The Theocratic War

America has two wars pending. Both are attacking the very foundation of our governmental system. One is pushing toward a theocracy, while the other is beginning its fight for socialism. This week I will speak on the topic of this Theocratic War.

This nation within the last decades has been in the middle of a faith revival, particularly, Christian, which is absolutely fine. However, our Senators deem it now of national importance to know the faith of a Supreme Court nominee and that is simply unconstitutional. Moreover, we, as citizens, vote for government officials based on their religious/spiritual beliefs or either the absence of those beliefs, and again, it is simply unconstitutional.

If one disagrees with me, just research and read the last paragraph of Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. Yet, let me save one the energy of seeking out the old dusty text, “The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Many look around and wonder how we have gotten ourselves to this polarized governmental situation: Democrats (Left), Republicans (Right).

I disagree with many Democrats (mostly the extreme liberals, as I do with the radically conservative Republicans), yet it is not based on the same grounds that most Americans do. According to former U.S. Senator Gray Hart (D-Colo.), many Americans view the Democrats as immoral human beings.

With that particular stereotype pushed on our minds daily, we then begin to believe Left equals Evil, so then Right equals Right; there enter the Republicans.

Many vote Republican for their personally religious beliefs (specifically, Protestant Christian beliefs), instead of voting for the best candidate for the task. That goes for the followers of the Democrats as well. That is the root, now, of the polarization problem our nation faces, religion dictates our politics. Yet again, that is simply unconstitutional; furthermore, within the next decade or two, it will play out before our very eyes.

Because we live in, as the CIA Factbook states, a “Constitution-based federal republic [with] strong democratic tradition,” we live in a stark contradiction.

In a republic citizens’ possess natural rights, which are protected (in our case) by the Bill of Rights, and the minority’s rights are the priority--hence, the filibuster.

In a democracy the majority rules; 51 percent is all that is needed. Additionally, any rights for the minority are civil rights--more or less, just privileges--granted by a condescending majority. The reality of a democracy is it is a dictatorship of the majority.

The majority of the group voting republican for religious reasoning actually push for a majority-rules democracy, while the ones voting democrat want a minority prioritized republic. I find that ironic.


Here is my weekly column for The Parthenon. Firstly, I did not title this column. The Parthenon is not the New York Times--where the columnists have the privilege to write their only titles. However, it is fine; I cannot wait to see next week's follow-up title. Secondly, I want people to praise or condemn my thoughts and words. At least, those people will read and ruminate and digest (to some degree or another). Lastly, if the Managing Editor of The Parthenon, Rasmi, ever reads this blog, I want her to know I hold nothing against her; it is the newspaper process, which I have a problem with, and maybe in a future column, I will write on the commercialism of that process.

A Truth about The Truth

If one believes his or her truth is The Truth it is he or she who judges The Truth of another individual by the sole comprehension of his or her own truth; ergo, another’s truth is The Truth to him or her, yet not to the one’s truth, so is there then an actual The Truth?

That means: if one believes his or her truth is The Truth he or she then holds others to his or her personal standard of his or her truth. Furthermore, one will or can easily forget or just plainly dismiss that his or her truth is not a universal truth but a single belief held solely by that individual and nought more.

One cannot pretend to know the full complexities of The Ultimate Truth because The Truth is not objective nor a particular thing, which one can reach out with his or her ardent or meager hand and touch it by physical fingers and/or understand it by mental capabilities; it is purely relative to one’s own path of life‘s experiences.

When one condemns another for his or her actions (mind they stay within the boundaries of the societal and governmental laws, if deemed justice or equal to the minority as well as the majority) or personal convictions based on his or her interpretation of The Truth and still holds him or her up against one’s personal truth without concerning that individual’s own belief in his or her truth, where then is The Truth?

Try wrapping your mind around this: ruminate how something can never go wrong, never break, never malfunction. The answer would be the most deplorable of answers, if one valued his or her humanity. The only way for everything to go right is for nothing to exist in the first place. For another example, what is veritable love? One would first have to acknowledge that love has a myriad of different forms, intensities, and expressions, so thence veritable love would be the sum of all of the forms, intensities, expressions.

So now, by the acceptance of The Almighty, Enlightening Truth, consequently, one would have to encompass all truths (not only his or hers); hence, the acceptance of all truths would thus prove that there is no The Truth.

To conclude: no one individual and/or group’s truth is beyond another, if there is even a truth, for The Truth exists only when there would be no truth. To be The Truth, one most be all, whereby the embracing of all would no longer be one, so that ascertains there is no one truth, if The Truth exists.

I wrote this to be my first column for this spring term for the Parthenon (campus newspaper); however, it was "too advanced," at least that is what the editor said. I have mixed feelings on the issue of ed-op piece in a newspaper. It is enough to make one question his career plans.