I recommend everyone go to Govtrack and read the seventy-six pre-ambular clauses: some of my favorites...
“Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed this self-evident fact in a unanimous ruling declaring `This is a religious people ... From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation”;
“Whereas throughout the American Founding, Congress frequently appropriated money for missionaries and for religious instruction, a practice that Congress repeated for decades after the passage of the Constitution and the First Amendment”;
“Whereas 4 days after approving the Declaration, the Liberty Bell was rung;
Whereas the Liberty Bell was named for the Biblical inscription from Leviticus 25:10 emblazoned around it: `Proclaim liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof”;
And here's the clincher...
Therefore:
(2) recognizes that the religious foundations of faith on which America was built are critical underpinnings of our Nation's most valuable institutions and form the inseparable foundation for America's representative processes, legal systems, and societal structures;
(3) rejects, in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources; and
Here you have it ladies and gentlemen. The beginnings of a theocracy. The obsession with religious litmus tests of each candidate that now takes up vast volumes of ink & airtime. The disgusting viral email campaign against Obama that paints him as "Muslim" and that he "attended a madrasa."
For nearly two centuries our concern was "can this person GOVERN?" In 30 short years we have been driven to a frightening national "divide". It won't go away by wishing it away. It certainly won't go away no matter WHO takes the Oval Office...
I doubt we have to fear that H. Res 888 will get out of committee. That really doesn't matter. The sickness that it shows us that religious fundamentalism has reached a new stage.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Irene Wagner
THAT'S the clincher? I was with you all the way until I got to "here's the clincher." Do you know how many US soldiers (and innocent civilians) died in an unwinnable war in Iraq last year because the Religious Right hoodwinked (or bought) preachers who've convinced the Evangelical Voting Bloc that it's a sin for America not to have a strong "pro-Israel" military presence in the Mid East? AND YOU THINK THE CLINCHER IS a rejection "in the strongest possible terms, any effort to remove, obscure, or purposely omit such history from our Nation's public buildings and educational resources?"????
Look dude, there are plenty of atheists in England who'd throw you back across the Atlantic Ocean if you came over and insisted they carry away large sections of Winchester Cathedral to the dump. And they'd be singing "God save the Queen" while they did it.
The way to strangle the Theocracy Movement is to have the footsoldiers (who are oftentimes reacting to pieces such as yours) to have their eyes opened to the REAL danger of theocracy. And boy, is it ever NOT the presence of a Ten Commandments plaque in a statehouse!
2 - Baritone
Marlow,
Much of my blog is dedicated to my concern for those who would usurp our current constitution replacing it with an American theocracy based on biblical law.
I have presented a few articles here in this regard. Many commenters believe I am, in effect, an alarmist, that the theocrats are fringe nutballs, and that they are effectively dead in the water.
My contention is that they are, if nothing else, a determined lot. They have had their highs and lows since the 1960s. They were riding high during Bush's first term and into his second. They managed to obtain the go ahead and funding for a number of those "faith based initiatives."
Since the midterm elections their influence has ebbed. But to think they are no longer a factor is dangerous, as witness this ridiculous bill they would like to slip through Congress. I agree with you, it likely won't get far at this juncture. But who knows what successes they may have in the future?
They have no problem with lying, apparently believing that the end justifies the means. As we know, it was no accident that our founders leaving god out of the constitution was no accident. The theocrat's unending efforts to inject our government with the laws of their god are absolutely counter to the constitution. Their effort to "take back the country for Christ" is a total misnomer. Christ never had it.
B-tone
3 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Actually, Baritone, the easist way to clarify what kind of theological roots are at the base of the American polity is to look at the Declaration of Independence.
The key phrase to look at is "Nature and Nature's God". This is not something a believing Christian or Jew would say. In this locution, the locution found in the DOI, nature stands supreme over G-d. Think about that in terms of what Irene or I might say. We would both say the opposite, and were either of us authors of this document, it would have read, "G-d and the Laws of Nature He created" with the appropriate changes in the language surrounding this phrase describing the rights that Man derives therefrom....
