Republicans love our forefathers so much?
Waldman threw some light on this subject during an interview on Fresh Air. "The original Protestant colonies were not interested in religious freedom for everyone but in freedom to practice their particular approach to Christianigy, often at the expense of other denominations." He described their religious-political ethos in his book with refreshing objectivity, given how controversial that topic is. Denomination persecuted denomination up and down the coast in the 17th and 18th centuries as each group experimented in political rule. "There was sort of an experiment," Waldman said, "in having a majority or domoinant faith running the state, and in each case the experiment failed." Wisdom was learned from this long, sectarian religious-political history. They applied it to the constitution by turning away from the 150-year failed experiment of the colonies to a different model. They intentionally established a nation that constitutionally would not be formally Christian but one that would legalize the separation of religion and state. Waldman said, "Our nation's founders forged a new approach to religious liberty, a revolutionary approach that promoted faith... by leaving it alone." This, and much more is contained in an article to be found on the website charlesstrohmer.com . Go to it, find 'articles' or click this link: http://www.charlesstrohmer.com/mythofchr... See also The Search for Christian America by Noll, Marsden and Hatch.
What is a Christian theocracy and how can we prevent it from emerging in the US?
What is a Christian theocracy…?A theocracy is the rule of society by God; in this case, the Christian idea of God.Now I have no objection to a strictly literal theocracy - that is, a direct rule by God himself in person, appearing in all his splendour to hand down commandments. After all, who is going to stop God from doing that if & when he wants to?However, in practice an “ocracy” is a system of human government by human participants. A theocracy is usually enacted by those who are deemed to speak for God, and they get all the power. Iran’s Ayatollahs exercise a kind of theocratic power.… and how can we prevent it from emerging in the US?Given that none of us want to see zealous priests exercising absolute power over our society, the best way to prevent this is to establish some sort of constitution that specifies who is allowed to exercise power, and specifies the strong checks & balances that are established in order specifically to limit that power.I recommend that the USA retains its existing constitution in order to prevent theocracy from emerging as a dominant form of social governance.Since a piece of paper can’t stop anyone from doing anything, citizens must act honourably and courageously at all times to defend the ideal, even at some personal cost. I understand from the television news that personal honour and moral courage are not always to be found in US political movements, so that’s a potential problem… It is however a problem of character, not of civic governance.Above: protestors against police violence, use violence against the police…
Why aren't any of the Irish Republican parties right-wing?
This question is impossible to answer conclusively because it contains two ambiguous, undefined terms: "republican" and "right-wing." "Republican" could simply mean "committed to a republican form of government," in which case all of the major Irish political parties would be republican. That is, there are no parties in Ireland advocating monarchism, direct democracy, anarcho-syndicalism or other non-republican forms of government. The term "republican" has a special meaning in Irish politics, however. In its milder form, this has meant something like "committed to achieving the 32-county Irish Republic declared in 1916." Fianna Fáil, the main party that emerged from the anti-Treaty side in the 1922-23 Irish Civil War, bills itself as "The Republican Party" in this sense. In its stronger sense, however (and which is how most Irish people understand it), "republican" means favoring or supporting the unification of Ireland by violent means -- that is, sympathizing with or supporting the IRA and IRA splinter groups. Under this definition, the main Irish republican party is of course Sinn Féin. Although Sinn Féin purported to accept the established constitutional arrangements when it signed on to the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, recent intelligence reports suggest that the clandestine IRA Army Council still influences the party. This brings us to the even more vague term "right-wing." This term has been used to refer to ideologies as different from each other as monarchism, fascism, libertarianism, and Christian traditionalism. Is Sinn Féin "right-wing" in any of these senses? Well, it openly opposes both monarchy and libertarian/classical liberal principles. And it doesn't espouse traditional Christian values. I think Sinn Féin's ideology might best be described as national-socialist. Is this "right-wing" in the sense intended by the OP?
What you do if the republicans established some sort of theocratic fascist state?
