Conservatives & Theocracy

April 5, 2007 | By Sniper One |

Occasionally I’ll run into something so spot on it’s worth quoting verbatim. However, I am going to restrain myself and not just quote it for you. Instead I’m going to start out this post with a beg for you to go read it.

It has oft confused me as to why liberals, with all their vileness store up for Republicans, seem to be willing to cheerlead and excuse the behavior of the terrorists and radical Islamic groups around the world. Many liberals have accused Bush and the Republicans of crimes that are equal to, if not more grievous than those of the terrorists. However, when it comes right down to it, if Bush and the Republicans were everything that they were accused of, they would be the terrorists that the conservatives are railing against.

Liberals accuse the conservatives of wanting a theocracy. The terrorists wish to re-create an Islamic caliphate to rule all of the lands which they had previously conquered at the time of the Crusades.

Liberals accuse conservatives of treating everyone else as second class citizens. The terrorists will make you a second class citizen, a dhimmi, and you will be expected to bow to them and their laws.

Liberals accuse conservatives of random acts of violence for the sake of US Imperialism. The terrorists are randomly killing people all over the world for the sake of Jihad, and to bring about their dreams of a caliphate.

Liberals accuse conservatives of treating women poorly. Islamic law gives women almost no rights, and gives Islamic males dominion over women. Including the right to kill a female family member if he believes she has dishonored the family.

I, nor any conservatives I know, support the formation of a Christian theocracy. To say that conservatives support such is to misunderstand what a theocracy is, or to misunderstand what government we live in.

The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy. Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy:

“Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” –James Madison–

“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” –Fisher Ames, Author of the House Language for the First Amendment–

A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a “mobocracy”); a republic is rule by law. If the source of law for a democracy is the popular feeling of the people, then what is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster:

Our citizens should early understand that the genuine source of correct republican principles is the Bible, particularly the New Testament, or the Christian religion.

If you think about it, I think you’ll find this to be an astute observation. After all, do we pledge our allegiance “to the democracy for which it stands”, or “to the republic for which it stands”.

Democracy bases it’s rules on the mob, and as such the mob rules. In that way it could be likened to Anarchy.

The republic we live in has its basis in the Bible. This does not mean our leaders will dominate civil law by “forcing Christian beliefs” on every citizen, as alleged by liberals. Consider the stability the Bible offers. For example, in our republic, murder will always be a crime because God’s Word says it is. On the other hand, in a democracy, if the majority decides murder is not a crime, it becomes legalized.

Abortion is the case-in-point here. Except, it was not a democracy that decided it should become legal. It took an activist group of judges instead of the vote of the majority to legalize baby-killing. These judges didn’t listen to the voice of the majority. They just heard the loudest voices, which certainly does not excuse conservatives, who should have spoken louder.

This is not a desire for a theocracy. This is simply the desire for civility.

On the other hand, if you take a look at the terrorists, they want a theocracy, and they will do anything to get it. If the conservatives truly wanted a theocracy, then why rail against the terrorists?

If the liberals are so dead set against a theocracy, then why not rail against the terrorists, the true enemy to our way of life?

If liberals were truly dedicated to all of the beliefs they claim, and to the way of life they enjoy, why are they still trying to ensure the victory of the terrorists here and in Iraq?

My only conclusion is that they are blinded by their own anger. They do not see the larger picture, only the unadulterated hate they have for anything labeled “conservative”. They miss the point, and are simply the party of opposition to anything the conservatives want to do.

Technorati tags: Liberals, Conservatives, Misguided, Theocracy

Sphere: Related Content

Filed Under: 110th Congress, Anti-Dhimmitude, Blog Promotion, Dhimmicrats, Domestic Issues, Global War On Terror, Islam, Pelosi's Lemmings, Rocket City Bloggers, SeeJaneMom, Sharia (Shari'a), Speaker Pelosi

Basil's Blog » Blog Archive » Blogrolling 2007-04-06 pinged this post.

Trackback URL

Comments

4 Comments so far

John "RHINO" Reinhardt on April 5, 2007 7:20
Great article!!! Keep interjecting info and quotes from out founding fathers in your literature, we all need an American history lesson DAILY… and if you would,check me out on myspace… just searce for Rhino.. I put pics of my tattoos on there.. ie. 2nd amendment, M1a, Lan Astaslem(Thank you Michelle)… Keep up the great work Sniper One! P.S. the ” DRT” in my email stands for ” DEAD RIGHT THERE” . A term the Vietnam Snipers used.. YES I’m a big Carlos Hathcock admirer…
Kristopher on April 5, 2007 8:57
Bradfield’s comments on mob rule are spot on … a little consistency would be helpful … if it is a Christian mob, he tends to favor their decisions.

I, personally, am a conservative … and an atheist. Most of the founding fathers were deists, free-masons, and even a few atheists. Reason and Nature’s God guided the majority … most of them were children of the Enlightenment.

Info on the beliefs of individual founders can be found here:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/debate.htm

Webster was in the minority. Bradfield is merely repeating revisionism that the fundamentalist Christians have been trying to pass as history for the last few decades.
Nathan Bradfield on April 5, 2007 20:49
Sniper One, thanks so much for the link and the kind words. I appreciate it. Nice to see some support from the Right. Many of my commenters are far Left and, while entertaining to debate, get’s old after much of the same arguements over and over. Much appreciated support. Have a blessed Easter.
Basil's Blog » Blog Archive » Blogrolling 2007-04-06 on April 6, 2007 5:26
[...] One (7.62mm Justice) wonders why some are oblivious to the [...]