At best, the authors of the DOI, who were largely the authors of the Constitution of 1787, as well, could be described as Deists or Theists, but for the most part, NOT Christians (or Jews) even if they did attend a church service on Sundays.
The real dangers of theocracy are not found in putting the Ten Commandments (or the Seven Laws of Noah) on a courtroom wall. For the most part, these are de minimis requirements for civilized behavior. The de minimis rules of civilized behavior belong on any courtroom wall. That is what courts are all about - preserving the minimal requirements of civilized behavior.
4 - Baritone
I don't have a great deal of concern with where people place the TCs or set up nativity scenes around christmas. While I don't particularly like it, my main concern there is that public funds are often used for those kinds of things. And, of course, it amounts to de facto discrimination unless similar public space and funding is provided for any and all other religious traditions to set up symbols of their respective faiths as well, which is almost never done. The Jewish tradition occasionally gets a nod for a token Menorrah display, but little else. And what about providing for some kind of atheist/agnostic displays? That ain't gonna happen.
My greater concern as regards the establishment of a christian (or any type) of theocracy is what such establishment would mean to our way of life, our basic freedoms. I simply would not live in a country that was officially governed by the tenets of any religion. It would be the first step toward a totalitarian society.
Even as things are today in the U.S., there are far too many people who believe it is their right to spy on the private lives of others and to enact laws designed to prevent them from living as they wish - i.e. same sex marriage laws, etc.
Injecting biblical law into the constitution, or trashing the constitution altogether, as some have stated as their objective, would render the U.S. a very different country than it is today. How long, I wonder, would it take before such a government would have "moral police" roving around the streets, at shopping malls, in schools and other public places judging how people are dressed - perhaps demanding some christian equivalent of the hajib for women? That may sound silly, but who knows how things would progress (or, actually, regress) under a theocratic regime?
At any rate, the effects of an established American theocracy would doubtless be more far reaching than dress codes. I don't believe the threat of such a change happening is particularly high at present (perhaps in Homeland Security jargon - no more than "yellow - elevated.") Nevertheless, we need to stay aware and on our proverbial toes to counter clandestine attacks such as the proposed legislation Marlowe cites above.
B-tone
5 - P.Marlowe
Irene "dude-ettte"
I was quoting the resolution language "dude". And, in a country where we all wait for the HAMMER on everything, media, mega-massive cups of Mt. Dew, the latest sex scandal, etc., etc., I realize the resolution language might disappoint...
Let me introduce you to the word "insidious". That describes such apparently innocent resolutions... One only needs to refer to James Madison's "Memorial & Remonstrance" (1785). He faced a similar "bill" innocently introduced into the 1784 Virgina Legislature. A seemingly innocuous thing... Just promoting "morality" and allowing citizens to "earmark" taxes to be spent on ANY Christian school or church they please, or OR a person could even give the earmark to a public school!
Madison in a 15 part series tore this thing to shreds. He was ADAMANT on the COMPLETE separation of religion and government... That, indeed, it was the healthiest thing for religion itself!
As for Hitler and the early use of Christianity - yes, it was a frightful and disgusting thing. Of course Hitler himself was anti-Christian - felt it was one of the key elements that "weakened" his mythical "Arian" state....
I should state this... I am anything but anti-religious. I believe in the "manifestations" of God and certainly believe that there is something more to this world than the cement beneath my feet and the coins in my pocket...
What is infuriating to me is the USE of religion to further personal ends. I am an absolute ENEMY of ALL religious fanaticism - no matter its stripe of denomination.
I detest Forbes and his efforts. I reject anyone so desperate to foist their religio-psychosis on to others that they will gleefully rewrite history itself...
Having taught early Christian history in schools/college I have always found that one of the weakest elements of the Christian community of this country is their near absolute ignorance over their OWN history and development. I think were they to learn it the ARROGANCE would come right out of them.
It would certainly take NOTHING away from the power and majesty of the Message of Jesus Christ.
