SUICIDE PACT
SUICIDE PACT
After a score of questions about the economy and national security and abortion. Kelly teased the upcoming finale right as the network went to commercial: “We have to stand you by,” she told the participants, “because after the break, we’re going to let the candidates make their closing statements, their final thoughts — and God.”
As soon as Kelly came back, she explained that Chase A. Norton, like thousands of others, had posted a question for the candidates on Facebook. Unlike thousands of others, his was chosen: “I want to know if any of them have received a word from God on what they should do and take care of first.”
Apparently the majority of Christian watchers of the debate were not impressed with the candidate’s answers because they were perceived as non specific.
They were dissatisfied because none of them specified a church, or whether not they prayed or whether or not they would ask for direction from God.
Sometimes I wonder if we forget that we are a country that believes in freedom of religion, but also we no longer specify that a candidate has to be religious.
Many different religions have their own systems of rules and practices. These often cover marriage and divorce, bans on certain actions such as drinking alcohol, and rules about worship, rituals and physical dress/appearance. Members of that religion have to follow these rules and the rules of the state where they are in the majority are modeled to incorporate and allow this, indeed religious laws are often part of the foundation of the state’s law.
However, there is a gray area that we tend to ignore when dealing with our own country’s laws and the laws of other countries and that is when laws are made by those who are religiously bound by belief in a God, are the Laws being made objectively or are the laws being made because the leader tends to mingle his religious views into the making and enforcement of laws?
With migration around the world there are increasingly minority groups in nations with different belief systems that are therefore not taken into account.
As a result in some cases, religious beliefs are in contradiction to state law.
This of course strikes fear into people, because they worry that their ability to practice their religion will be hindered by the influx of immigrants who practice different religions or religions that they are not familiar with.
Recent examples of this debate of this include whether to allow Sharia law courts (Islamic courts) in Canada and the United Kingdom, whether non-Muslims should be allowed to drink alcohol in Muslim countries like Iran, and whether Jewish, Muslim and Hindu communities should be allowed to slaughter animals in a way that would break animal welfare laws.
They say that God moves in mysterious ways, but his follower tend to be even more mysterious especially when they hold positions of political power.
A Pew Research analysis finds that 30 of the world’s countries (15%) belong to a unique group of nations that call for their heads of state to have a particular religious affiliation. From monarchies to republics, candidates, including descendants of royal monarchies, must belong to a specific religious group.
More than half of the countries with religion-related restrictions on their heads of state 17 maintain that the office must be held by a Muslim. In Jordan, for example, the heir to the throne must be a Muslim child of Muslim parents. In Tunisia, any Muslim male or female voter born in the country may qualify as a candidate for president. Malaysia, Pakistan and Mauritania also restrict their heads of state to Muslim citizens.
Two countries, Lebanon and Andorra, require their heads of state to have a Christian affiliation. Lebanon also has a religious requirement of its prime minister, who must be a Sunni Muslim.
Two other countries require the heads of their monarchies be Buddhist: Bhutan and Thailand. And one country, Indonesia, requires the official state belief in Pancasila to be upheld by its head of state. Indonesia is a Muslim-majority country; Pancasila is a summation of “common cultural elements” of Indonesia, including belief in God.
A handful of countries do not require a particular religious affiliation for heads of state, but do limit candidates for the office to laypersons. Eight countries, including Bolivia, Mexico and El Salvador, specifically prohibit clergy from running in presidential elections. In Burma (Myanmar), the president is prohibited from being a member of a religious order.
In addition to the 30 countries in this analysis, another 19 nations have religious requirements for ceremonial monarchs who serve as their heads of state. Sixteen of these, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand, are members of the Commonwealth of Nations with Queen Elizabeth II – also known as the Defender of the Faith – as their head of state. The other countries in this category are Denmark, Norway and Sweden.
Most of the world’s countries, 85% allow citizens of any religious affiliation to be head of state. In the United States, the Constitution specifically prohibits any kind of “religious test” as a qualification for holding federal or state public office. At the same time, a number of states still have laws on the books prohibiting nonbelievers from holding office. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that First Amendment’s prohibition on the establishment of religion clearly prohibits states from requiring office-holders to profess a belief in God.
However, it would be very interesting to see just how the United States would react to electing an atheist or an agnostic to office. Many people question Barack Obama’s religious loyalties. Obama has said that he is a Christian while others will argue that he is a Muslim.
Equally in Israel, the law doesn’t require that the Prime Minister be Israeli or Jewish. But as Israel’s demographics stand, it’s very unlikely that someone who’s not Jewish will be elected as prime minister. About 80% of the population is Jewish and they are not likely to vote for an Israeli Arab which is the major part of the other 20% give or take few percentage points.
According to Iran’s Constitution it states that:
“The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Qur’anic justice.”
