Democracy, Not Theocracy

When it comes to asking the question, "Why did he [George Washington] voluntarily add, 'So help me, God' at the end of his Oath of Office if he believed as you say[?]," I would suggest that the inquisitor first determine whether that event ever took place before asking the question. As it happens, the notion that Washington added a religious codicil to his oath of office is not supported by any known firsthand report. The notion that GW added SHMG to his oath makes its debut 65 years after the event. It was Rufus Wilmot Griswold who introduced this literary novelty in his book, "Republican Court, or American Society in the Days of Washington." Even if Griswold picked up this tidbit from Washington Irving, as some have suggested, Irving never identified a source for his inaugural narration that he used in his biography, "The Life of George Washington," Vol. IV, published in 1857. The question really needs to be turned around to read, "Why would George Washington add anything to his presidential oath of office in view of the fact that he held himself to a strict interpretation of the Constitution, which prohibits a religious test from ever being used as a qualification for a position in the federal government? Likewise, in the case of Washington's "personal diary," the question is, "Was this personal diary (Prayer Journal) actually written by Washington?"

...her alarming theocratic rhetoric that has been revealed this week ...This fusion of religion and politics ... has no place in our civic discourse."

I'm not an evangelical, and my tradition would be persecuted in an evangelical theocracy.

I listened. I've seen the YouTubes of Palin's comments. I am not alarmed. I don't find the rhetoric theocratic, partly because you've misrepresented or put the worst possible interpretation on it. I don't even find it "civic discourse," since Palin was talking to a Church group in a Church.

In fact, I haven't yet heard an example of Palin using religion in civic discourse - though it's possible that some questionable stuff will turn up eventually.

David Poole--

You may be a very devout Christian who genuinely believes what you say. I don't know, and I frankly don't care. But whatever your faith, whatever your beliefs, the fact remains that you have no right to push your beliefs upon anyone else. Whenever people are asked if they would support a theocracy, they often reply that they would, but only if it's THEIR religion.

You give examples of leaders from the past, such as Patrick Henry and George Washington. They were no doubt very pious people and perhaps even became what they were as a direct result of their spirituality. But that was for them, and their words refered to only them. There is no religion on earth that will satisfy every person and therefore, as long as there are dissendents, a theocracy would be nothing short of totalitarian.

You are also very much mistaken about liberalism. The term first came about during the french revolution, during the tennis court oath and the national assemblies where those with more radical beliefs sat at the left and those with reactionary ideals sat at the right. By its original definition, and one that still mostly holds true today, to be liberal is to simply advocate change where one believes necessary, and to be conservative is to oppose most change and to believe that change is not necessary. Neither is any more correct in general. That is purely a political choice.

And the Salem witch trials? Please do not even attempt to pass off a lie about that particular subject in my presence-- I've just finished writing a International Baccalaureate thesis on it. The trials took place in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1690s. If anything can be classified as a theocracy, that certainly can. In fact, religious arguments were at the crux of the "evidence" for the trials. Do some research next time.

Furthermore, the Bible sites slavery, as well as rampant sexism, homophobia, and various other sorts of discrimination. Perhaps you would still be a first class citizen under a theocracy, but I would be something like a third class citizen by my race and gender.

There are, of course, other issues you brought up that I could refute, but given your dogma, it would likely be a waste of time. I've got work to do anyway. You see, I am a fifteen-year-old, albeit with college-level work to fnish. And I would appreciate if you would not belittle people on account of their age, for I have found that age has no bearing on intelligence.

Haleigh