“Nobody should be compelled to respect an ideology that doesn’t respect them.”

This is but just one of the reasons the founders resolutely rejected democracy, socialism, a monarchy, etc. and established a representative republic (such being consistent with: eternal principles, recognition of the individual's noble sovereignty, the individual's unalienable rights, the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, justice and, a lack of compelled compliance, license, victimless crimes, larceny with impunity, etc.

How anyone can respect the gang of thugs currently infesting Congress and the White House is a mystery to me,

Democracy is the only "ideology" or I guess really it is a non-ideology. With democracy ideas are as new as today, thus new people are respected and have a voice just like the old timers. Mikes dictum "consistent with eternal principles" is nothing more than like the Pigs wrote on the wall in Orwell's 1984. It is the claptrap of dictatorial minds. Democracy is the only system (non-ideology) that respects each and every man.

My dictum? What's that? Waffler, you've got a good industrial strength stupid liberal thing going on today. Is the dictum you are referring to, representatives can only represent the individual sovereign's personal unalienable rights and nothing more. You got me there.

Of course, that makes those who refuse to bow to unlawful authority 'criminals' in the minds of the authorities. Hey, Waffler, I bet you never even read Animal Farm (and probably not 1984 either) -- if you had, you would understand what happens in a pure democracy. Marx wrote a lot about democracy and how it would be used as the tool for implementing communism simply by the lower classes voting away the rights and property of the wealthy. Then once in power, dominating the press, they vote away the other parties. Why do you think they called it the Communist 'Party' -- because it was a democracy!! If you opposed the 'Party' you were imprisoned or shot. How could such a thing actually happen? American socialism is actually more devious -- we have 2 parties but both are socialist. Just try and present a different view than either of these guys and you will be laughed at and carted away. The numbers of the disaffected are growing -- and these are smart people from all walks of life and cultural backgrounds. There are just too many people still alive that have seen communism/fascism/totalitarianism up close -- never again!

Waffler, freedom of speech is not 'democracy,' it is an inherent right, and a democracy could never protect that right if the majority of those holding opposing views can vote to shut you up. It is because we DO NOT have a democracy that your right to speech is respected at all. How can refusing the dictates of others be a dictatorship? Those that wish to be left alone do not wish to dictate to others. Your double-think is catching up with you.

So, why should I respect Christianity or those who are christians? as they do not respect my rights for equality. Archer, how about "Food Inc."? Just do a little transposing...

Waffler, what in hell or you talking about. Your rantings are a hodge-podge of liberal gibberish and make no sense whatsoever.

Anonymous, you answered your own question. Your ideology obviously doesn't respect Christianity. So how are you any different than your perceived Christianity that does not respect? It has been my experience that most of those that profess a belief in Jesus as the Christ, don't follow Christ's teachings. By way of example: "A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another, as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (Christ @ John 13:34, 35) ". . . God is no respecter of persons:" (Acts 10:34) "But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; (Christ @ Matt 5:44) I know Christians that exemplify Christ's teachings so your broad stroke of an entire people and scope of doctrine is faulty. I believe the word 'compelled' is the troubling mantra and there is a separation of the ideology from the person. I can respect the person and not the ideology. Compelled in either case is wrong. Christian ideology respects you as a person, even if individuals professing to know Jesus the Christ do not. Other ideologies such as democracy and socialism not only do not respect the individual person but, does not even recognize his existence. Democracy is divisive in recognizing only majorities (the largest portion of the forest, not any one individual tree) while socialism only recognizes the entire forest, not any one individual tree.

Democracy is the latest tool of soft tyranny on its way to full on dictatorship. Did YOU vote for Cap and Tax? neither did I. Stalin would have marveled at the genius of it. And Waffler what are you talking about? Are you completely insane? You've stopped making any kind of sense at all.

Mike your argument is flawed very simply by contrast in Rhetoric. It's like saying because I hate you and denounce you any rights I'm not allowed to do the same. Remember if you were attacked would you not defend yourself with the same weapons. Mike you really must try and create your retort instead of relying in "he said she said". If Jesus did exist as the bible suggests then he was a progressive liberal. How dare Palin and Beck stand in DC and espouse the greatness of MLK. This is the kind of rhetoric which is rampent in the US .

Anonymous, again you've answered your own question, if you really exist. You have never been attacked by Christianity (if you've ever been attacked at all - or were the individuals simply defending themselves), but rather by hypocritical persons hiding in error under an ideological umbrella. Your accusation is inaccurate and too broad a claim, bringing into it the innocent. Your dis-belief and innuendos (he said she said) does not make Jesus any more real or un-real. I'm not a Palin or Beck supporter, I believe them to be neo-con puppets for hire. BUT, they would dare stand in DC and espouse the greatness of MLK the same as anyone of courage or for money would do.

Anonymous, returning like for like was your argument, not mine. Just because one individual denounces (I presume you meant take away) another's rights doesn't make the reciprocal correct. If my rights are not allowed to be exercised, that does not make it right to inhibit other's rights. Rights are inalienable. As to an attack, I may or may not defend myself with the same weapons. My retort of 'He' said is the point of this discussion. What 'He' said and did, and was, is Christianity; without that, there is no Christianity. Anonymous, I have no idea what you mean by Jesus is a progressive liberal. Maybe you can point out what "He said" that draws you to that conclusion? (Please define your version of what a progressive is and believes first.)

And yet how many Native Americans have served the USA in the military, despite having "their" country stolen from them, their people massacered, their religion, culture, manner of dress prohibited and disrespected, and today they continue to be deprived their rights, necessities for living, their truth being put in history books, etc., etc., etc. ... Peltier is still falsley imprisoned. How dare we criticize other countries over human rights!

The respectable are respectful.