That's just fantasy, that will never happen, and no one on the right has actually made efforts in that direction. It's just absurd and delusional. However, in stark contrast, Democrats, those on the left, you can't say the same about them, as they have actively and are actually succeeding in steps in giving government enough power to become dictator if it wanted too. In fact, one could even argue that Atheism has taken steps towards becoming a theocratic fascist state in that it has successfully, thanks also to the left, in barring all other faiths from the public and educational sector, leaving only Atheism to reign there. I mean, you liberals literally live in a fantasy world preferring to think that the ridiculous and implausible could actually happen. And all the while ignoring the actual things that are happening as we speak that are actually in a more realistic direction and proven by recent history to actually be feasible. This is why we say you all are brainwashed. In your fervor to protect people's rights from the right wing that you call fascists for no reason, you actually become fascist in that you are actively making laws that force the right wing to either agree with you or face legal penalties. I feel like you all live in a dream world because it's like you are unable to distinguish reality and plausibility from ridiculous and impossibility.
What are some characteristics of a Theocracy?
Basic characteristics of a theocracy are going to be:A god is the ultimate "source" of authorityA person rules in lieu or in representation of god, since a god has never actually appeared.Laws are written in accordance to the religious textsNon believers are often ostracized, if not down-right persecuted or killed.The best example of a current day theocracy is Iran, which is an Islamic theocracy.Many of the U.S. 2016 presidential Republican candidates are wanting to set religious laws in the country and speak in a manner that very much hints as setting a theocracy. One of them, Ben Carson, even suggested that a non-Chrisitan shouldn't be allowed to be president. This very much worries the non-conservatives as we enjoy our religious liberties to be free and without limitation.
Why did Great British and the U.N. prefer a two-state solution in Palestine?
First - there is not any palestine and there in no way has been. next - this might probable require some form of a 2 state answer yet that does no longer say what the states will appear as if. possibly there will be a clean state of palestine created in distinctive the so talked approximately as occupied territories. this could require a commerce of a few territory so as that Israeli cities east of the 'green line' stay intact. it could additionally enable for arabs who're descendants of folk from the land this is now Israel to circulate to the newly created palestine. possibly distinctive the arab worldwide places will could desire to welcome their brethren to their worldwide places. lots of those so talked approximately as refugees are descendants of arabs who left their properties in 1948. whilst Israel became created as a rustic the surronding arab worldwide places instructed the indigenous arabs to go away. those worldwide places promised to "push the jews into the sea", then you particularly can come returned on your properties. After mess ups at warfare many times, and lost territory every time those refugees have nonetheless in no way been time-honored into their host worldwide places. via the way, the land Israel gained became no longer gained illegally. It became all gained via Israel via fact the effect of protective wars. Israel has continually been waiting for peace and has been keen to furnish returned land to attain peace. Israel gained the Sinai for the duration of a warfare with Egypt. as quickly as Egypt became keen to conform to a peace treaty with Israel the Sinai became transferred returned to Egyptian administration. is this a start up?
As a liberal, what do you think conservatives just need to accept?