Furthermore:
The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:
1. The One God (as stated in the phrase “There is no god except Allah”), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;
3.The return to God in the Hereafter, and the constructive role of this belief in the course of man’s ascent towards God;
4.The justice of God in creation and legislation;
5. Continuous leadership and perpetual guidance, and its fundamental role in ensuring the uninterrupted process of the revolution of Islam;
6. The exalted dignity and value of man, and his freedom coupled with responsibility before God; in which equity, justice, political, economic, social, and cultural independence, and national solidarity are secured by recourse to:
1. Continuous jihad of the fuqaha’ (practicing of Islam) possessing necessary qualifications, exercised on the basis of the Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Ma’sumun, upon all of whom be peace;
2. Sciences and arts and the most advanced results of human experience, together with the effort to advance them further;
3. Negation of all forms of oppression, both the infliction of and the submission to it, and of dominance, both its imposition and its acceptance.
As you can see Iran is a very religious country whose values and political decisions including the making of law are given through Divine revelation.
Which bring us to the Iran nuclear deal. It has been proposed that the reason the Republicans are hard-lined against the deal is because it appears their loyalties lie with special interests where they can profit.
One interest is in the profit form defense contractors and religious extremists both Jewish and Christian, both of which are huge supporters of the Republican Party.
It is the continuous ideology to continue with suspicion and war in the Middle East, because war is profitable if you’re the producer of tanks and bullets, and if you’re a religious extremist, war against your religious enemy is required by what you think your god wants.
Anymore, God wants war.
That also includes the God that gives the so-called divine revelation to the leaders of Iran.
On July 18th it looked as if the Supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khameni was divinely inspired to tweet a message showing a graphic of what appeared to be a silhouette of Barack Obama attempting suicide.
The graphic was accompanied by these words “US president has said he could knock out Iran’s military. We welcome no war, nor do we initiate any war, but…” IF ANY WAR HAPPENS THE ONE WHO WILL EMERGE LOSER WILL BE THE AGGRESSIVE AND CRIMINAL U.S.!
Khamenei’s account has not been verified by Twitter but is widely believed to be the supreme leader’s tweet based on its content, which often rails against the United States and Israel.
In his first speech since a nuclear agreement was reached with world powers, Ayatollah Khamenei, voiced support for the deal without criticizing any of its terms, providing his version of an endorsement that could remove the most significant obstacles to its domestic approval.
If the Ayatollah is pleased, doesn’t that make you wonder of we have made a mistake especially when he supports the deal and then adds that it will not end the hostility between our nations.
Several sources have reported that the United States acted as Iran’s agent during the negotiations which led to a nuclear deal that some say relies on trust of a regime bent on terror and colonial expansion throughout the region.
When an agreement, a pact or a binding political treaty is made with country whose government is motivated by religious affiliation, what takes priority when that country makes decisions? The religious convictions of that government? –Or the political convictions of that government? Are they the same things?
How is it that it is seen as bad to question a president that has aligned the United States with a terror-sponsoring nation like Iran while alienating our allies in the region?
Americans are supposed to trust President Obama and Iran and we will never be allowed to know what is going on.
The U.S. and allies have also promised to help Iran learn how to thwart and detect threats to its nuclear program, according to the parameters of a deal. We will also help Iran construct next-generation centrifuges to enrich uranium at Fordow, the facility deep underground which is impenetrable to air strikes. This should help in Iran’s clandestine work.
We will be actively sponsoring the development of Iranian nuclear technology and we will be protecting it.
Should we trust this type of seeping authority by a President?
We should also think about the motivation behind this.. some say again that this shows Obama’s religious loyalty.
During a news interview in London, two Middle Eastern commentators have accused President Barack Obama of working to improve ties with Iran, because, they claim, “his father was a Shiite” Muslim. Abu Muntasir Al-Baloushi, an Iranian opposition activist based in London, made the comments on the Saudi 4Shbab television.
Syrian writer Muhydin Lazikani said in an interview with Hiwar TV ““I am not peddling some theory and I am not being a racist, but Barack Hussein Obama is the son of a Shiite Kenyan father.”
Time magazine in 2008 examined the rumor being spread then in the Middle East that Obama is a secret Shiite. It reported:
“The notion that Obama is a Shi’ite may be traced to Iran. In the run-up to the U.S. presidential election, state-run papers published articles claiming that the Democratic nominee’s paternal ancestors had hailed from southwestern Iran. In reality, of course, Obama’s father and his ancestors came from Kenya, where Shi’a Islam is rare. Most Kenyan Muslims are Sunnis and leaven their faith with pre-Islamic African traditions and beliefs. Obama himself has said he has no idea if his paternal grandfather (who converted from Christianity) was Sunni or Shi’ite.
Undeterred, some Shi’ite scholars trawled through ancient texts to find proof and came up with increasingly far-fetched theories linking the rise of Obama to important Shi’ite figures like the Imam Ali. Some pointed to a prophecy sometimes attributed to Ali that the arrival of the Mahdi — a messiah-like figure who, Shi’ites believe, will ultimately defeat evil — will be presaged by the appearance of a messenger, a tall black man who will rule the West.”
It all goes to show you that when it comes to war and decisions of war, religious extremism is unavoidable in the apocalypse.
When the world seems like it is closing in on us we wither blame God or the Devil for the problems in the world. Either way, it is a safe bet and a reliable crutch to keep the blame from falling on our shoulders.
Little do we know that when we continually forfeit our responsibilities by blaming an unseen God or demon, or appear fanatical or extreme we open the door for superstitious manipulation by those who have no regard for either the devil, or God.
I think the leaders of this world fit that description.
No comments:
Post a Comment