The Iraqi's will never be free so long as their government is one installed and supported by the United States. No more than East Germany and the rest of the Eastern Bloc were free with a Soviet installed and supported government.
Installed democracy is not democracy - democracy cannot and will not ever suceed with a loaded foreign gun pointed at the people.
4.1.08
Religious Leaders
Huckabee may be rocker but he's also a religious leader given he is an ordained minister. Does his being such a leader differ much from say an Islamic leader?
Americans always point at Iran representing the anti-freedom and they are ruled by religious leaders. If Huckabee were to be elected I'm not so sure the United States would be any different.
The obvious counter argument to this says: Huckabee won't force his view of religion on the people. Or something similar mitigating the influence of his religion on the nation.
However, isn't that precicely why the religious right likes him? They like him precisely because he's a religious leader and would bring his religion to the government. He may not force it down our throat, but I have a hard time thinking he would say, "Theologically, I'm opposed to gay marriage but legally there is no basis to discriminate in such a way." And you can bet your bottom dollar he wouldn't nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who would not want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
It seems to me there is no real difference between the religious/political leaders of the Middle East and those here in the United States. In every instance such intermingling happens everything is tinted by the religious filter.
You hear many on the right talk about the Declaration of Independence as if it was written by God itself. They like to talk about how it mentions "the creator" and the significance of this because it proves that the founders wanted religion in public life. But at the same time I read it saying that same creator endowed humans with rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and there is no footnote explaining happiness only counts of you want to marry one of the opposite sex.
I support the freedom of religion but don't think it has a place in public life. When religion enters public life it always leads to the destruction of freedom and liberty every where. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a religious person who will deny their faith to support the greatest good for all the people of the nation. And with Huckabee he's certainly not going to give up his faith for reason, than man believes the world is only 6,000 years old.
Americans always point at Iran representing the anti-freedom and they are ruled by religious leaders. If Huckabee were to be elected I'm not so sure the United States would be any different.
The obvious counter argument to this says: Huckabee won't force his view of religion on the people. Or something similar mitigating the influence of his religion on the nation.
However, isn't that precicely why the religious right likes him? They like him precisely because he's a religious leader and would bring his religion to the government. He may not force it down our throat, but I have a hard time thinking he would say, "Theologically, I'm opposed to gay marriage but legally there is no basis to discriminate in such a way." And you can bet your bottom dollar he wouldn't nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who would not want to overturn Roe v. Wade.
It seems to me there is no real difference between the religious/political leaders of the Middle East and those here in the United States. In every instance such intermingling happens everything is tinted by the religious filter.
You hear many on the right talk about the Declaration of Independence as if it was written by God itself. They like to talk about how it mentions "the creator" and the significance of this because it proves that the founders wanted religion in public life. But at the same time I read it saying that same creator endowed humans with rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness and there is no footnote explaining happiness only counts of you want to marry one of the opposite sex.
I support the freedom of religion but don't think it has a place in public life. When religion enters public life it always leads to the destruction of freedom and liberty every where. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find a religious person who will deny their faith to support the greatest good for all the people of the nation. And with Huckabee he's certainly not going to give up his faith for reason, than man believes the world is only 6,000 years old.
2.1.08
So they say the terrorist hate freedom and that is why they hate America. Entire presidential campaigns center on the notion that if we don't elect candidate X the terrorist will take away your freedom.
9/11 was tragic but the terrorist did nothing to damage my freedom directly. Indirectly they did, sorta I suppose, if you count Bush limiting my rights with the Patriot Act.
Come to think of it, the Army fights for my rights. At least that what all the bumper stickers say. But no Iraqi has ever tangibly harmed my freedom. Nope. The only people that have harmed my rights live in D.C. in upper-class neighborhoods with fences around them and rent-a-cops patrolling the hood.
Has any one but me noticed that in the Constitution of this nation freedom are set up to protect the individual, you and me, from the government. That government being the US government. There is no mention of protecting me from foreign nationals or even Joe Smoe living down the road. Nope, it's set up to protect me from people like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield and all the other cronies sitting pretty up on the hill.
Yet, my brothers and sisters are protecting this freedom in Iraq. That doesn't make sense to me at all. Maybe someone can explain this to me. I mean, it seems to me, that the only way a foreign entity could harm my rights would be to pose an existential threat to the government. I'm sorry but an IED only poses an existenital threat to Humvees without armor and the soldiers driving them, but in no way my government. It seems if the military wanted to protect my rights they would have to stage a coup.
The biggest lie the government ever told was that they are the one's to trust and the one's to hate live over there (wherever there happens to be at the time). The founding father didn't like the man, that is why they wrote the Bill of Rights to keep the man at bay. So I say, loudly and proudly, fuck the man.
9/11 was tragic but the terrorist did nothing to damage my freedom directly. Indirectly they did, sorta I suppose, if you count Bush limiting my rights with the Patriot Act.
Come to think of it, the Army fights for my rights. At least that what all the bumper stickers say. But no Iraqi has ever tangibly harmed my freedom. Nope. The only people that have harmed my rights live in D.C. in upper-class neighborhoods with fences around them and rent-a-cops patrolling the hood.
Has any one but me noticed that in the Constitution of this nation freedom are set up to protect the individual, you and me, from the government. That government being the US government. There is no mention of protecting me from foreign nationals or even Joe Smoe living down the road. Nope, it's set up to protect me from people like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfield and all the other cronies sitting pretty up on the hill.
Yet, my brothers and sisters are protecting this freedom in Iraq. That doesn't make sense to me at all. Maybe someone can explain this to me. I mean, it seems to me, that the only way a foreign entity could harm my rights would be to pose an existential threat to the government. I'm sorry but an IED only poses an existenital threat to Humvees without armor and the soldiers driving them, but in no way my government. It seems if the military wanted to protect my rights they would have to stage a coup.
The biggest lie the government ever told was that they are the one's to trust and the one's to hate live over there (wherever there happens to be at the time). The founding father didn't like the man, that is why they wrote the Bill of Rights to keep the man at bay. So I say, loudly and proudly, fuck the man.
"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is
responsible for everything he does."
These are the words of Jean-Paul Sartre and describes the essence of his thoughts on freedom. People must remember they are always free as that is precisely what makes you human.
All to often people confuse this fundamental freedom with political freedom. They say, “You, over there, you are not free like me, an American, because your government does not allow you to speak your find, to worship as you please, you are oppressed.”
What these people forget is every person is free to speak their mind and do as they please. To blame the government is a sorry excuse. People can only not free by their own accord. Even in the most oppressed states on this earth one is always free to do as they please. If they do not it is because they have the free choice that they do want to accept responsibility for this freedom. Rather, they make the free choice to accept the responsibilities of inaction.
So rise up and take responsibility for yourself. Stand up and proclaim, “There is no person who can restrict my freedom because freedom is humanity.” One must always live up to the dichotomy of Patrick Henry as if there is no freedom there is only death.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)