The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge’s rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian.
Noetics
Noetics Points to note: 1. USA started off (including about 200 years of Colonial rule from 1603 AD) as 98.8 % Anglo Saxon Protestant, over 1% Anglo Saxon Catholics and less than 0.2% Jews/Talmudic. 2. The political parties reflected the same proportions for a long time after the Revolution 3. Republicans and Democrats were all chips of the same block, singing Halleluiahs in the same segregated Churches (or Synagogues) and belonging necessarily to the same Mason Lodges (especially in the South) with Catholics and Jews excluded and with hardly any noticeable difference in political or cultural life-styles or thought patterns across the board. 4. The only difference between Democrats and Republicans was the type of their constituents. The Democrats were largely agrarian folks, rural and labor. The Republicans were largely business folks, urban and aristocrats. Slavery was a universal norm, not a Southern invention!! 5. All these changed when the "wealth" shifted hands from the majority to the minority and everything shifted since the 1940's with the migration of a large number of East Europeans (communist domains) and Nazi domains. 6. Money makes leadership. Today's Conservative-Liberal difference is purely academic, no substance to it. Both parties are under the firm grip of "money" which has no interest other than "money" and its immediate cousin, "power". 7. The media including Hollywood has now become the Fourth Branch of Government- the most powerful branch. 8. The media moralists and academic ethicists have long replaced the Pastors and Priests. 9. About one third of the academia (as per writings and speeches of Ben Stein, Rabbi Daniel Lapin, Avi Lipkin alias Victor Mordecai an ex-Israeli government official, ex-Marxist David Horowitz and Journalist Bernard Goldberg) is in cahoots with about 95% of the media. This is the most dangerous hybridization ever!! They are determined to destroy the American Heritage (none exists according to them). And replace it with what? Sharia Law? Talmud? Marxist Manifesto? There will be no vacuum. Nature abhors it. They are against all Natural Laws and Natural Order (primarily because that is what most Westerners prefer and most of West is still labeled "Christian" though by any measure it has largely become pagan (pa-Gaia or earth-worshippers). 10 What could be the answer to this precarious turn of events ? A French Revolution? A Bolshevik Revolution? A Nazi Revolution? A Maoist- Pol Pot- Marxist Revolution" Or the Great Awakenings of early America? The Oxford Movement and Wesleyan Revival of England? Remember all people everywhere get a government they deserve! Pa-Gaia America will get a Pa-Gaia Government. NoeticsIn reality the KKK was started by the Democrat Party after the Civil War and targeted Republicans, both black and white. Over three thousand blacks were lynched, while over one thousand white Republicans were lynched by this creation of the Democrat Party for political reasons. They are credited with opposing and eventually ending the efforts of the Radical Republicans that were calling for equal rights for black, including the right to vote. Because of their efforts, equal rights for blacks had to wait for decades. And please don’t tell me today’s Democrats are yesterday’s Republicans. That always makes me laugh.Here you go again promoting revisionist history and generalizations Lilly. NO, the Klan had nothing to do with the Democratic party Post Bellum. What began as an ex Confederate officer's club founded by Gen'l Nathan B. Forrest (a former slave trader) grew to become a reactionary group to keep African-Americans in their place socially and politically. ......... And yes,the Dem. party in the South at least WAS conservative. The flip from conservative to moderate and liberal happened during the Roosevelt era. But, even then each party had political wings. Even the Republicans pre and post War had a conservative faction. ........ Cap't Jack
Hi DL,
I see there’s been a lot said already…
There’s a difference between Islam and Christianity in regard to your initial question. Islam was formed as a political religion, not merely a metaphysical idea. Islam is religion and government in one. Sharia law is not simply a religious idea, it is the will of God manifest, the concrete vision of God’s will for life on earth. (Note: Sharia, although, can be amended. Which seems contradictory, but it can. It is subject to the teachers’ interpretation. That’s why many women’s rights groups do not seek to overthrow Sharia in Muslim lands, they simply seek to amend the Sharia law.)
Christianity was formed separately from government, it only later incorporated it in Christendom. The Western world today, having adopted democracy, separates religious from secular law, yet the “law of Christ”, in a religious view, stands above it. Not so in Islam. Sharia is “secular law”.
I don’t think Muslims are more religious than Christians in that sense, they just look at things through a different lense. If certain radical Christians would have their way, Christendom would be back pretty quickly.