Marlowe
6 - Irene Wagner
"Dudette" works, Marlowesbeef, and is better than "Ms." by a dang sight.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Ruvy and Marlowesbeef, isn't the truth about the spiritual inclinations of the founders somewhere between the statements "not a single one of them believed in the Biblical God of the Hebrews" and "every last one of them was a card-carrying homeschooled Southern Baptist?" The Great Awakening as well as the Enlightenment influenced these men, and the collaboration of men touched with either or both of those influences is reflected in the Declaration of Independence. Marlowesbeef, if that's the balanced perspective from which you teach your history classes, hats off to you!
What got me tearing my hair out ("dude!") was the frustration of reading this piece with the eyes of one who sees from two worlds. On one hand, I see people of faith being marshalled under a flag that looks like God's flag, but is being waved by people who are cynically using their simple faith and patriotism for evil ends, the way Hitler, an occultist who cared nothing for Christ, hoodwinked and rallied postWWI German Christians (as well as his co-religionists) around his nationalist movement. And I also see the world through the eyes of those people of faith, and I understand the forces that threaten them and make Forbes look like a hero. I hear Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins and their "religion is evil" "Christians should not be allowed to pass their faith on to their children." And I watch in city after city, atheists who lack the sense of history (or even a sense of humor) of our friend Baritone, rolling in like Grinch every Christmas trying to root out traditions that have been followed in that community for years before the evil seeds of theocracy took root. Divide and conquer. It's one of the oldest strategies of war.
We agree on the problem Marlowesbeef. So, what are we going to do about it, without further polarizing American society?
7 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Baritone,
I don't know about you, but I went to law school for a year. If I'd had to study Gemará for a few years like yeshiva boys do, I'd have succeeded in law school. But I didn't go to yeshiva, so I didn't succeed in law school.
However, I did learn something about the origin of the English common law that is the basis of what is American law. A good deal of the law developed from ecclesiastical courts, or courts of chancery. In case you didn't know, ecclesiastical courts were church courts, and a good deal of what had been known as "equity" in English common law was developed from the law as interpreted by ecclesiastical judges. If you look at the Torah and the standard law book of two or three centuries ago, you see how much of the Jewish code of law made it into the law books of the colonies and states. This is simply because Protestant countries used the Torah as the guidebook for developing law, and no matter how you slice the American pie, even if the founders were not davka Christians, their background was predominantly Protestant.
So, there is no issue of trying to inject the Bible into the law books. If anything, the issue in modern day America is removing the Bible from the law books; i.e. decriminalizing adultery, legalizing homosexual behavior, legalizing shacking up, etc.
In fact, the concepts of interpreting the law (legal logic) are found, not in the Bible, but in the works of Maimonides, a Jewish legal scholar who lived ten centuries ago. Naturally the Protestants who developed the law did not necessarily use those precise concepts, but they used concepts similar.
Again, the trend is not trying to stick the Bible into legal interpretation, but rather attempting to take it out. Here, I can't be so generous with examples. I flunked law school, so I do not have all these concepts in my head. And I am not a dayán, a judge of Jewish law, so I cannot rattle off the concepts of Maimonides. Nu, we all can't be perfect....
But hopefully, you do get the idea.
In short, a lot of this is a tempest in a teapot, something unusual for our friend Marlowe to write about.
As for your desires for an atheistic something or other to put up for holidays, or whatever, what holidays? What something or other? Think about it. Atheists have to develop a religion to insist on religious equality, boychick....
Denying G-d has its price....
8 - Baritone
Ruvy,
The Atheistic display line was in jest. The only reason I would want any "holidays" would just be to have more days off work. In fact they don't have to be "holy days" at all. More observances like Labor Day, Independence Day and the like would be just fine. No religious context needed or desired.
I don't look upon it as a "tempest in a teapot" at all.
