According to the President of the United States, you do. It’s the “Almighty’s gift to every man and woman in this world. And as the greatest power on the face of the Earth, we have an obligation to help the spread of freedom.”
So we’re also given an Alimighty which gives us “freedom in our hearts” making it possible for every country to achieve freedom through (U.S.) occupation. Which is convienent for the neo-cons out there.
My school has a political science program that has a section of political theory which supports this ideology. Where religious-rooted ideology becomes a legitimate basis point of public policy. I hate those courses and the profs are unbearable.
I wouldn’t be suggesting that the US is akin to a theology; it’s not. But the only reason it’s not is because it’s religion forbids this. The irony is crippling! What my question is that there is a seeming impossibility for humans to be ruled in a completely secular fashion ALWAYS.
When it comes to areas of uncertainty for the country, it seems that the ruling elites need to draw justification from religious or pseudo-religious sources. The Almighty gives the US guidance on how to structure foriegn policy after 9/11 – He doesn’t seem to be giving any advice on how to craft medicare because Congress knows how to deal with this.
While I’m only using contemporary America as an example, my point is that I don’t think any country can shake off the religious icocalsm that is embedded in all human civilizations. We’re forever going to be trapped in a Middle Age-esq rule, with better sleeping arrangements, when faced with situations rulers are unaccoustomed to dealing with.
Did you see the old film, The Night of the Living Dead? It’s a little-known fact that this film was actually a double-entendre for the American struggle between Christianity and the State. The people hiding in the house, well…they represent the State. Mmm, I think you get the picture.
You see, the Bible-thumpers are always out there. They’re always looking for an unguarded crevice to squeeze through. The last time I looked they still had their god on our money (I use a credit card for nearly everything). And the little tykes here still have to pledge alligence to “one nation under god.” The Ghouls, er…Christians, point to every such foot-hold as a reason they should be allowed to gain another. You might take a look at a site such as:
History seems to have it that religion doesn’t actually have much to do with anything in politics. Even today. Even with the “axis of evil” and empire of rightous liberators. Now, just like with Islamic fundimentalism, just like the Spanish Inquisition, and just like the crusades, religion is being used as a phony cement for what the powers and people that be already want.
Jesus wasn’t always a conquering warrior. Thats what some people want now, so that’s what he is. Just like the bible is currently being used to teach why slavery is wrong when a few hundred years ago the opposite was true.
My conclusion, seeing this, is that the “message” of a religion is under constant revision, simular to history in Orwell’s 1984. Thus, religion is usually based on politics rather than politics being based on religion. You look for what you want to find, and see that as truth in whatever ‘good book’ you read. So the further religion gets from politics the better it is for not only politics, but religion as well. But that also means the current marching around and conquring can’t hold a religion responsible. Religion is exploited.
Bush relies partly on the religious right for his support. Thus he says crazy stuff about gods and toothfairies.
It will be funny/scary if Bush rigs the coming election, remains in power, makes a few more changes, and declares himself the first Pope of the new American Christian church. He can stay in power for life, declaring a permanent state of war with anyone and everyone.
trix,
I got freedom in my heart but it has nothing to do with what the “the president of the United States” says. Do you by any chance mean liberty here instead of freedom? A slave can be so bound in chains and yet be so free at heart, a free spirit, that even his master may not be because of his obsessions. Freedom in the heart has nothing to do with any kind of utilitarian, totalitarian, capitalistic, socialistic, etc. regime. It resides in your heart not in anybody’s hands or jurisdiction. You are as free as you think yourself to be.
do you not think that perhaps there’s a difference between having freedom IN the heart vs a free heart? having freedom in the heart pretty much means that one has no freedom, as you would be acting from freedom, not towards it, so it’ll be rather reduntant. and you wouldn’t be unable to say that anyone’s free really, because no one will be acting for their own accord.
at any rate, i do agree with you when you say that all humans strive to have liberty.
i don’t think the president thinks so, and i feel like he’s trying to make a distinct religious sentiement that expolits the majority Christian sentiement.
Dallas Ann,
very cool sentiement. what’s interesting is that i posted this thread before i started writing an essay for political theory, and you know what? we have to argue that ppl from socrates to machiavelli advised rulers to do what you said; exploit religion.
so, my point is that thinkers and history teaches that it is profitable to ‘expolit’ religion. i think this must mean something, really, about human nature that is perhaps being overlooked. i’m not sure what though.
Polemarchus,
spoken like a true Vermountian! i think that’s where you’re from… anyway, the new republic wrote that dean’s secularism was one of the main causes for his loss.
What? Are you a psychologist or psychiatrist professionally or at heart? Gotta be careful around here. Wow! You’re right. You showed me the difference between having freedom and having a free heart. Thank you!