“As a liberal, what do you think conservatives just need to accept?”even their own report suggests that global warming is “a thing” yet they still call it a Chinese plot. If it is a plot, they should rebalance their portfolios and shut up. That they do not do so is the clearest evidence that this argument is about retaining conservative power and not about protecting the planet. We/our-grandchildren will fry while they deny;Obama care was a pretty good partial solution. They’ve tried to kill it multiple times and failed. Maybe they recognize its inherent strengths and the need to add some care to keep zombie alive and learn how to live with that pre-exiting condition;We should not follow Putin’s whim an dismantle NATO just because trump wants to ride bareback with Putin…on Putin’s horse, of course;pollution is bad, especially if health care has been destroyed along with environmental regulations; health care and a clean environment are “goods” not bads;We need to protect our electoral system in cyberland;We need to ditch the wall in physical space and solve immigration with intelligent solutions, and not with brute force; the number of stateless people is growing and this crisis will only increase, so solutions are needed, but trumpism is not the answer;tariffs impose regressive taxes on the lower part of the tax schedule; I’m OK with conservatives destroying their voting base, but the human cost is and will be dreadful;a tax cut for your buddies when the economy is going along fine is likely to increase volatility (it already has) and lead to larger deficits (it already has);We need to completely eliminate sexual predation and predators like trump and pedophiles like Roy Moore are not the answer;We need to eliminate BOTH Democrat and Republican gerrymandering; unfortunately, that is driven on a 10 year cycle and the threat to Democrats is that if they don’t use that power in the next cycle, that is tantamount to giving spurious control to Republicans for a 20 year span and locking in generational loyalties; we need to rethink the cycle and the method for setting districts;We can’t be a country of minority rule election after election; we need to do something to fix the electoral college; allocating the votes to each district won would be a reasonable first cut;
What is the story between Israel and Palestine ?
in short, after WWII aspects of palestine replaced into given to Jews to be a Jewish place of beginning of Israel. Palestine replaced into an Arab section controlled by potential of Britain on the time. numerous wars occured and Israel beat up all that's Arab associates, gaining territory each and every of ways into Sinai and Egypt at some factors. in any case, relatively, Palestine heavily isn't satisfied till the completed land of Israel is back to them and the Jews circulate away.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the U.S. political system (constitution, municipal, state, federal etc.)?
Some advantages:The Constitution protects the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majorityFree speech and a free press are protected especially in the cases of public figures and political speech (eg what might be libelous against a private person is often allowed against politicians)The Establishment clause of the Constitution prevents religious doctrine or laws from being imposed by the governmentThe separation of powers prevents the government from becoming too powerful or acting too rashlyThe autonomy of states and local jurisdictions allows issues to be handled at the lowest appropriate level, presumably allowing different results for different regionsThe Commerce clause of the Constitution makes the USA an enormous free trade area (contrast with India where states and impose tariffs on products crossing state borders).Some Disadvantages:The separation of powers can delay or stop government action on important issues, especially when the president and congress are controlled by different parties.Some of the powers granted to states create wasteful inefficiencies, eg, regulation of insurance companies and medical care by states rather than having one national standardSpecial interests have disproportionate influence with the government; financial contributions are not sufficiently transparentIn most states, incumbent politicians have too much influence over which voters are included in their districts
How can there be conservative Democrats? What about liberal Republicans?
Why is it difficult for you to understand that there is more than black and white?One example:A man could be fiscally conservative. He might want a small government, small taxes, little to no regulation of the market (in Germany btw. we call this economic liberalism). This is clearly a Republican philosophy, isn’t it?At the same time the man is an atheist and has no problems at all with any kind of minority, he actually belives that because the government should be small, it should stay out of peoples life so why the hell should he have a problem with gay people marrying? Small government - little regulations, also means that the state does not interfere if you live in a same sex relationship, right? That would be socially liberal, so Democratic philosophy, wouldn‘t it?I know several guys who think exactly like that. They vote Republican mostly because they consider the fiscal conservatism more important for their personal lifes than the social liberalism that does not afflict them too much personally. I am pretty certain, that there are also people who think the other way, socially conservative good christians who at the same time support the unions and the social system. I do not know any of those, though.Always remember: The Democrat and the Republican parties have philosophy on practically every important matter: Social, fiscal, defense etc. etc. etc. Not everyone, actually in my experience almost noone agrees with the party philosophies in every point. In this case people will just pick the party with the program that affects their life most.Like the guys I mentioned above. Fiscally conservative, socially liberal they came to the conclusion that for their personal life it is more important that government acts fiscally conservative because they think that this will create the environment, in which their business might work well. They also believe that it is a pitty that their party had been highjacked by the christian right and that it is against gay marriage or that is is strictly pro life, but, hey, neither are the gay nor do they plan to do an abortion so these points, although they consider then important, are just not important enough.