Theocracy on the Left?

Those on the left are a heterogeneous lot. COnservative Christians from other countries tend to be more politically liberal. I myself am a Christian Fundamentalist

Next, what is the difference between a theocracy and a morally run system? Are you saying that if we want to avoid theocracies, we should also avoid morals?

But there is a big difference and the devil is in the details. That is whereas morally based systems revolve around basic tenets, theocracies use a spiritually oriented micromanaging approach. One can see that just while studying religions. The more liberal a believer is, the more that believer looks for general truths and, in particular, ethical principles to guide behaviors. Whereas , the more conservative a believer is, the more that person looks to the law to tell him/her how to handle each situation. In addition, liberals tend to discount the supernatural and be inclusive whereas conservatives declare that the supernatural roots of a religion are an essential part of the faith.

No, I am not saying one should avoid morals. Again, my argument is that the left is trying to impose their ethics upon the economic system. Which si odd, as they say we should not do that when it comes to any other choices.

The point is, ethics is an individual area, and should not be imposed. The state should simply keep us from violating the rights of one another, and leave it to each of us to follow our own ethical lights.

Or do you know you are right to such a degree that you would impose your ethics upon everyone? And if you are not 100%$ certain, then how can you force others to follow your ethics, knowing you may be forcing one or more into error where otherwise they would behave correctly?

The state is not the tool for imposing ethics, and that is true whether it is theocracy or any other ethical system. The state exists to keep us free form violation of rights, and that is it. The rest of ethics must be an individual, or at least a non-governnmental social function.

And your attempt to distinguish between liberal totalitarianism and conservative totalitarianism is just silly. Does it matter if the dictator is "more open" or not? It is akin to Nazis and communists denouncing one another. Who cares which flavor of tyranny lords over you? I don't care if your ethics are "scientific" or "open" or "inclusive", tyranny is tyranny. So, as I said, it doesn't matter if it conservative or liberals imposing their ethics, it is not a proper use of the state.

In spite of your claims about socialist states and their successes, capitalism in a democratic republic is the most successful type of government in the history of the world. The USA has done more good for the poor, liberated more of the oppressed, and led the way in technology that has been beneficial to the entire world to one degree or more, than any nation in history, period. It is fact, indisputable, historic fact.

The USA tolerates those who tolerate differing beliefs. We only exert force when oppressive force is used on helpless poeple. Your interpretation of US history is skewed, factless, and nought but propaganda by those who would rule you absolutely.

The Constitution was and IS still the best document for governence of free and tolerant men.

No amount of distortion of history can make it otherwise.

Glenn Flowers

Again you place your position in a dilemma.

On one hand you say "No, I am not saying one should avoid morals" but on the other hand you say "The state is not the tool for imposing ethics, and that is true whether it is theocracy or any other ethical system"

And exactly what did the state do when Martin Luther King was advocating equality for Blacks? He was advocating morals and ethics. Was the State wrong for eventually following his lead?

Either you advocate a state that is totally amoral, which means a whole mess of laws governing violence, fraud, and theft are done away with, or you advocate a state that does insist on morals and ethics to some degree.

Finally I wasn't attempting to distinguish any totalitarianism. All I was saying was that liberal approaches to religion tend to identify the core of any religion in more general moral laws while conservative approaches to religion tend to deal with specifics. Those who deal with religion in more abstract terms tend not to be dictators at all. If you wish to say that any imposition of morals establishes a dictatorship, then how do you describe our current gov't both now and during the later 20th century?

The advocacy of morals does not imply dictatorship. Rather, morals act as a limit, just as the amendments to the Constitution do, to how far parties from either the private or public sectors can go in their treatment of others. I certainly see no dictatorship there.

WHo have we freed lately. If you ask the people of Afghanistan if the US freed them, the people from Kabel will say yes and those who are under the rule of the war lords outside of Kabel will say no.