Michelle
The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge's rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian. NoeticsThe judge lives in Memphis, TN, not exactly a place known for being a hot-bed of anti-Jesus sentiment. Nor does the judge's name, Lu Ann Ballew, strike me as being Jewish, or any other traditionally non-Christian ethnic group, in origin.
The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge's rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian. NoeticsThe judge lives in Memphis, TN, not exactly a place known for being a hot-bed of anti-Jesus sentiment. Nor does the judge's name, Lu Ann Ballew, strike me as being Jewish, or any other traditionally non-Christian ethnic group, in origin. [Noetics] That really does not matter, i.e. the name of a person or place. The opinion of a US judge is determined mostly by the philosophy s/he is subjected to and indoctrinated at the various Law Schools which is manifestly anti- Heritage ( American heritage which they totally deny and has removed from all Texts). I happened to have a look at a 1980 Social Study text-book of a high school junior- about 20 pages on Islam, Judaism and other religions and one sentence on the Western Heritage as follows: "The second largest religion in the Western world is Judaism". I looked for, what is the first? No mention. Then I wanted to contact the Author (Bernstein), but could not. Names don't mean anything!! Opinions and verdicts do. Noetics
The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge's rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian. NoeticsThe judge lives in Memphis, TN, not exactly a place known for being a hot-bed of anti-Jesus sentiment. Nor does the judge's name, Lu Ann Ballew, strike me as being Jewish, or any other traditionally non-Christian ethnic group, in origin. [Noetics] That really does not matter, i.e. the name of a person or place. The opinion of a US judge is determined mostly by the philosophy s/he is subjected to and indoctrinated at the various Law Schools which is manifestly anti- Heritage ( American heritage which they totally deny and has removed from all Texts). I happened to have a look at a 1980 Social Study text-book of a high school junior- about 20 pages on Islam, Judaism and other religions and one sentence on the Western Heritage as follows: "The second largest religion in the Western world is Judaism". I looked for, what is the first? No mention. Then I wanted to contact the Author (Bernstein), but could not. Names don't mean anything!! Opinions and verdicts do. NoeticsFrankly, I fail to see what an '80s textbook has to do with anything on the subject. Nor can I believe that there is a wide-spread anti-Christian stance in the US when all I have to do is pull out a piece of any US currency of any denomination and see the words, "In God We Trust" on it. As a resident of TN, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people in this state are Christians, including those holding government office. Even though its unconstitutional, TN still has laws requiring religious tests for those seeking public office.]
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)
Judge orders parents to change baby's name]A father can't even names his son anymore. Women neither. Tsk, tsk. "Censorship reflects society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime." - Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart Regards DL I think it should be noted that this is a news sources. Not an academics one. Now granted, that doesn't mean the story is false. It just means we need to be careful about it. With regards to the "one messiah arguement", messiah means "annointed one". There were many annointed people in history. I wonder if catholicism would even prohibit that name anyway. Generally speaking, the Catholic Church has required that names be saint's names or derived from saint's names. They have loosened this requirement in modern times, often allowing a middle name to be the name or be derived from the name of a saint while the first name can break the rules. I don't think Messiah would qualify under the old rules, since it is not a name but a designation. You never know, however, what the Catholic Church might rule in an individual case. LoisA judge in the US has ordered a baby's first name to be changed from Messiah to Martin, arguing that the only true messiah is Jesus Christ, reports say.So much for Christians not promoting their law.
The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge's rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian. NoeticsThe judge lives in Memphis, TN, not exactly a place known for being a hot-bed of anti-Jesus sentiment. Nor does the judge's name, Lu Ann Ballew, strike me as being Jewish, or any other traditionally non-Christian ethnic group, in origin. [Noetics] That really does not matter, i.e. the name of a person or place. The opinion of a US judge is determined mostly by the philosophy s/he is subjected to and indoctrinated at the various Law Schools which is manifestly anti- Heritage ( American heritage which they totally deny and has removed from all Texts). I happened to have a look at a 1980 Social Study text-book of a high school junior- about 20 pages on Islam, Judaism and other religions and one sentence on the Western Heritage as follows: "The second largest religion in the Western world is Judaism". I looked for, what is the first? No mention. Then I wanted to contact the Author (Bernstein), but could not. Names don't mean anything!! Opinions and verdicts do. Noetics Whatever the largest or second largest religion is, it definitely isn't Judaism. Judaism accounts for only 2% of people embracing religion in the world. According to http://search.aol.com/aol/search?enabled_terms=&q=leading+religions+worldwidew&s_it=client97_searchbox the leading religions are: 1.Christianity: 2.1 billion 2.Islam: 1.5 billion 3.Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion 4.Hinduism: 900 million 5.Chinese traditional religion: 394 million 6.Buddhism: 376 million 7.primal-indigenous: 300 million 8.African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million 9.Sikhism: 23 million 10.Juche: 19 million 11.Spiritism: 15 million 12.Judaism: 14 million According to this there are far more non-religious than Jews.
