"The Freedom Crusade"

Joseph, respectfully, you 4th question does not apply to me or anything I said, so I'm not going to go there.

My Point which you agree with, it seems, is embracing God's prinicpals bendfits a nation. It has to be relative because no nation has ever achieved a absolute Godliness, yet the fact remains when Isreal turned there heart toward God they were blessed with stability and prosperity. I believe this principal applies to any Nation. Can you name a nation that has embraced God's principals to a greater degree than our forefathers did? He who embraces God's principals to the greatest degree enjoys the greatest benefits. I believe this is what made democracy workable for us. For those who reject the God of the Bible and his principals, democracy is much harder to achieve. I think history bares this out, and I think this is what Franklin was talking about. And I think this is why Carter's efforts at replacing the Shaw of Iran with a democracy failed so miserably, and why acheiving any wide spred demacracy in the middle east will prove impossable for Bush to achieve. You know what they say, " The road to hell is paved with good intentions".

PS Isn't theis principal espoused in that verse taht is so famous today that say, "if my people who are called by my name hear me and turn from there wicked ways........?"

 

When you say that we follow Godly principles, are you referring to the 10 Commandments? I wonder how many of those our society actually follows. Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible that if you have broken one commandment, then you have broken them all. Therefore, our Godliness does not rely on our works and what we do. It is not about us, as Rick Warren says, but about what God does through us. Certainly, you could not argue that a society like Israel which rejects Christ outright is a Godly society. Again, how Godly do we have to be before God blesses our democracy and curses another democracy to failure? How far are you going to take your idea of Godly Relativism?

Joseph Botwinick

 

I was doing some reading on the internet and just realized that this idea of the "Freedom Crusade" as a slur against interventionist foreign policies is as old as Charles Lindberg and the America First Isolationists:

http://www.charleslindbergh.com/pdf/dec121941.pdf

The isolationists were wrong then and they are wrong now. BTW, that speech was never made as Japan attacked Pearl Harbour. Four Days later, the America First Committee disbanded and was no more. I guess they finally realized how stupid they were being.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No Joseph, I am not just talking about the ten commandments. I am talking about applying biblical prinicipals to your life and family and nation. It is a simple enough concept. If you can't see the plain principal I have laid out here, my words aren't going to get us anywhere. But, anyhow, do you make any attempt at Godly living? Does it make a differnce in the quality and functionality of your life? Has the wisdom of the Bible applied to you life made a difference in said life? If you had been deprived of that Word and its principal, do you think you would be less well off in your physical life and relationships her on Earth? These questions, when answered, should prove suffecient for you to understand what I am saying as it will apply just as much to the National family as it does to you and yours.

 

Does Israel follow Godly principles even though they deny Christ and do not believe in part of the Bible?

Joseph Botwinick

 

If not just the 10 commandments (although I would argue that if you follow the 10 commandments, you are probably doing rather well), then what other Biblical principles are you referring to? How about the principle of being a good samaritan who helps your neighbor instead of being an isolationist and crossing to the other side of the road? Please elaborate.

Joseph Botwinick

 

They follow some biblical principals, I would think, wouldn't you think so? They did write the book afterall. And I'll say this, but I don't want to get on a tangent, because I know we differ on Isreal, but God has given them some very speacial guarentees and has set them apart, so they are a special case.

 

They have rejected Jesus as the Messiah. They have rejected God himself. They have put themselves and their religion above God. They have broken the law of God. Yet, God has seen fit for their democracy to work. They are not Godly people by a Biblical definition. They are nice people for the most part. But not Godly.

Joseph Botwinick

 

They have the OT and the principals therein. Don't you remember that God would spare Sodom if only a handful of rightous men were found there. There are many Messianic Jew in Isreal, so "they" have not rejected the Messia, only some have. Why do we always forget about the messianic Jews? Non-the-less, they are a Bible based faith.

 

I don't forget about them. I do note that, on a totally different topic, many pre-millers I meet seem to forget about the Palestinian Christians there also...but that is a totally different discussion. Are you trying to sell me that they are the majority? Also, are you trying to tell me that other nations don't have Christians in them...like say...Iraq, Afganistan, etc...

Does that Biblical Principle only apply to Israel or does it also equally apply to other Islamic nations as well? Why are the Israeli Messianics more deserving of living in a democracy than Palestinian Christians, or Assyrian Christians in Iraq, etc...?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Of course there is something isolationists in the article in that it promotes non-interventionist strategies. That is the core of isolationism.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Of course it is. There is diplomacy, sanctions, etc...

