens with rights, and nowdays, when we've righted so many wrongs, we should be banding together as a country of citizens--not white male property owners but rather people of all ethnic, religious, and sexual background. Could we not see this distinction as something vital to all of us as a nation?
Because whether or not you see it this way, or I see it that way, we are becoming a country ruled with priviledges instead of rights, and I don't think for a minute anyone, regardless of their beliefs, when they stop and think about their own rights and how those could be taken away with the turn of an election, wants to head in that direction. I think this is one essential we all agree on, even if some of us won't admit it.
The article conveniently ignores that Canada has a Bill of Rights and that England has had one since 1689 - and going back even further to the Magna Carta that outlines the ancient right (not privilege) of habeas corpus. Seems more a debate over semantics.
How does this citizen/subject definition relate to God? Are we free citizens or subjects of God? I can't reconcile being a free citizen with "under God". Typically monarchs act as the middle man between God and his subjects.
Last edited by Gary Siete; 07-06-2010 at 04:34 PM..
Seriously, we CAN'T "return" to the past because things are not as they used to be. We either adapt or die.
You can't "return to the past", but you can "return to principles of freedom". If people who can't understand this will simply die, perhaps the rest of us can truly adapt.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.