The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge's rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian. NoeticsThe judge lives in Memphis, TN, not exactly a place known for being a hot-bed of anti-Jesus sentiment. Nor does the judge's name, Lu Ann Ballew, strike me as being Jewish, or any other traditionally non-Christian ethnic group, in origin. [Noetics] That really does not matter, i.e. the name of a person or place. The opinion of a US judge is determined mostly by the philosophy s/he is subjected to and indoctrinated at the various Law Schools which is manifestly anti- Heritage ( American heritage which they totally deny and has removed from all Texts). I happened to have a look at a 1980 Social Study text-book of a high school junior- about 20 pages on Islam, Judaism and other religions and one sentence on the Western Heritage as follows: "The second largest religion in the Western world is Judaism". I looked for, what is the first? No mention. Then I wanted to contact the Author (Bernstein), but could not. Names don't mean anything!! Opinions and verdicts do. NoeticsFrankly, I fail to see what an '80s textbook has to do with anything on the subject. Nor can I believe that there is a wide-spread anti-Christian stance in the US when all I have to do is pull out a piece of any US currency of any denomination and see the words, "In God We Trust" on it. As a resident of TN, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people in this state are Christians, including those holding government office. Even though its unconstitutional, TN still has laws requiring religious tests for those seeking public office.]
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)[Noetics] If the 90's and 10's texts have changed it does not matter! You seem to be not aware of what even last year testifies to the contrary in so many ways in diverse places from the Royal Society, to NASA, to the Kentucky University, to hospitals, schools and colleges in many places. I have neither the time nor the desire to enumerate these here- too long and these cases are easily available on the internet.
The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge's rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian. NoeticsThe judge lives in Memphis, TN, not exactly a place known for being a hot-bed of anti-Jesus sentiment. Nor does the judge's name, Lu Ann Ballew, strike me as being Jewish, or any other traditionally non-Christian ethnic group, in origin. [Noetics] That really does not matter, i.e. the name of a person or place. The opinion of a US judge is determined mostly by the philosophy s/he is subjected to and indoctrinated at the various Law Schools which is manifestly anti- Heritage ( American heritage which they totally deny and has removed from all Texts). I happened to have a look at a 1980 Social Study text-book of a high school junior- about 20 pages on Islam, Judaism and other religions and one sentence on the Western Heritage as follows: "The second largest religion in the Western world is Judaism". I looked for, what is the first? No mention. Then I wanted to contact the Author (Bernstein), but could not. Names don't mean anything!! Opinions and verdicts do. NoeticsFrankly, I fail to see what an '80s textbook has to do with anything on the subject. Nor can I believe that there is a wide-spread anti-Christian stance in the US when all I have to do is pull out a piece of any US currency of any denomination and see the words, "In God We Trust" on it. As a resident of TN, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people in this state are Christians, including those holding government office. Even though its unconstitutional, TN still has laws requiring religious tests for those seeking public office.]
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)[Noetics] If the 90's and 10's texts have changed it does not matter! You seem to be not aware of what even last year testifies to the contrary in so many ways in diverse places from the Royal Society, to NASA, to the Kentucky University, to hospitals, schools and colleges in many places. I have neither the time nor the desire to enumerate these here- too long and these cases are easily available on the internet.Nothing you've said here makes any sense or has anything to do with the subject of a judge changing the name of child because she didn't think that calling the child "Messiah" was appropriate. The Royal Society mention is particularly nonsensical, since as a British organization it has nothing to do with US laws. Look at what the judge said
"The word Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ," she said.Does that sound like something someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God would say? Why would an atheist say that it was a title that had been "earned"? If you don't believe in God, then the significance of one person being called "messiah" is meaningless to you. Nor is it even correct to assert that Jesus (if he lived or not) was the only person with that title. It was commonly used in referring to prophets in the Old Testament, as the word simply means "anointed one." If anything, an atheist would want to see used as a person's first name, since it signifies that the term is losing the reverence people have given to it in the past.