What religionists want everyone to believe is that morality and ethics emanate ONLY from a belief in and adherence to a god. However, as I have asserted, atheists and agnostics are perhaps no more, but certainly no less moral and ethical than people of faith. Morality and ethics come from an understanding that the maintenance of civilization requires certain behaviors independent of any religious considerations. That is one thing that the U.S. founding fathers understood.
That these moral and ethical codes became part of most religious traditions is incidental. Most members of the literati of any period that had a written language were usually connected to the religious hierarchy. It naturally follows that such codes would first appear in religious texts, owing to the fact that they were the only "texts" being written. Certainly, since before the supposed time of christ, the church, in one form or another was, at least until the Renaissance, the only literary game in town. Most early European governments were joined at the hip with the church. It has only been the last few hundred years that more secular governments have come to the fore. That they retain much of what came before is only owing to the fact that morality, ethics and the basis of common law are pretty much universal because they apply to the same entity: Humanity.
Theocrats are certainly NOT looking to remove biblical tenets from government, as you seem to suggest, but are intent upon usurping or totally scrapping the constitution to be replaced specifically by christian biblical law. How that differs from, say, the Taliban escapes me. The result could well be much the same. It certainly would not amount to business as usual.
B-tone
9 - P.Marlowe
Dudette (Irene)... Your question (#6) is a heavy one... How DO we keep America from furthering polarizing?
A wise man once said that "the flames of religious fanaticism are unquenchable."
Having spent a number of years fighting forest fires I can tell you that the main goal is to not so much put out the fire that is raging - at that moment - but rather to deprive it of FUEL as it tries to grow...
You cannot reason with the insanity of religious fanatics. It is impossible. Locked as they are into ABSOLUTE certainty that they and THEY ALONE hear the Voice of God they reject all rational argument...
What we must do is take away the FUEL... If we educate and speak to the masses that are most likely to give ear to these people, if, before this viral psychosis sets in we give them a vaccine... Then we've accomplished something.
It is hard work. We're lucky that in this culture, with our particular axiology, religious fanaticism takes longer to set up and begin spreading... Not so unfortunately for most the lands under Islam.
There self-asserted "holy men" warp the minds of the ignorant, uneducated and desperate millions . Not only are these people prone to this - but, given THEIR axiology, and the BOOT of PATRIARCHAL relationship in that culture it is extraordinarily difficult for anyone to speak out against the insanity of these holy men. Middle East/West Asian culture FORBIDS arguing with any patriarchal figure. It is SIMPLY NOT DONE. Unless you want your throat slit - and perhaps that of your family too...
This madness IS NOT ISLAM.... Islam simply emerged in that arena... And if people really study the Qu'ran they'll see the Muhammad did a lot to try and mitigate the worse features of this axiology... But it was 1500 years ago, in a sea of ignorance, and nearly immediately after His passing His long time enemies who had JUST "accepted" Islam before His passing turned to trying to taking over the fledgling Movement.
(That's a whole other story)
Yes Irene, there is a way to deal - in this country at least - with this religious intolerance... But it is gonna take work, patience, and refusal to back down...
Marlowe
10 - Irene Wagner
Marlowe I might have heard the well-appreciated encouragement "to refuse to back down" at a bit of an untimely moment on BC this morning! Just the same, I will remember what you said with gratitude. Oh! How I wish more Jews and Christians and Muslims...and even atheists...would try to understand one another better. You don't have to convert to religion or a-religion to have a working vocabulary about matters of God and faith and...life. Anyway, thanks.
11 - Sam James
Shoddy writing. The theocratic fear mongering has been tried again and again, and always it's in the form of a drive-by talking points piece, rather than serious social analysis. You don't actually show how the bill "distorts history," you just assume we should take such an objective source like The Nation's word for it. And where is the serious evidence for such a splitting of the Republican party? It doesn't exist.
12 - Dan Miller
According to the author, "What is most disturbing " in conjunction with Dave Nalle's article here on BC concerning Huckabee (Why Mike Huckabee Scares Me) is that we are beginning to see the real Balkanization of America."
