Democracy, Not Theocracy

People who declare that it is "God's Will" that we start wars are heretics! That Palin should declare to the young that we are in a holy war against Islam is as scary as the Islamic Radicals and their Jihads against us.

The God of Abraham is sighing in grief over how his children are treating each other.

David Poole:

That's awesome that you and God are such close buddies that you can speak for God and tell us what God agrees or disagrees with.

I also love how you whitewashed the past, describing all theocracies as some kind of utopian golden age that we've sadly moved away from. Please go back to school and study history. Theocracy always leads to warfare, division and persecution. The American colonies quickly realized this and ensured that the new republic had a strong wall of separation between the church and state. Only a revisionist history can repudiate that. Let me give you just one small example of what happens in a theocracy: The Salem Witch trials and the unjust executions of 19 innocent people by the state based on "spiritual" or religious crime.

Unfortunately, this kind of loose thinking is prevalent among many conservatives who are either too superstitious or lazy to study anything other than the bible, so everything they "know," from philosophy to history to science is warped and stunted.

Education is not indoctrination.

Did any of you wise people stop to think for one moment beyond your selective learning? Abraham as you speak of had his own army, as did Isaac, and as did Jacob, and i could continue on and on. Oh and don't forget G-d (HaShem did tell Moses not only to defend and attack but to destroy them from the face of the earth. And as there is Amelak in the world everynation that holds any form of righteous thought should hold an arsenal of freedom! What if the United States had become pacifist in 1967, and had no arsenal, they would have missed the blessing of helping Israel against the ruthless and merciless Islamic invaders! Yes you heard me right!
HaShem (G-d) utilizes the nations as He sees fit, and in the future we will see a better revelation of reality (not necessarily comforting) that will shift the powers that are today. The time of Ismahel will end and things will begin to shift.
However I dislike and even hate those who try to remove G-d from everything. We have in this country now a large part of the political system who think we should take from the rich and give to the poor and stike G-d from it all while rewriting the constitution of the United States. The seperation of church and state has nothing to do with many of the things some of you address, it does have everything to do with nobody telling me to whom to pray or where and when I can worship! However it does not constitute removing G-d from our thoughts and our speech. In Fact if G-d in some form does not have part in it you better take leave and get away from it!

James:

To be sure, Great Britain was what I would call a Christian nation when they accepted slavery. But the slaves were in fact purchased from Africans, who were not Christians, who had conquered and enslaved their neighbors. When they came to North America, the British brought their slaves with them. But the fact that slavery began in a Christian country does not diminish the role the Bible and Christians played in abolishing it. It’s pretty clear the folks who allowed it to begin were not reading their Bibles at the time.

"Congress" is not the State, or the courts, or the presidency, or the local courthouse in my town square, or public lands where you can no longer display a manger scene. Neither the Bible nor Christianity are an Establishment of Religion, and if the founders really wanted separation so much, why did they put the scriptures from the Bible in so many court rooms and government buildings? (Please try to answer this question; it is not revisionist; the scriptures really are there.) Why does congress open with prayer? (This is not revisionist, either. They really do this.) Why did the founders violate their own rule and begin doing all these unconstitutional things? You have misinterpreted the words "Congress" and "Establishment of Religion." The meaning of the word "establishment" can be either a verb or a noun as it's used, the former meaning “the government establishing a religion” and the latter meaning “a previously established church organization,” but neither means Separation of Church and State. Buy the way, there was a constitution where that phrase was used: the former Soviet Union's, though that isn’t where we American’s got it.

Try not to dismiss my previous factual references as revisionist without answering any of them. To assume you are right without checking the objections of your critics is no way to find either wisdom or success. I realize it’s difficult to get beyond one’s own prejudices, but you could learn a lot here if you approached it with a more open mind. You aren't a kid, are you? Your dismissive response reminds me a lot of an online debate I had with a guy who turned out to be 15 years old.

James (betcha read this):

First, let me thank you for your kind wishes for my family and me.

"...they are talking about the "watchmaker" who does not interfere in the workings of men or nature."

If God was did not intervene in the affairs of men, why do you think they wasted all that time praying before each session of congress and asking him for stuff? Why did Ben Franklin, the least Christian of the group suggest the prayers, saying, "If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable an empire can rise without His aid?" Why did George Washington write in his personal diary an emotional thank you note to Jesus for saving his soul? Why did he voluntarily add, "So help me, God" at the end of his Oath of Office if he believed as you say. Why did Patrick Henry say, "Forbid it, Almighty God! But as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" if the God he believed in was powerless? I could give examples for many of the others as well.

Self deception has long been the hallmark of the liberal, but it must take some serious doing to maintain the level of self-imposed ignorance you've shown here.

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