Hire
Writers
Editors
Home Tour About Read What's New Help Forums Join
My Account Login
Shop
Save
Support
E
Book
Store
Learn
About
Jesus
  

Win A Publishing Package HERE            

The HOME for Christian writers! The Home for Christian Writers!
The Official Writing Challenge

BACK TO
CHALLENGE
MAIN

INSTRUCTIONS

how it works
submission rules
guidelines for
choosing a level

ENTRIES

submit your entry
read current entries
read past entries
challenge winners



Our Daily Devotional HERE
Place it on your site or
receive it daily by email.





TRUST JESUS TODAY

TRY THE TEST



Share
how it works   Submit

Previous Challenge Entry (Level 3 – Advanced)
Topic: Charade (08/14/08)

TITLE: Let the Games End!
By Helen Murray
08/15/08


 LEAVE COMMENT ON ARTICLE
 SEND A PRIVATE COMMENT
 ADD TO MY FAVORITES

Charade – a game to be played, a situation that is not what it seems to be.

Many games come to mind – the dating game, business, government.

Democracy:- government of the people, for the people, by the people. What does this mean? Human nature has the last word on everything! That is completely terrifying. Human nature given the contract to manage the affairs of the nation under the guise of everybody having their fair say. Now there is a real charade –

The assumption, or premise, is that human nature is good, generally speaking. History demonstrates clearly that power corrupts human nature. Is this evident in democracy? Democracy is the power of group speak to convince the nation of a notion – preferably when the nation is otherwise occupied and in laissez-faire mode. Group speak is much advanced by the strength of the media, which, therefore, has the power of selecting what will and what will not be promoted. This gives media moguls control the country, and seeing they are paid by their advertisers, their programs are tailored to the materialism of company promotions. Additionally their programs are tailored to whatever dramas people will watch in order to promote product. Anger seems to be the thing that most stirs people and is the heart and core of modern media, so that the young generations are being brought up on a diet of anger which they learn to practice for dramatic effect and the gaining of personal attention. Thus when I explain to a six-year-old at school that his style of dictating to me lacks elegance and needs a please or a thank you to make it acceptable, he simply announces that he will not be my friend any more. He has learned the angry power game already. Violence, the product of anger, is rising fast as a consequence of the democratic process.

The other facet of democratic government is that the loudest voice wins, meaning that when a large number of people access the media to promote their message, the nation gets a one-sided perspective of the issue over a long period of time until that perspective seems to become a national standard. In fact, if this group of people (not necessarily speaking for the majority at all!) do not get their notion turned by parliament into law the first time, they will simply re-present it constantly until the nation cowers and accepts. Even though it has not a majority agreement it can slip through into law. Human nature is not too clean about the way it operates. It simply educates the public via the media on its requirements. It also takes itself a licence to be mock and savage “dissenters” to humanist thinking.

Yet even in the face of these facts, democracy is being touted world-wide as the best form of government. China, during the Beijing Olympic Games, is suffering the effects of the “Human Nature Publicity Machine.” This machine purports to support human rights, but in fact only supports humanism, which, these days, derives from the atheist (amoral) viewpoint with fast disappearing traces of Christian attitudes. ‘Dissenters’ are supposed to keep their faith (religion) out of the argument. This, of course, is quite impossible. Even the strongest atheist is unable to keep his belief system out of his arguments. We are what we believe! What they mean is that only atheists think correctly and should, therefore, govern – shadows of an ethnic cleansing program eventuating!

Democracy occurred initially as a reaction to insensitive monarchy. It was an opportunity for the people to have a voice in government – effectively to become kings. This worked very well while there was a strong Christian ethic still potent in the nation, and many great things were achieved, like the abolition of slave-trading and the instruction of all children in schools (so they could read scripture for themselves, thus building their own wisdom and understanding).

However over the years it is human nature that has acquired the ascendency, along with the violence so abhorred by God. Now democracy is insisting that all nations submit to its terrifying humanizing influence. By this means the whole world will become subject to abject human nature and the latest forms of ethnic cleansing – eg abortion, euthanasia, and who has a right to say their piece (only humanists of course!).

Brothers and Sisters, I submit that democracy currently is the great charade. There is not, and never will be, any securely honest form of government until Jesus comes again.

Come Lord Jesus!


The opinions expressed by authors may not necessarily reflect the opinion of FaithWriters.com.
Accept Jesus as Your Lord and Savior Right Now - CLICK HERE
JOIN US at FaithWriters for Free. Grow as a Writer and Spread the Gospel.


This article has been read 595 times
Member Comments
Member Date
Jan Ackerson 08/21/08
Written with obvious passion and depth of research.

I'd suggest that you find a stronger "hook"--people are generally uninspired by definitions. Give them something at the beginning to make them want to read more and more.

Thanks for sharing your heart here!
Sunny Loomis 08/24/08
You understand that the nation has been blinded by one view shoved down the throats. We see it in schools and government. Excellent piece. Nicely done. Thank you.
Patrick Whalen08/27/08
Politics...very brave of you to approach that subject. It is something that none of us can completely agree upon. The topic and writer's understanding are rather clear, but the approach comes off a bit "preachy." If the intent is to convince, a much longer article would be needed, but it is important to be able (and courageous enough) to share. After all, freedom of speech is still ours to claim.