The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge's rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian. NoeticsThe judge lives in Memphis, TN, not exactly a place known for being a hot-bed of anti-Jesus sentiment. Nor does the judge's name, Lu Ann Ballew, strike me as being Jewish, or any other traditionally non-Christian ethnic group, in origin. [Noetics] That really does not matter, i.e. the name of a person or place. The opinion of a US judge is determined mostly by the philosophy s/he is subjected to and indoctrinated at the various Law Schools which is manifestly anti- Heritage ( American heritage which they totally deny and has removed from all Texts). I happened to have a look at a 1980 Social Study text-book of a high school junior- about 20 pages on Islam, Judaism and other religions and one sentence on the Western Heritage as follows: "The second largest religion in the Western world is Judaism". I looked for, what is the first? No mention. Then I wanted to contact the Author (Bernstein), but could not. Names don't mean anything!! Opinions and verdicts do. NoeticsFrankly, I fail to see what an '80s textbook has to do with anything on the subject. Nor can I believe that there is a wide-spread anti-Christian stance in the US when all I have to do is pull out a piece of any US currency of any denomination and see the words, "In God We Trust" on it. As a resident of TN, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people in this state are Christians, including those holding government office. Even though its unconstitutional, TN still has laws requiring religious tests for those seeking public office.]
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)[Noetics] If the 90's and 10's texts have changed it does not matter! You seem to be not aware of what even last year testifies to the contrary in so many ways in diverse places from the Royal Society, to NASA, to the Kentucky University, to hospitals, schools and colleges in many places. I have neither the time nor the desire to enumerate these here- too long and these cases are easily available on the internet.Nothing you've said here makes any sense or has anything to do with the subject of a judge changing the name of child because she didn't think that calling the child "Messiah" was appropriate. The Royal Society mention is particularly nonsensical, since as a British organization it has nothing to do with US laws. Look at what the judge said
"The word Messiah is a title and it's a title that has only been earned by one person and that one person is Jesus Christ," she said.Does that sound like something someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God would say? Why would an atheist say that it was a title that had been "earned"? If you don't believe in God, then the significance of one person being called "messiah" is meaningless to you. Nor is it even correct to assert that Jesus (if he lived or not) was the only person with that title. It was commonly used in referring to prophets in the Old Testament, as the word simply means "anointed one." If anything, an atheist would want to see used as a person's first name, since it signifies that the term is losing the reverence people have given to it in the past. [Noetics] You are right. It does not make any sense at all, if you missed the "Western World" which this thread was morphed into. "The second largest religion in the WESTERN WORLD" cannot be equated with the same in the whole world as some one else has done above. Regret, I have no more time to spend on this particular aspect of the thread. Good bye!
So, in short, you’ve only got the paranoid ravenings of someone laboring under the illusion that Christianity is somehow being persecuted, and rather admit that you’re wrong, you’re throwing in the towel and running away. One wonders why you’re here to begin with, since this isn’t a forum dedicated to Christian sympathizers.
I was going to respond to his post but after reading his responses to you and others it seems that we have just witnessed a drive by xtian fanatic so I’m not going to waste my time.
Cap’t Jack
See, Darron and GdB, we lose one and we gain another. :lol:
Occam
The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge's rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian. NoeticsThe judge lives in Memphis, TN, not exactly a place known for being a hot-bed of anti-Jesus sentiment. Nor does the judge's name, Lu Ann Ballew, strike me as being Jewish, or any other traditionally non-Christian ethnic group, in origin. [Noetics] That really does not matter, i.e. the name of a person or place. The opinion of a US judge is determined mostly by the philosophy s/he is subjected to and indoctrinated at the various Law Schools which is manifestly anti- Heritage ( American heritage which they totally deny and has removed from all Texts). I happened to have a look at a 1980 Social Study text-book of a high school junior- about 20 pages on Islam, Judaism and other religions and one sentence on the Western Heritage as follows: "The second largest religion in the Western world is Judaism". I looked for, what is the first? No mention. Then I wanted to contact the Author (Bernstein), but could not. Names don't mean anything!! Opinions and verdicts do. NoeticsFrankly, I fail to see what an '80s textbook has to do with anything on the subject. Nor can I believe that there is a wide-spread anti-Christian stance in the US when all I have to do is pull out a piece of any US currency of any denomination and see the words, "In God We Trust" on it. As a resident of TN, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people in this state are Christians, including those holding government office. Even though its unconstitutional, TN still has laws requiring religious tests for those seeking public office.]