I agree that there is real Balkanization of America; I don't agree that we are just beginning to see it. It has been coming for quite a long time.
As an agnostic or atheist (terms have to be defined, but that is probably not necessary here), I have long been worried about the religious right. I am less worried now. It seems to me that the Balkanization is coming mainly from my fellow agnostics/atheists, who appear to be intent upon removing all vestiges of Christian religion from public life. Christmas trees, Easter bunnies and the like don't worry me at all. If the town of East Sweet Jesus wants to have a Christmas tree in the town square, it doesn't bother me a bit. However, I do worry about those who would demand that it not be there.
The United States does have a history, and Christianity is part of that history. By denying that it is a valid part of our tradition, my colleagues try to rewrite history. The Confederacy is also a part of our history -- like it or not -- and to demand that Confederate flags not be displayed anywhere because they offend is, to my view, bad.
Myopic views of Life, the Universe and Everything tend to be destructive. And myopic views held by my agnostic/atheist colleagues are no less destructive than those held by Bible (I almost wrote "Bile") bashing Baptists.
One other point: by waging what a noted Fox commentator calls the "War on Christmas," my agnostic/atheist colleagues are further Balkanizing the country. By attacking fairly harmless Christmas trees and Easter Bunnies, they are causing the Baptist Bible Bashers to respond, with vigor, and to blow the whole issue way out of proportion. Let it be.
13 - Baritone
Dan,
As I noted above, I am an atheist. But, I tend to agree with you from a personal standpoint. I've grown up with Christmas trees (had one in my living room a few weeks ago,) Easter decorations and the like. They are not offensive to me.
However, the so called "War on Christmas" and other opposition to religious symbols posted on public property is based, first on the Constitutional separation of church and state which is no small matter. Second, the fact that such displays are often paid for with public funds IS offensive to me and others.
Right wingers in particular are always harping against taxes of any kind, yet they have no problem with public money being used for religious displays. It may not be much money in the larger scheme of things, but still, some part of it is mine. They won't approve funds for any type of Atheistic display (whatever the hell that might be,) I simply object to my tax dollars being spent for religious displays, and I don't approve of government sanctioning of religious symbols or active participation in religious observances.
There are any number of places in any community where such displays can be set up - say any or all of the myriad of churches, synagogues, temples and the like where they can display anything they wish within, I suppose, some limits set by community standards. Why the hell is it necessary to use the courthouse lawn or the lobby of city hall? Why should I pay for them? This has little to do with "Balkinization." It has to do with the Constitution and the proper use of public funds.
Baritone
14 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Baritone,
"Certainly, since before the supposed time of christ, the church, in one form or another was, at least until the Renaissance, the only literary game in town."
Think carefully about what you have written in the quote above. There was no church before the death of Jesus - period. Just as there is no denarius coin dated 7 B.C.
I'm sure you are as ethical and as moral as the next guy, and that most atheists or agnostics are as well. I was one myself once, after all. But when I read your posts, I see that they are infused with Christian morality. That is not meant as an insult, that is simply a reflection of the fact that while you may deny G-d's existence, the ideas that you regard as moral and ethical come straight from Christianity. The same is true for Chris Rose. He doesn't appear to be an immoral person either. But his values are largely Christian values. If you get out of a bathtub having used Palmolive Soap, you're going to smell from Palmolive Soap, it's as simple as that. If you used Ivory Soap, you'll smell from Ivory Soap. Religion is like the soap you use.
In other words, whatever your own religious beliefs are, the country's moral values reflect its Christian majority.
As for religious tyranny, come here and watch how the "super-orthodox" Jews deal with their women and with each other. Then you'll begin to comprehend what religious tyranny is.
Or better yet, drive through Squaretown, NY on a Saturday afternoon - if you dare.... Look the place up on Wikipedia and you'll see what I'm talking about.
15 - P.Marlowe
Sam the man!
Hope college is going well for you. Sorry my writing was "shoddy" in your eyes. I've read your website...
...
