For he who seeks diligently shall find and the mystery's of God shall be
unfolded unto them, by the power of the holy spirit, as well in these times as
the times of old. There for the coarse of the Lord is one continuance round.
Lessons learned. For Egypt, democracy doesn't guarantee freedom. For the
United States, the spread of democracy abroad doesn't guarantee governments
in America's own image.
"...Theologized politics, wherein compromise is apostasy, points toward
George Orwell's vision of totalitarianism — "a boot stamping on a
human face — forever...".The alliance between
Evangelicals, Republicans, and Republican Authorized FOX News represents a boot
stamping on a human face forever?
Freedom is an ideology, Monarchies and Democracies are nothing more than
types of Governments.The people living in the Kingdoms of Sweden,
Norway and England have more freedom than, the people living in the
Democracies of Iran, North Korea, and Cuba.Democracy no more
guarantees Freedom, thanMonarchies guarantee Totalitarianism.BTW -- Totalitarian Dictators like Adolph Hitler and Mussolini
were Democratically elected.
Those who trivialize the prohibitions found in the Consitution are, in effect,
demanding that govenrmnet disregard that contract. The Federal
government is forbidden to make any law pertaining to an establishment of
religion. Has that stopped the federal government from meddling in religion?
Hardly! An army was sent to Utah territory to enforce federal government
beliefs about religion on the Mormon settlers. The FBI destroyed the Branch
Dividian church when that church would not accept the federal government's
breach of the 1st Amendment. Even the church headed by Jeffs has had its assets
seized by the government in an attempt to force it to change its doctrine and
covenants. No matter what we may believe personally about any of those
establishments of religion, the one sure fact is that the federal government
must stay out of their affairs.Is it any wonder that Egypt, which
has no prohibition against government making laws for or against religion, would
be unable to function as a democracy?
"....Egypt's military despotism may be less dangerous than Morsi's
because it lacks what Morsi's had, a democratic coloration, however
superficial and evanescent."______________________________That bleak assessment doesn't offer much hope for the future. I never
expect optimism from George Will but when he talks like he thinks Egyptian
return to rule by the Pharaohs might be something to consider, it might be time
for him to retire.
He's right. Democracy doesn't guarantee Freedom. It only
guarantees you will have a choice. But MANY democratic societies have chosen
unwisely. Hitler was democratically elected. Many people with democracy have
chosen to not be free.Egypt's first attempt is a good
example.Afghanistan is another example.Yesterday I was
watching a video of Obama supporters signing a petition they were told was a
petition to repeal the US Bill Of Rights. That's an example of people
with democratic rights voting to give them away. These people were being
tricked... but if it were real... they would have voted to do away with our Bill
of Rights! Just because the person doing the petition said Obama wanted it!We should not be smug in our American tradition of freedom and
democracy. Our freedom could be gone with one vote IF we are not vigilant in
protecting our rights and our freedom.Some people would vote your
rights away for political expediency (2nd amendment is inconvenient, parts of
the 1st amendment "old fashioned" and hard to manage, etc, how many
people are trying to slowly do away with our rights every day)? It happens!
ThereYouGoAgain picked up on the significance of this quote from the article:"Theologized politics, wherein compromise is apostasy, points toward
George Orwell's vision of totalitarianism — 'a boot stamping on
a human face — forever.'"This seems to be an apt
description of the political condition in a certain Intermountain West state,
where a super-majority of the politicians (and likely a super-majority of the
voters) equate a certain political party's ideology with a certain
(regionally) predominant theology.I don't have a problem with
either that party (some of my best friends are . . . well, you get the point),
or that theology (I am a member in good standing). I do, however, have a
problem with the notion that political compromise is, literally, apostasy
– and unnecessary when one is in the super-majority; which leads to
another significant quote from the article:"The idea that the
strong have a right to unfettered rule if their strength is numerical is just
the barbarism of 'might makes right' prettified by initial adherence
to democratic forms."Again, descriptive of the political
condition in a certain Intermountain West state . . .
SG in SLC.Who said, "political compromise is, literally,
apostasy"?I haven't seen anybody here say it.I
haven't heard anybody say it (except you).Makes a great strawman
argument though IF you can frame your opponent as saying something stupid (even
though nobody said it).Let's stick to what people have ACTUALLY
said, not what you THINK they would say... would that be OK?
2 bitsWhile nobody has overtly stated that "political compromise is,
literally, apostasy" in this comment thread (at least, not yet), there have
been plenty of times where the NOTION (idea, concept; I said in my original post
that it was a "notion", as opposed to a verbatim statement) of political
compromise as apostasy has been strongly implied in other comment threads
here.I will look for an example to cite; but honestly, I'm not
going to spend a lot of time searching, as my time is more valuable to me than
Democracy is little more than mob rule. A republic, with defined rights for
individuals and courts to protect them, is what they should seek.
Democracy, when conducted under the protection of a Constitution, is not mob
rule. The Constitution defines what is allowed to happen and what is not
allowed to happen. Here in America, if 99% of the people wanted to prohibit
religious worship, their voice would have absolutely no impact because religion
is a guaranteed freedom protected by the Constitution.There are many
times when Constitutions are ignored. The State of California allows its State
Constitution to be modified as a ballot item. It requires a simple majority of
voters to make that change. The people of California voted. The vote required
a change in their State's Constitution. The losers went running to a
federal court (which had no business interfering in the business of the
State's Constitution) and had the will of the majority reversed. Laws were
in place. Laws were followed. Poor losers rejected the rule of law.Egypt needs to do its homework. It can't rely on Hilary Clinton for
direction nor can it rely on Barack Obama. Egypt is a sovereign state. It is
independent of Washington and the wishes of Washington.They need a
Constitution written by the people.
Insecure people like to shoot the messenger, Fox News, and ignore the message.
If you want strange and looney political commentary, try Lawrence O'Donnel,
Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow and the MSNBC comedy team.
What George said in the article is true. I can give you a list of Dictators
and Tyrants that were Democratically elected as long as your arm. Google it.
"Lincoln understood that unless majority rule is circumscribed by the
superior claims of natural rights, majority rule is merely the doctrine of
"might makes right" adapted to the age of mass participation in
politics."-----------------Remember when the
interrogators of Clarence Thomas asked him about his views on "natural
rights"? The point of the interrogators was to determine if he thought our
individual rights are, as the Declaration of Independence asserts, unalienably
endowed by our Creator. Or, as many of the interrogators believed, merely the
temporary and expediently malleable "rights" endowed by whomever
happened to be interpreting an "evolving" Constitution (as oxymoronic as
that seems).Like the founders, I hold to the belief that the
government derives its rights to govern FROM the governed. And that the
"governed" is comprised of **individuals** whose rights are, indeed,
intrinsic and unalienable. And, that regardless of whatever form of government
happens to be in place at any given time, the ultimate power is **always** with
the people. The real trick is to make that power work well. We've done
pretty good for almost 250 years, but it will always be a battle against
tyranny.Down with Obamacare!!