Yeah, very true. If I heard word democracy one more time in the context of some kind of moral high-ground I'm going to puke. Its used by some of the most vile people on the planet, to do their vile thing and pretend its ok because they put word "democracy" into the narrative.

“People use democracy as a free-floating abstraction disconnected from reality. Democracy in and of itself is not necessarily good. Gang rape, after all, is democracy in action. All men have the right to live their own life. Democracy must be rooted in a rational philosophy that first and foremost recognizes the right of an individual.” ― Terry Goodkind, Naked Empire

Off course, democratic vote depends on the character of the voter. But democratic mechanism does not represent morality, its just a tool. Anymore than a gun represents tyranny. Its a tool. The user is what is important.

@Krunoslav So true! One of the Founding Fathers (I forget which one. They were all such deep thinkers.) said that the republic delineated in the Constitution of the United States is only fit for a moral people, and when the people are no longer moral (reference today's culture) the republic will fail.

@FuzzyMarineVet Very true. Thats my problem with constitution, its a legal document not a moral one. Bible supplements its by providing source of morals, but since United States was not founded as Christian nation officially, even if it was unofficially, over time that Jude-Christian foundation eroded, and with it, constitution becomes no better than toilet paper. As we have seen in receant time, there is no respect for constitution. Even the very concept of progressives back in late 1800's was that Constitution is a malleable and outdated, and need to "progress" to something else. Without a firm, solid moral foundation that is shared, there cannot be a nation. And we are seeing the results of that erosion today.

@Krunoslav The erosion of the Constitution began shortly after its ratification. But in order to successfully overturn that "Supreme Law of the Land," they had to destroy the moral foundation of the people, who are the ultimate sovereigns under it.

@FuzzyMarineVet Yes. Saw this the other day.

@FuzzyMarineVet

…freedom faces a fundamental political challenge. Free societies must always maintain their freedom on two levels at once: at the level of their nation’s constitution and at the level of their citizens’ convictions. The formal structures of liberty and the informal spirit of liberty – or the fundamental laws and the fundamental “habits of the heart” – are both essential to freedom, though in different ways. If the structures of liberty are well built, they last as long as they are properly maintained, whereas the spirit of liberty and the habits of the heart must be reinvigorated from generation to generation. Conversely, whatever the strength of the structures of liberty, they may always be overrun in the end by the will of the people. Put differently, a nation’s constitution is like a covenant, and there are always at least two parties to a covenant. A nation’s constitution may therefore remain strong and clear, yet still be nullified by the citizenry failing to uphold its side of the covenant.

…all societies in the modern world have a significant gap between society and state, so it is possible to be free at the constitutional level in terms of the structures of liberty but to lose freedom and become servile or anarchic at the citizens’ level in terms of the spirit of liberty. Conversely, though less common, it is possible to exercise the spirit of liberty at the level of citizens without enjoying liberty at the level of the constitution.

― Os Guinness, A Free People’s Suicide (2012)

@Krunoslav "Freedom cannot be handed down from generation to generation like an heirloom. It must be earned by each passing generation just as their forefathers earned it." -- Ronald Wilson Reagan.