Anyway... Apparently you've been off planet for the past 30 years, otherwise you would be aware that this concern over an increasingly "radicalized" Christian Right grows each year.
[Let me stop right here and correct any assumptions you've made - esp., on your home page... I'm not, as you term it, a secularist. Indeed if you'd read my follow up comments you'd know this - shoddy reading that...]
As for the LACK of some long tome concerning "social analysis" I've found that on most sites, including BC, one tends to lose readers if their middle finger gets cramps for all the scrolling having to be done. That being said I looked at your home page for gripping, in depth analysis...
...
...
Anyway, the evidence is so overwhelming concerning the fracture lines I wouldn't think one would have to ACTUALLY point it out...
One example of this evidence should suffice: the exhausting LITMUS TEST all presidential candidates have to go through.
This simply didn't exist 30 years ago. The biggest "uproar" that occurred was Kennedy's being Catholic. He answered that he wasn't going to be taking calls from Rome (essentially) and that was the end of that.
As a matter of fact, way-back-when it was considered the height of rude behavior to ask after a public figures "personal" spiritual beliefs.
BUT, as the Republican Machine was re-energized to elect Reagan, one of the KEY STRATEGIES was to reach out to the more conservative areas of the country and PURPOSELY begin stirring the pot so to speak. Sure, there was a lot of unexpressed anger, unfocused too. But brilliant (albeit evil in my mind) men, such as Paul Rarick... Well, it best to just go listen to one of his many speeches (if you can find them)esp., those addressed to "concerned Christian" audiences back 20 years ago...
I've watched speeches by "Christian" Army officers (including a general)who - early on in the Iraq war - told their Christian audiences that "we are at the beginning of a new crusade!"
Back to the litmus test... We've seen this insanity go from a few probing, intrusive questions 20 years ago to now being a "national" media obsession. Yah. A media controlled NOT by the right-wing Christians but major corporations now THEMSELVES runs candidates through the litmus test RINSE CYCLE - REPEATEDLY - as if it has become an essential FEATURE of the run for the oval office!
The list of things I can point out Sam is MILES long... I just assumed my audience was familiar enough with current history that I wouldn't have to.
Marlowe
16 - troll
Ruvy - what the fuck is going on in the strip - ?
17 - Irene Wagner
I'm hoping we'll hear from him, too, troll.
Just one last word from me on theocracy. I had referred to "the evil seeds of theocracy," and I didn't want anyone who beleives in God the wrong idea. When God selects a nation of earth to establish His theocracy, EVERYONE'S going to know Who's running the place, EVERYONE will be bending the knee, even those who didn't believe before. There isn't going to be any discussion about whether an individual who claims to speak for God really is speaking for God. I'm talking...the Mount of Olives will be splitting in two when He touches down on it.
I don't expect an event like that to be happening in the good ol' USA, or anyplace other than in the general vicinity of the Mount of Olives: Israel. I'd be suspicious of "evil seeds" if one tried to establish a theocracy anyplace else on earth.
18 - Jet in Columbus
Rather than a 40 paragraph platitude, which no one will read past the 2nd or third, I'll simply say that this is a great article, which I plan to e-mail to a few friends, I'll simply say that the first sign was..
when they added IN GOD WE TRUST, onto our money which originally wasn't there...
The second was when they added UNDER GOD, to our pledge of allegiance, which originally wasn't there.
The third was the sudden appearance of American Flags in church sanctuaries across this land teaching our children that the cross and the flag were one and the same... despite the commandment about worshipping false idols beside god... or the First Amendment against establishing a state religion.
Wake up people...
19 - Baritone
Ruvy,
Ah, but from whence did the christians gather their moral values? Perhaps from the Jewish tradition, which gathered from where? It is all of a piece.
Certainly there are variations to be found. There are obviously people who have chosen to remain buried in the Middle Ages.
Nevertheless, neither Jews nor Christians nor any other traditions for that matter created their moral compass out of whole cloth (mixed metaphor?) It evolved over centuries, just I stated above, concomitant with the development of civilization.
