Why exactly would a theocracy be required? We had morality laws and this country's policies were based upon Christian doctrine for almost 200 years before it got all mucked up. It worked fine without the necessity of theocracy.
The trouble with vague generalizations is that they can be supportive or contrary to one's claim, based on subjective interpretation. America's policy was based on Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine is based on Jewish doctrine. America was therefore based on Jewish doctrine. See what I did?
Let's be honest, America was based on our founding fathers. These desists, masons, and even proper Christians were children of the enlightenment. As such, separation of church and state was fundamental to our origins.
Surly you wouldn't want to associate slavery, societal marginalization of women, burning female "witches" alive, and the violent displacement of native Americans as Christian values? The road goes both ways, I am afraid.
To say that murder and larceny legislation is based solely on Christian values is misleading. I would argue that they were based on what the founding fathers happen to believe was right common sense at the time, in light of periodic values and societal standards. The basic laws of our country are not very different from the laws of most secular countries. In other words, common sense values.
Perhaps you believe that common sense values are neither real nor innate. Perhaps you believe that God allowed them to be innate. Whatever you believe is your right as an American. I won't argue with what you believe, just as I won't try to argue which flavor of ice cream is superior.
It actually was quite a long time ago, well before I was born. These things are going on in Israel right now. I wouldn't be nearly as hard on them if it wasn't for the absolute hypocrisy of those who support Israel. They'll scream till they're blue in the face about how we have to be inclusive and we need to accomodate other faiths and other cultures but will turn right around and support Israel in their oppression of non-Jews.
Please, get some perspective.
A wise friend once told me that hypocrisy is not without a sense of irony. (OK I lied, I just made that up for argument's sake). Seriously though, I have learned that often hypocrites are the most likely to dish out accusations of hypocrisy. No ad hominem intended. How is oppression of non-Jews any different than any other type of oppression? (I realize this logic would also deem me a hypocrite, but such is the paradoxical nature of generalizations)
Lets say, for example:
African Americans (still isn't over, by the way.)
Women
Japanese (WWII)
Native Americans
Iraqis (no judgement on the war, but I'd be a fool to think we didn't hurt them)
Homosexuals (unlike the others, this one isn't gov. sponsored)
The lower class (debatable, you can remove this one if you want)
Each other (civil war?)
You claim to be beyond all this oppression because of your age, yet America still does its fair share of oppression, both domestic, and foreign.
Now If I were to jump on the moral stool, I could argue that where America had very little justification for our great country's (I mean that, no sarcasm) oppression, Israel has a reason to "suppress" non-Jews (Palestinians). To support this argument, I will cite the threats posed by some of those we oppressed:
Blacks: none
Women: definitely, definitely none.
American Japanese WWII: none, although a fear was reasonable
Native Americans: They wanted back what we stole, those selfish Small risk.
Iraqis: Who the heck knows, most probably none, depending on what you believe.
The lower class: None
Homosexuals: None to me, maybe to you.
Each other: South wanted to get out, we didn't want to let me. Risk is debatable depending where you stand.
Now, lets look at the threats Israel has faced since 1948:
1948 Arab-Israeli War
Fedayeen terror attacks
Suez Crisis 1956
Six-Day War 1967
War of Attrition 1967-1970
Yom Kippur War 1973
South Lebanon conflict 1978
Lebanon War 1982
South Lebanon conflict 1982-2000
First Intifada 1987-1993
Second Intifada 2000-2005
Lebanon War 2006
Gaza War 2008-2009
These are only the "official" wars. Does this mean Israel is justified in oppressing their belligerent neighbors? Of course not. However, it could be argued that Israel was more justified than we were.
When a nation is quite literally fighting for their survival, internet debates on "morality" are quite frankly, ignorant, childish, presumptuous, and downright silly. People do what they do to survive. I would bet a large sum of money that had ALL of Israel's neighbors greeted them with pies instead of tanks and Katyusha rockets, this "oppression" that you see would not exist.
Of course, some people believe the land does not belong to Israel, and that they are justified in their hostilities. To assume this position only opens a paradox of hypocrisy. Does America then belong to the natives? Does America belong to the wildlife? What about Germany? Shouldn't it be Prussia? The extension of this logic would mean that all land can only belong to the first person who ever called said land home.
Look at any species of animals. If larger predator claims territory from a subordinate rival, is he not entitled to his victory?
This is where morality and righteousness breaks down. In a world of finite resources, it is the
nature of life to battle for survival. To claim a just cause is to pick a side, not to pass absolute judgement.
I'm Jewish. Thus, I support Israel. I do not hold any illusion that this is either "right" or "wrong." If I were Arab, then I would support Palestine. That's how the world works. Now if Israel truly were "oppressing" their non-Jewish neighbors for no reason whatsoever, I would have to abandon my Jewish predisposition and support Palestine. Here's my equation to picking sides in general: Are they an in-group, or out-group? (Family, Israel, Friends, Americans....: in. All others:out) Do I think my group is rational and more "just" than "unjust" in my subjective, non-absolute opinion? After weighing both options, I pick a side.
You are entitled to support whichever side you want. Just please, don't be ignorant to the other side, and especially to our own and current history. You being born "above" our muddy past is not only naive, but fails to factor in our current oppressive behavior. Besides, you do wish to oppress homosexuals, do you not? Of course, if you believe that it is God's will to do so, then I am sorry to say that this exact same logic has been the source of oppression through human history. There is nothing scarier than a fundamentalist acting on his interpretation of "God's will."
I know that passing judgement from the comfort and stability of your life over the internet is very easy. Try living "righteously" when your existence has been threatened since you were 1 years old.
I do not mean to offend you, but I do wish to get my point across.
This is my belief. I could be wrong. If you think I am wrong, I'll save you some time and let you know that a forum retort will not impact my belief. Probably just as this response means nothing more than a data bank of rebuttal source material for you.
Because in all likelihood we will never agree on the subject, let's not deceive ourselves into thinking we will. I am, however, curious what you think of the points I had mentioned, and why you disagree. Surely you have good reasons to believe what you do. I suppose I am curious what your logic is.
Had I underestimated you or misjudged your position, I sincerely apologize for any inflaming remarks. I try to call it like I see it, which of course is often wrong.
VIOLATION OF THE TOS
EDITED BY STAFF