If you ask the people of Iraq, they will tell you that activism forced the US to give into elections, the US immediately replaced General Garner when he planned to hold elections in 90 days, and that Iraq gov't officials withstood US pressure to give favors to US oil companies. In addition, US and Irqi activism have given the Iraqis hope that the US will not complete the task of making certain bases permanent.

If you ask the Kurds from Turkey they can tell you that the US aided Turkey in its efforts to slaughter the Kurds and suppress any expression of Kurdish culture. If you ask Nicaraguans of the 1980s, they can tell you that the US used terrorism to eliminate the Sandistas who established elections and a certain measure of Free speech--more than what existed in US backed El Salvador. If you ask Chileans, they will point to Pinochet whom the US help installed as they replaced the Chilean democratic gov't. If you were in Greece in 1967, you would have witnessed the US installing a military dictatorship when the elections were not going American way. If you were Cuba, you would have seen why Castro turned to the USSR after the US conducted many terrorist attacks prior to the allegiance between the two.

Certainly there are other ventures we can mention. The point is no, we don't stand for democracy in the world. We care more about who is in control rather than did the people get the leaders they chose. Even here, with free elections, we are a managed society where people are constantly told who they can vote for--it is just done in a manipulative way rather than a coercive way.

Do you remember the reaction of the Iraqi people when Sadam was sent running from Baghdad? What would the president of Afghanistan say regarding his country now, and his country in 2002? We are still fighting to free all of that country to govern themselves.

There was no pressure from the US on Iraq to give "favors" to US oil companies. If we had wanted their oil that bad, we could have had it without Iraqi permission or interference.

The reason elections were not held immediately was security of the people and the election process. Elections were held when the provisional leaders thought it was safe, the elected leaders still hold office today.

It was Sadam who sought to wipe out the Kurds, the Turks gave them refuge. Sadam still attacked the Kurds and used bioweapons against them whenever they sought to occupy the land they knew as home, inside Sadam's Iraq.

The only election the Sandanistas ever established was for a dictatorship where even a "certain measure" of free speech was banned under Ortega, and still is, under Ortega.

When Allende was "elected" president of Chile, Soviet troops swarmed into Chile and set up training bases for communist insurgents from across Latin America. Granted, the US under Nixon did no good there. Pinochet was a murderer and tyrant.

On July 19,2004 George W.bush initiates an investigation into American banks' support of Pinochet which uncovers many illegal foreign activities. Banks are forced to make reperations to Chile ending the Us'smeddling in that county's affairs.

In Greece, the People of Greece declared their contempt for the Soviet backed party attempting to bring Greece into the USSR. American support of military leaders and the greek King, Constantine prevented this and led to parliamentary elections in 1974.

Anywhere America has supported a coup or takeover, Chile excepted, it has been in furtherance of a democracy or in opposition to a dictatorship.

While not perfect in its decisions, America has been on the side of freedom and democratic reform in 100% of its intent. It has never sided with oppressors or tyrants, knowingly.
We have always been on the side of the people, not a certain leader. The leaders supported were, almost 100% of the time, for liberty and freedom.
YOu must read your history better.

Glenn

PS:If being American is so unimportant as you claim in your blog, why not go to Cuba, or Venezuela, and live your beliefs? Tom Hayden did. He came back though, a changed American.

And do you know that since 2005 when the British Ministry of Defense took a poll, that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis wanted us out. In fact, there was a 2004 poll that stated the same. We eliminated Saddamn but was our purpose liberation or were we forced into it? We had designs on their oil from the beginning and that was testified by Bush appointees before Congress. We unsuccessfully guarded the oil and left weapons caches and cultural treasures unguarded.

And again, we fought against elections in Iraq and the elections won. We replaced one leader but Iraqi activism, along with the insurgency, was too great.

Why is it so important for conservatives to be able congratulate themselves and think that the world sees them as liberators. It doesn't and while Bush was in office, the world saw the US as one of the greatest threats to peace.