What we consider to be moral and ethical behavior is in many respects to be found most everywhere in the world regardless of the predominant traditions. Wouldn't you concede that the very fact that it is the nature of our humanity and what it takes to build and maintain a viable social structure at the heart of morality, ethics and law? Religious traditions simply usurped them as their creation and purvue after the fact.
As to my statement regarding the history of the church: You are of course correct that the "church" did not exist until after the time of Christ. What I was refering to, and failed to say properly was organized, mono-theistic religion, which of course predates Christ. My error was more a matter of semantics than substance.
Again, my argument is simply that morality did not rise up from religion, but rather the opposite. Religious traditions formed around the already developing moral, ethical and legal structures in the respective societies. But each tradition tends to claim them as their own creations via the directives of their gods, and then claim their god as the sole source of morality.
B-tone
20 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Hmmm.....
I seem to have found an unlikely ally in Irene, even though she and I disagree about quite a bit.
I have to agree with her. If a true theocracy is to operate, it will not be in the United States. It will be here. And it will not be some stupid backwards uncivilized "mullah-ocracy" like you see in the Thugdom of Unhappy Arabs or in the mutilated Persia of today.
You will see civilization of the highest order.
As to Gaza, it is finally breaking down. The prisoners are fleeing their cells, and the Egyptians are either powerless to do anything about it or don't understand what they are facing.
Gaza has been an open air prison for over almost six decades, first under the iron heel of Egypt and then under the sometimes ironed heel of Israel. Now, it's gone hog wild, and frankly the Gazans are Egypt's problem now, not ours. let them pay for the what they have created.
But, as long as their terrorists fire rockets onto Israeli territory, they are engaging in war, and we are entitled to reciprocate. And we are entitled to make that war as hellish as possib le.
As for me, I'd blockade all food, water, electricity, medicine and gasoline from going into Gaza. I'd not launch any raids at all, nor risk any Israeli soldier in any way at all except to enforce that blockade. People drinking seawater in the dark and chewing their own vomit for lack of what else to eat may think twice about constantly trying to murder off Jews. And they may start to murder off the terrorists who have made them starve and drink seawater. Let them see the light on their own, in the darkness of their own despair and depravity.
If anyone on the outside wants to complain? The complaint department is on the third floor of the World Trade Center #7 in New York. Let them go there, take a number and wait on line.
21 - Colin
Loathe though I am to agree with anyone (at all, ever, ever ever) I have to say I find Irene's comments reasoned, informed and... KING, HELPFUL, POLITE AND THOUGHTFUL too (far too rare comodities on the blogowebosphereonet). I wish you'd post some articles Irene, I'm sure they'd be illuminating. She's also been very patient of my theocratic ignorance on one occasion - although the failure to award me a bun for spotting that the UN is not the cause of global terrorism is a demerit and has been noted as such. I like buns, do you see?
Ruvy, I know this is neither the time nor the place but I must say your comments on Israel/Palestine really kill any hope in me - that conflict is (or is used as an excuse for) the cause of such conflict in the region and further afield and yet you don't seem to see any way of it ending.
I'm aware that I am not hugely well-informed on the matter - my approach would be I DON'T CARE WHO STARTED IT - BOTH OF YOU STOP IT NOW! - but do you really see such little chance of a two state solution? (And, I fully take on board that most states in the region are pretty vile and certainly a long way from the democracy Israel is, allowed to persist as long as they chuck the oil/arms deals in the right direction).
22 - Irene Wagner
I can't wait for Messiah to come back. Too many tears in this old world. And I'm leaving it at that. Be safe, Ruvy.
Baritone--one of these days I think it would be interesting to have a discussion about the origins of religion: did polytheism really evolve into monotheism? Or did God and mankind's ancient common ancestors have a closer relationship than we do now? Did those earliest men, "fresh from the earth" learn directly from their Creator his standards of behavior, did He teach them what to do when those standards were not met? (It's odd that so many major world religions and isolated folk religions feauture or at one time featured blood sacrifices, to keep men aware of the horrible consequences of sin and selfishness) Did God give those earliest ancestors---who despaired of all the corruption and suffering they already saw around them--a vision of what a restored world without sin would be like? Did God preserve seeds of that knowledge in various cultures, even after they'd rebelled and moved away from Him?
