Any Theocracy is OppressiveEven an American Christian theocracy. We generally recognize that a theocracy is oppressive if we see a fundamentalist Muslim country denying its women access to education, or extolling extremist jihad. Many of us are concerned when we see the Jewish state of Israel uprooting Palestinians with justification from the Bible. Many of are embarrassed by the US historical genocide of native tribes under the mantra of “manifest destiny.” But few of us .htm” target=”_blank”>Constitution and establish a governmental endorsement of theism, ergo religion. It’s easy enough to imagine the Hindu kid who is alienated as the first commandment “I am the Lord your God…” glares down at him from above the blackboard. Or the agnostic war vet who feels unappreciated every time he says the Pledge of Allegiance. He’s proud of his service to the country he loves, but alienated by its lame cold-war attempt to trip up communists. But now judgment doesn’t just await us in the afterlife. Religious conservative imply that since men are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,” those that deny the Creator aren’t worthy of life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness. If you don’t accept the authority of these “Christians,” you can’t possibly have any claim to morality. “Unalienable” only applies to those who believe. Yet Jefferson didn’t really say that. I notice his wording in “their” Creator. Why not cite “the” Creator? It seems he was allowing for a pluralistic view. It seems he was acknowledging that your Creator and my Creator might be different if our faiths are different. Also, keep in mind that the Declaration of Independence does not carry the weight of the Constitution. It illuminates the rhetoric of revolution, not the careful deliberations of our Nation’s governance. Let’s resist the temptation to ease our doubtful minds by surrounding ourselves with likeminded believers – no matter what the belief. Let’s stand firm in our individuality and respect for others’ beliefs when they differ. America was founded by religious non-conformists fleeing theocracies. Let’s not allow an American theocracy to spoil the legacy those non-conformists left us. Michael Previous: Republican Enough? -- Next: 9 Trillion Reasons to Still Distrust Your Government Comment from chris farrell: I totally agree with you here, 100 percent. Posted by chris farrell Aug 14, 05:56 PM # Comment from dan l: Michael, So I would take it by this post, that we would not see you pandering to the religious right as the left would say…..pander to minority groups. From where would you expect to get your critical mass of voters? I’m not coming after ya here, I’m just asking. -dan l Posted by dan l Aug 15, 01:40 AM # Comment from Anonymous: So do you seek a freedom of religion or a freedom from religion? Posted by Anonymous Aug 15, 02:26 AM # Comment from Michael Smith: Freedom of religion or from religion? Both. For example, I want to see religion out of the public schools, yet I recognize the right to raise your children in whatever faith you desire. I believe school choice (some sort of vouchers or credits) is critical to that freedom and to quality education. Posted by Michael Smith Aug 15, 02:40 AM # Comment from Michael Smith: Dan, Fair question. This is probably the point on which my candidacy is doomed. I wouldn’t claim to know the electorate inside-out, but it seems that America wouldn’t elect an agnostic President unless hell actually froze over. We struggled with JFK because he was Catholic, and Mitt Romney faces big obstacles because he is Mormon. Too many people equate faith with morality. At least one argument I’ve written about before is the attitude – “we can’t have the man with the nuclear codes who doesn’t believe in heaven and hell.” I find that logic absurd. Do we really want a religious zealot, who believes his reward waits beyond death, to handle the codes? Wouldn’t we rather have someone who’s unsure what lies beyond, who cherishes this life, safeguarding our security? The true believer might not be much different than the suicide Muslim who gladly goes to meet his 72 virgins. So, the point of this campaign is less about any far-fetched ambition I might harbor to sit in the Oval Office, and more about our system of checks and balances. My goal is to stir a debate and perhaps gain a few delegates to prove that thoughtful, patriotic dissent is alive. The Republican Party’s principles of smaller, less intrusive government should extend to less intrusion into matters of faith, sexual orientation, and telecommunications. We need to respect individual faith but fight to ensure it remains separate from government doctrine. Posted by Michael Smith Aug 15, 02:47 AM # Comment from dan l: I guess my question then, Mike, is why frame the argument with god in the first place? I find very little differences between the idea, “you can’t have an agnostic with nuclear weapons” and “You can’t have a Christian/Muslim/Jew with nuclear weapons”. By acknoledging belief in or showing absense of belief of, a higher power, you’re engaging in a debate that does not need to be had. All you’re doing is pitting yourself against hardened Christians. (of which, I am not a member, to be clear) If I may make a suggestion: Review the current campaign of the Illinois republican candidate for governor, Judy Baar-Topinka whom has, with decent success, managed to seperate herself from the ‘moral right’ and furthered the fiscal conservative/social moderate ideas, while only drawing the ire of a handful of wingnut right wing groups (whom are, nothing but bible beating bigots). Posted by dan l Aug 15, 05:46 AM # Comment from Anonymous: But it seems like government (public) schools make it hard for parents in middle class homes to choose the education they want for their child. There are many out there who seem to think that they know what is best for everyone elses children. I am glad that you see the need for some form of vourcher program. I take it you believe that parents should have a significant amount of freedom to choose what kind of education they desire for their children? Another question I have for you: Are you a libertarian? Posted by Anonymous Aug 15, 06:43 AM # Comment from Michael Smith: Dan, I wish faith was an issue that didn’t need to be discussed, but its influence is at the root of what’s wrong with the Republican Party today. You/re probably right in suggesting that it shouldn’t be about personal faith, but more abstractly about separations of personal beliefs and public policy. I’ll take a look at Baar-Topinka’s approach. To Anonymous, Yes I’m probably most accurately characterized as a libertarian on social issues. The main distinction I might draw is that as government gets to a state and local level, I see much more value in its functions than most libertarians (and some Republicans). Posted by Michael Smith Aug 15, 07:07 AM # Comment from Anonymous: So you find more value in local communities running things and would like to loosen the restrictions federal government places on them? Posted by Anonymous Aug 15, 09:07 AM # Comment from Michael Smith: The Constitution is pretty clear on this. It defines relatively few things to the federal government in article 1, section 8. Then clarifies in the 10th Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Posted by Michael Smith Aug 15, 09:25 AM # Comment from Vita: I just love dan l’s comment about the bible beating bigots. I also liked his point about personal views, and am now going to go check out Judy Baar-Topinka, as she may be competition for you in that so far, you are the only presidential candidate I like, and I don’t agree with you on all points. I doubt she’s a candidate in Oregon, however, which may still leave ONLY YOU. I am hopeful that the democrats may yet come up with someone, but not overly. Posted by Vita Aug 16, 04:15 AM # |
Favorite Posts:
Other Blogs:Links:
Feeds - SFP updates for your homepage:Previous Posts: |
