American fundamentalisms… conversion or death; however the first seeds of descent, during the first generation of Colonist, was spread by Roger Williams and his concept of a “wall of separation” between the magistrate and the religion. Thomas Jefferson would latter use that phrase to describe the distinction between the church and the state. “Go forth and teach all nations,” Jesus commands and that mandate is still fundamental to American fundamentalisms.

Today it is perpetrated by Mr. Bush and his chosen administration where the word freedom is equated with the concept of salvation. Holding to the tradition of Abraham Lincoln…“The last best hope of mankind.” The United States of America is justified by the virtue of its mission… the “manifest destiny” of a free people extending freedom. A key doctrine in what I am calling American fundamentalisms.

So that today whether it be a Liberal or a Conservative, in the matter of Iraq, the destruction of Iraq was an act of purification and the failure is not on Americas but rather on the Iraqis failure to yield on their “sectarian” agendas. These people won’t get together and form a cohesive government. America is a city on a hill, exceptional and virtuous. If we’ve gone to Iraq and it turned out to be a fiasco, it can’t be our fault because we were motivated by good intentions.

Discussion

Dark_crow

Of course, those who reject salvation / freedom, deserve what they get; American fundamentalisms.

I wouldn’t get too excided about HR 1955 so long as the press is free to criticize the government.

inthebox

You are confusing religion [ evangelical Christianity ] with politics.

There is no forced conversion or death in Christianity.

Matthew 28
The Great Commission
16Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

We have free choice.


Now you state that the agenda of spreading freedom is equivalent to spreading salvation.

If that is accepted as true, is that not a noble and just cause?
To do nothing is to leave others without freedom, ie slavery.
Is not the alternative to spread enslavement and damnation? Is that a better cause in the minds of others?


And Lincoln, first and foremost wanted to preserve the union, against the desires of states that wanted to be free.




Grace and Peace

tomder55

Thanks for the clarification. I still have to refer to my notes sometimes because people still give the the"selected President "jive.

The US has in it's whole history only waged war twice because it was attacked. The other times it has been "wars of choice" and/or preemption . The only difference is that President Bush is the rare President who has been honest enough to proclaim it in national doctrine. That may prove in the long run to be an unwise move.But when he did ,he tapped into a 2 century history .

Likewise democracy promotion has always been a cornerstone of American policy .It has also been I believe one of the greatest successes of US foreign policy . I argue that the mistake in US policy for years was the decision that the Middle East was this great exception to the rule ;that we had to play footsie with strongmen. That was the mistake in US policy ;not democracy promotion. Bush can be faulted for an impatient push towards rectifying that mistake by accelerating political reform . But ,even though we do not like the results,events in Iraq ,Lebanon,and even Palestine show there is a desire by the people for self governance.

Dark_crow

If America has Foreign Policy wrong, who’s got it right? The idea of missionizing transcends right and left but the essential difference that I’m interested in pointing out is that the left does it in the name of humanitarian intervention and the right in the name of freedom. Using the term Freedom as an explicit appeal to religious motivation. When George W. Bush came to power he set free the right to use overt religious language, missionizing language that actually moves from “freedom” to “salvation,” as a justification for American power. We cast ourselves against Saddam Hussein and the “Axis of Evil” entirely in terms of a binary evil-versus-good contest and in doing so accomplished two negatives forces: the “eating away” if you will at the ‘Wall of separation” between politics and religion and our relationship with other religions.

tomder55

is this the 1st time we have cast our enemies in terms of evil v good ? I don't think so . Roosevelt routinely invoked the term when rallying America to support Great Britain.

Dark_crow

There was no separation between politics and religion in the minds of the first generation of Massachusetts Puritan Colonist; that is exactly what Roger Williams complained about. The Crusades were a Nobel and Just cause too, by your logic; but I don’t believe the Jews and Muslims would agree; as they don’t today.

Dark_crow

The issue, as I see it is not whether it has been done before, but rather which is the best theory to go forward with.

EDIT: The theory of humanitarian intervention or religious freedom. Actually it is very similar to the Massachusetts vs. Virginia concept of government and our forefathers choose the Virginia concept.

excon

Hello again DC:

If, by the above, you mean that you can say off the wall stuff, and I can't argue about it, you're DREAMING.

excon