I think He did. I may be around when that discussion happens, or maybe I won't be.
23 - Irene Wagner
LOL Colin, thankyou. And here's your bun (I hope you like cinnamon and raisins). You'll need the nourishment if you're going toe to toe on Reuven on matters of Israel. He believes what He believes, and that passionately. God bless all of you.
24 - Colin
Cheers Irene, I shall grill it with bacon later on... By the way, you've also been marked down for use of "England" when referring to Britain... But the bun is splendid. Ruvy's another whose comments I respect because he too, is generally, well mannered. I've pretty much given up on arguing (my pacifist anarchism don't cross over none too well), I come here to 'talk' and/or learn (I've never met an Israeli - thanks to the 'netoscope, I can at least talk to one... and, yes I wish there was a Palestinian I could talk to here too), and occasionally to have a larf, innit?
Rock and pop.
25 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
My apologies in advance to Marlowe, who posted an article on the possibility of a theocracy in the United States.
Going off topic.
Colin,
First let's analyze the concept of the "two-state solution" and see if has been tried elsewhere and if it has been a success.
The partition of the Emerald Isle into the Irish Republic and the Province of Northern Ireland:
The Emerald Isle was partition largely to assuage the Protestant Irishmen and the Orange Order. In spite of the partition, Ireland was largely an exporter of Irishmen until the 1980's when German investment changed the situation there. Northern Ireland, from the Northern Irishmen I've known, both Catholic and Protestant, has been treated as a British Puerto Rico for the last eight decades or so.
I suggested to one Protestant lady I know in Belfast that the Protestants would do far better as a large minority in the Dail Eirann (about ¼) than a lousy six or eight or ten MP's in the Westminster Parliament. She told me that her husband felt exactly the same way. Has the two state solution there really worked? Honestly, I do not think so. It has cost too many lives and could be much better if the Emerald Isle were one country. If I remember, Chris Rose had to serve part of his military service in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. Heck, ask him. He was there!
The partition of Indian Empire into the Union of India and the Republic of Pakistan:
Burma was truly a separate entity and should have been separated from the Indian Empire. But presently, India has the second largest number of Moslems on the planet, more than the Moslem country of Pakistan. The partition only caused much war and heartbreak, and resulted in several wars between the two successor states. East Pakistan is now the failed Republic of Bangladesh, and West Pakistan is in turmoil bordering on civil war. I would not call this a success either.
Now, a two-state solution imposed here, against the background of two significant failures would be a disaster at best. An Arab "Palestine" in Judea and Samaria would not be self sufficient at all, and would seek to take over the neighboring "Jordanian" state to attain some kind of viability. Further, the land west of the Jordan River is economically one unit, not two or three.
A more realistic solution would be to grant Jordanian citizenship to the Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, encourage their full participation in the affairs of the Kingdom of Jordan, and to encourage them to move there or elsewhere OVER TIME (a generation or two) with sufficient financial compensation so that they would no longer be poor refugees.
They do not deserve to be poverty stricken or imprisoned in refugee camps with terrorists inciting them to murder and revolt constantly and robbing them of what little money they are able to make now. The truth is that there is a certain amount of prosperity in Samaria (I see its signs among Arabs whenever I ride the bus along Route 60, which runs the backbone of the Judean Mountains), and this prosperity could with a real peace be spread amongst the other Arabs in Judea and Samaria. Gaza will have to solve itself, and if a significant portion of Gazan Arabs choose refugee status in El-Arish, the finger can be pointed at the Egyptians to absorb their Arab brothers, or somehow make arrangements for them to be compensated and moved to Jordan. They get enough American money, that's for sure. Let them bear the costs of the hell they have created.