Sunday, October 10, 2010

Freedom or Submission

The two are an interesting contrast. I read an article written by an atheist this morning, and was interested to see his concern that America would turn into a theocracy. When asked how he pictured a theocracy, he then named Saudi Arabia as an example of his fear.

I worry for intellectuals like this one.

I worry because the ignorance of history is so complete it's, frankly, embarrassing as a fellow American.

In order to have a theocracy everyone in the group must submit to a religious leader and one common religious law. That's how theocracies work.

America, founded by Christian thinkers, based government on the people, and directly declared that this was a just legal model, based on the self evident truth that all men [mankind] were endowed certain inalienable rights, specifically by their Creator.

By naming names, a Creator, they said all mankind is born free. Mankind is meant to be free. It is the natural order of things for every human being to belong only to himself and to G-d. No other human being, institution or government has any natural or contrived right to own another human being. To believe that the founding fathers of our nation didn't consciously know they had created a system of government that would doom slavery among any of mankind following its principles is a stretch beyond my imagination.

LIBERTY cannot ever be taken away from man without due process of the civil law, because liberty is a natural right. No one on earth gave it to you, so no one on earth is supposed to take it from you, unless you have committed crimes that justify the removal of your liberty in order to both punish you, and to protect other citizens from your lawlessness.

The founders of our country believed that only a good people could ever make this system of government work. That's why they believed it would work here, because most people in our country were good.

Their common faith was a bedrock of making the system work. I listened in utter astonishment when President Obama claimed that the history of America was also a Muslim history. Then I cried when I saw an American president bow before a foreign king for the first time in our entire history as a nation.

He bowed before a Saudi King.

He bowed to the monarch of a country that follows Muslim Sharia law and has a history of sentencing women to lashes for the crime of being raped without four male witnesses to the actual rape. That is the law there, you know. Sharia law requires a woman to have four male witnesses to prove she was raped. Otherwise she is just a whore who got what she deserved.

Why would anyone deserve this? According to Sharia law she deserves it, because she failed to submit to the law that says she must always be covered and never alone with any man who is not related to her directly.

So the president of a nation, founded by thinkers who followed a faith that bestowed the most individual and high level of liberty in human history drags us down to the level of a system defined by submission?

The words Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, and Islam are grammatical derivatives of the Arabic verb meaning "surrender, submit".

All of mankind must submit to Sharia law for the aims of their god to be fulfilled, and that is how world peace will finally be achieved, when we have all submitted. That is how every Muslim can tell you with a straight face that Islam is the religion of peace. They genuinely believe it.

Submission does not create freedom, although in the world of Muslim apologists, who argue that Sharia law is the perfect law for all mankind, submission IS freedom.

This same belief is held by Mormon fundamentalists in the American west, although their allegiance is to a different god; one who requires the submission to polygamy for ultimate eternal salvation.

The women of the FLDS, AUB, Biblical Families, House of Yahwh and assorted independents have all been brought up to believe in the same sort of submission.

When their hearts break and their relationships are over they cannot go to the LDS Church, because they have already been excommunicated from it for having their polygamy exposed.

So there is no food, no shelter, no sustenance available in the greater community. They can file for public benefits. If they are lucky they can find a job and if they are really lucky, with the help of the Safety Net Committee they can find you another polygamous husband.

The Safety Net did everything but help a woman leave. They paid for counseling to help "keep families together". They paid for conferences, where they could discuss how to get their membership signed up for food stamps without fear of prosecution, and discussion panels on how to get polygamy organized, and trips to Texas to educate our attorneys and child protection staffs on how to be culturally sensitive to the felony crime of polygamy.

The state funded Safety Net Committee has never helped a single woman or child get out of polygamy. Instead, they have used their funds to locate, assess and coordinate with the Brown Family to launch a national PR campaign via the TLC cable channel, designed to achieve the decriminalization of polygamy as their end.

The state funded program? Um, gee, actually I think federal dollars were appropriated for the Safety Net Committee to address the needs of women seeking to leave the polygamous lifestyle, weren't they?

So let me get this straight. The Attorney general of Utah took federal dollars and gave them to the Safety Net Committee, then he personally met with all those who conspired with the Browns to create an acceptable and well publicized test case, to purposefully break the federal laws against polygamy...

Yep, I'd say that's a federal case.

Will the FBI and the Department of Justice ignore this?

Anyone? Anyone?

1 comment:

  1. Hi Bootsie.
    Once again , you have hit all the proverbial nails on their proverbial heads.
    Very good post !