I believe we have exhausted all other options and that the president made the right call ( although I believe he waited too long and ruined the element of surprise), and I believe it is still the right call.

Joseph Botwinick

 

The other Christians don't live in a Bible based society, like the Isreal Christians do. And Isreal is a special case. None of the countries you have mentioned can be, generally speaking, catgorized as Christian. The Bible has never been an authoritative book in their national histories or governmental philosiphy. Apples and Oranges. And it is not about who deserves it, it is about who has the skills to do it-self govern that is. The best self government skills are found in the Bible. Only biblical nations have ever done it well. We are going in circles now, so I am going to resort to extreem measures.

Look into my eyes. You are getting sleepier and sleepier. You eyes are getting very heavy. When you awake, every time you hear the tuba play, you will think about these points, and one day when you least expect it you will understand and awaken.


Goodnight, pal.

 

Are you telling me that Israel is a Christian nation? Based on what? I think you know better than that. I hope.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Speacial case/biblical nation! You are supposed to be in a hypnotic daze now. What are you doing still asking me questions??? Look into my eyes again

 

You didn't say Biblical nation. You said Christian Nation. Did you make a mistake?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Did you know that under the terms of the new Patriot Act prosecutors will be able to seek the death penalty in cases where “defendants gave financial support to umbrella organizations without realizing that some of its adherents might eventually commit violence”? (NY Times; editorial 10-30-05) So, if someone unknowingly gave money to a charity that was connected to a terrorist group, he could be executed.

Or, that the Senate Intelligence Committee is fine-tuning the details of a bill that will allow the FBI to secretly procure any of your personal records without “probable cause” or a court order giving them “unchecked authority to pry into personal and business matters”? (New York Times, “Republicans seek to widen FBI Powers, 10-19-05)

Or, that on June 29, President Bush put “a broad swath of the FBI”
under his direct control by creating the National Security Service (aka; the “New SS”)? This is the first time we’ve had a “secret police” in our 200 year history. It will be run exclusively by the president and beyond the range of congressional oversight.

Or, that on October 27, 2005 president Bush created the National Clandestine Service, which will be headed by CIA Director Porter Goss and will “expand reporting of information and intelligence value from state, local and tribal law enforcement entities and private sector stakeholders"? This executive order gives the CIA the power to carry out covert operations, spying, propaganda, and “dirty tricks” within the United States and on the American public. (“The New National Intelligence Strategy of the US” by Larry Chin, Global Research)

Or, that Pentagon intelligence operatives are now permitted to collect information from US citizens without revealing their status as government spies? (“Bill would give Cover to Pentagon Spies”, Greg Miller, Times Staff writer, “The Nation”)

Or, that within 2 years every American license and passport will be made according to federal uniform standards including microchips (with biometric information) that will allow the government to trace every movement of its citizens?

Or, that recent rulings, the DC District Court unanimously decided in two different cases that foreign prisoners have no rights under international law to challenge their indefinite imprisonment by the United States and, (in Rumsfeld vs. Padilla) that the president can lock up an American citizen “without charges” if he believes he may be an “enemy combatant”? Both verdicts overturn the fundamental principles of “inalienable rights”, habeas corpus, and the presumption of innocence; replacing them with the arbitrary authority of the executive.

The American people have no idea of the amount of energy that has been devoted to stripping them of their constitutional protections and how stealthily that plan has been carried out. It has required the concerted efforts of the political establishment, the corporate elite, and the collaborative media. For all practical purposes, the government is no longer constrained in its conduct towards its citizens; it can do as it pleases.

<snip>

The campaign to dismantle the Bill of Rights has focused primarily on the key amendments; the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th. These are the cornerstones of American liberty and they encompass everything from due process to equal protection to free speech to a ban on the “cruel and unusual” treatment of prisoners. Freedom has little tangible meaning apart from the safety provided by these amendments.

At present, there’s no reason for the administration to assert its new powers. That would only dispel the widely-held illusion of personal freedom. But, the existing climate of “well being” will not last forever. The poisonous effects of war, tax cuts, burgeoning budget deficits, and inflation indicate that darker days lie ahead. The middle class is stretched paper-thin and disaster could be as close as a hike in interest rates. The new repressive legislation anticipates the massive political unrest that naturally follows a tenuous and volatile economic situation.

Is this why Congress has rubber stamped so many of the administration’s autocratic laws, or does Bush simply “hate our freedoms”?


SOURCE

Isn't neo-freedom grand?