And there is the partial record I already cited.

BTW, there was no swarming of Soviet troops in Chile. Rather, what did occur were leftest measures designed to help the people there. T Then consider that we didn't replace a democracy with a democracy. We replaced it with a brutal dictatorship. Even Colin Powell recognized that our coup in Chile was a dark moment for us.

This BS about Russian troops or the Communists were part of CIA propaganda starting from 1964 when Allende received in the upper 30% of the vote. Then the CIA invested very heavily into Chilean politics with scare tactics.

Having a friend from Chile, I can tell you that your accusations were wrong and the Chileans still do not look kindly on our actions.

Next, having friends who are Iraqis, I can tell you that your interpretation is a bit different from theirs. THe benchmarks included PSA agreements that were never mentioned here. The US put pressure on the Iraqi parliament and then one or two years later on the Oil Minister to give preferential treatment to our oil companies.

Btw, our reluctance with regards to election did not have to do with security, it had to do with control. And Iraqi activism, along with the insurgency loosened that control.

What we claimed was successful, the surge, was not a big part of calming Iraq down. First, you had up to 1.2 million Iraqis dead from the war. You had 4.7 million displaced and American troops segregated the people. But what really calmed things down was American money. We paid the insurgents to join our side and they took the money. The question becomes what will happen when our money leaves?

WIth regards to Nicargua, our beef was that the Sandinistas replaced the American backed dictator, Somoza. The Sandinistas ran elections and allowed much more freedom of speech than the US client state El Salvador. Though they had their faults, the common person in Nicaragua was seen improvements in their quality of life until we funded Contra terrorism that attacked soft targets. That, in conjunction with embargoes and other tactics caused the Sandinistas to be voted out. Ortega has been voted back in.

America has rarely been on the side of democracy for others. America has been on the side of business interests and control. Our history shows this to be true. Only those who are compelled to flatter themselves disagree.

A man with as many friends in convenient areas of the world as you, and having the philosophy of disdain toward America that you do, maybe you, kinda, go live with one of them.

I will trust the History Channel's version of Soviet bases in Chile over yours or your "friend's".

I also have friends here in the US who are Iraqis and they hold G. W. Bush in high regard. And we never did give much of a hoot about their oil, except that they should have the benefit of it.

You are so wrong about almost all of what you claim, according to independant, multinational intelligence, journalist's reports, and first person testimony.

Either you are just uncapable of discerning the nature of reality, or you are purposely distorting American history as part of a mission you have set for yourself.

Who knows.

Go to Cuba. You'd be very happy there, and us the same without you. We don't need your type of dissension.

I done with you.
Glenn

Perhaps your rose colored glasses view of America prevents you from seeing reality. It certainly prevents you from distinguishing those who have legitimate criticisms of America from those who want America to fall.

Seeing the vigor with which you criticize every aspect of America, the blatantly anti-American tone of your own blogs, and the willingness to believe the worst distortions of American history, I don't for one second accept the premise that your criticisms are legitimate. Rather it is apparent that you would delight in the fall of this great nation, and are doing your part to effect that outcome.

I have legitimate criticisms of the USA, you hate the USA.

You can't spit in my face and then claim it's raining. And you can't write the smarmy crud you do and not wish for the fall of America.

Glenn

As you have probably read, I am still out of shape today, though I have tried to post daily to keep the blog interesting. But I am afraid I have not kept up on the comments, or even gotten to all old comments yet.

Sorry for not writing more in response. I will try my best to catch up on old comments and responds to long series such as this.

But at the moment, this one is just too long, and you seem to be doing well enough pounding on one another, so I will beg off on replying to this for the moment, and come back a bit later in the bloodletting.

Try not to be too brutal. Well, unless it is really entertaining. In the case of really amusing arguments my objection to blood sports is waived.

Wanting your country to act morally is hardly hatred for one's country.