So here we have an individual that admittedly states that God spoke to him and instructed him to bomb ‘non-Christian’ terrorists. If the average person were to have stated the same, and tried to enact the same, this person would have been jailed and forced to undergo psychiatric therapy. A rational thinking individual could conclude that politicians are exempt from such penalization.
Of course it doesn’t hurt to have Christian militarism to help implement divine policy as well; take for example the Christian Fundamentalist, Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin. A quote from the Los Angeles Times:
“He went on CNN and he laughed at us, and he said, 'They'll never get me because Allah will protect me. Allah will protect me.' Well, you know what? I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol."
Then there are these insightful words:
"As a Christian I believe that there is a spiritual war that is continuous as articulated in the Bible. It is not confined to the war of terrorism."
 |
| Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin |
On September 26, 2009, Boykin gave an address at a How to Take Back America Conference in St. Louis, Missouri - hosted by the Eagle Forum. According to the Canada Free Press, General Boykin asked the audience. "What are you prepared to give up for America? Are you willing to pay the ultimate price?" He followed up with warning, "there is no greater threat to America than Islam.”
“Here is the way I want to enter the gates of Heaven. I want to come skidding in there on all fours. I want to be slipping and sliding and I want to hit the gates of heaven with a bang. And when I stand up and I stand before Christ, I want there to be blood on my knees and my elbows. I want to be covered with mud. And I want to be standing there with a ragged breast plate of righteousness. And a spear in my hand. And I want to say, "Look at me, Jesus. I've been in the battle. I've been fighting for you." Ladies and gentlemen, put your armor on and get into battle. God bless you.”
When God-inspired politicians and militarists aren’t itching to bomb impecunious and necessitous foreigners, they focus their noisome rhetoric at home. Rick Santorum states it quite succinctly;
“Unlike Islam, where the higher law and the civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws. But our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. … As long as abortion is legal—at least according to the Supreme Court—legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law.”
What other laws are considered by the religious aristos to be contrary to divine law? In a similar vein, what laws must be enacted to facilitate a transformation from secular law and order to a quasi-theocratic model? If God’s laws are to replace society’s laws you will inevitably have the usurpation of individual liberties; "you may not believe in our god, but you damn well will follow his laws. We, the anointed of course, will make sure that said laws are followed or we’ll pray you to jail." How beneficent indeed. Try to imagine what form our country will take if this manifests; we’ll have the egocentric trappings of political power interlocked with archaic religiosity. This form of politico-religious inertia needs to be stifled at all costs. The moral and ethical values within a society can evolve without the injection of pseudo-Christianic virtues. Watch the proceeding video and draw your own conclusion.
We are led to believe, to the point of inculcation, that we are a Judeo-Christian nation. All objective morality is derived from this source. If this true and thus becomes the standard, what are we to expect from individuals that embody this principle? Let me provide for you a few specimens that are a suitable reflection of this moral system.
Former Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, is a ‘practicing’ Episcopalian that showed us the measure of his faith. Mr. Sanford was found to be having an affair with an Argentinean woman named, Maria Belen Chapur. To his credit, if such can be extended, Sanford stated that he sought counsel from a fanatical religious organization called, The Family (also The Fellowship); apparently it provided little assistance in this matter. One can’t help but remember Sanford’s devotional statement, “It is my personal view that the largest proclamation of one’s faith ought to be in how one lives his life.” Indeed Sir.
Next on our list is John Edwards, former U.S. Senator of North Carolina. Mr. Edwards was indicted on June 3, 2011 by a North Carolina grand jury on six felony charges; four counts of collecting illegal campaign contributions, one count of conspiracy and one count of making false statements. The trial date for this United Methodist is set for January 30, 2012. A man, who opposes gay marriage due to his religion, cheated on his wife – a brave woman that died of metastatic breast cancer in December of 2010. “My faith informs everything I think and do. It’s part of my value system.” Interesting isn’t it, a religious man that wants to preserve the sanctity of marriage, yet he himself is a philanderer.
"I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9, I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."
Finally there is Newt Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, and probably the closest representation of politico-religious duplicity. Gingrich, a Roman Catholic, also had extra-marital affairs and has been married three times. His first affair was with Marianne Ginther, and the second was with Callista Bisek – his current wife. What can be considered the vertex of his hypocrisy, Gingrich was leading the Congressional investigation into the allegations that President Bill Clinton lied under oath with regards to his affair with Monica Lewinsky. I guess he forgot the idiom, “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” Among his other lurid details were his eighty-four ethics charges that were filed against him during his term - Gingrich was ultimately sanctioned $300,000 by the House Ethics Committee.
Electing politicians that believe in god is one of the primary vehicles used to manifest a Judeo-Christian nation. Do you believe that it is even remotely possible that an outspoken atheist could be elected to public office? Pick any position in any field for that matter. It is true that religiously infused policies aren’t necessarily the norm; points, however, can be made to illustrate the attempts to make it so. The collusion between politics and religious institutions are plainly evident. Prayer needs to be brought back in school, intelligent design must be taught, homosexuality is ruining the American family and society – so don’t teach this aberrant behavior in schools, and abortion must be stopped for fear of incurring god’s wrath.
Arguments abound whether this country was specially constructed to be a Judeo-Christian Nation; I personally believe that we were not promulgated with such intent. While it is true the Declaration of Independence references “Creator,” “Nature’s God,” and “Divine Providence,” one must specifically understand that said declaration is not a governing mechanism. To extend further, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” clearly indicates that the Bible’s standard of divine authority is irrelevant with respect to government. What must also be acknowledged is the conspicuous absence of God from the Constitution. Why is that I wonder? From a personal perspective, God is not a necessary utility.
The faithful are vehement about injecting their religiosity within the various macro and microcosms of society. If one will not convert and become a proselyte, you'll be forced to conform by way of legislative mechanisms. Be a heathen if you wish, but you will follow God’s laws one way or another. I recall one conversation with a person that reiterated this very sentiment. How quaint it is to hear the acerbic tone of the faithful. In part 3, I will provide more insight into the American public's perspective to the atheist/secularist view. At the end my elenchus will be provided.