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)That doesn't appear in the US Constitution. In fact, there is no Article 9 in the Bill of Rights. There is no such requirement in the US Constitution though there are some State Constitutions that contain such wording, but they have been challenged, most recently by Herb Silverman in South Carolina. "In 1990, a colleague pointed out that atheists were ineligible to hold public office in South Carolina. After an eight-year battle, Herb won a unanimous decision in the South Carolina Supreme Court, which struck down this religious test requirement." http://secular.org/bios/Herb_Silverman Lois
That doesn’t appear in the US Constitution. In fact, there is no Article 9 in the Bill of Rights. There is no such requirement in the US Constitution though there are some State Constitutions that contain such wording, but they have been challenged, most recently by Herb Silverman in South Carolina.No, the Constitution only has seven articles as you know. He may be referring to Amendment nine, which BTW has no "sections", granting any power to the citizens not specifically listed in the other amendments. And any sate or local law that attempts to supersede Constiutional law may be declared null and void but only if it is challenged. Now you know why I didn't respond to his rant. Cap't Jack
The name Martin is very common for both Christians and Jews alike. The Judge's rule may reflect anti-Jesus (Messiah) sentiments more than the very unlikely pro-Christian. NoeticsThe judge lives in Memphis, TN, not exactly a place known for being a hot-bed of anti-Jesus sentiment. Nor does the judge's name, Lu Ann Ballew, strike me as being Jewish, or any other traditionally non-Christian ethnic group, in origin. [Noetics] That really does not matter, i.e. the name of a person or place. The opinion of a US judge is determined mostly by the philosophy s/he is subjected to and indoctrinated at the various Law Schools which is manifestly anti- Heritage ( American heritage which they totally deny and has removed from all Texts). I happened to have a look at a 1980 Social Study text-book of a high school junior- about 20 pages on Islam, Judaism and other religions and one sentence on the Western Heritage as follows: "The second largest religion in the Western world is Judaism". I looked for, what is the first? No mention. Then I wanted to contact the Author (Bernstein), but could not. Names don't mean anything!! Opinions and verdicts do. NoeticsFrankly, I fail to see what an '80s textbook has to do with anything on the subject. Nor can I believe that there is a wide-spread anti-Christian stance in the US when all I have to do is pull out a piece of any US currency of any denomination and see the words, "In God We Trust" on it. As a resident of TN, I can tell you that the overwhelming majority of people in this state are Christians, including those holding government office. Even though its unconstitutional, TN still has laws requiring religious tests for those seeking public office.]
“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." (Bill of Rights, Article 9, Section 2)That doesn't appear in the US Constitution. In fact, there is no Article 9 in the Bill of Rights. There is no such requirement in the US Constitution though there are some State Constitutions that contain such wording, but they have been challenged, most recently by Herb Silverman in South Carolina. "In 1990, a colleague pointed out that atheists were ineligible to hold public office in South Carolina. After an eight-year battle, Herb won a unanimous decision in the South Carolina Supreme Court, which struck down this religious test requirement." http://secular.org/bios/Herb_Silverman LoisIts from the TN state Constitution, not the Federal Constitution.] Its still not legally valid, but until its challenged in court, it has force of law in TN.
Its from the TN state Constitution, not the Federal Constitution.] Its still not legally valid, but until its challenged in court, it has force of law in TN.United States Consitution, Article VI paragraph 3]:
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.That's pretty clear. As Coldheart Tucker said, this will be law in TN until someone challenges it.
Muslims promote Sharia law. Why do Christians not promote their law? Some Muslim communities run with Sharia law. Other nations with a high Muslim population promote Sharia. It would seem from this phenomenon that Muslim law can be used to run a society as it does so in a few countries. I know of no country that uses Christian or biblical law and have not heard of any Christian effort to have their law accepted in their nation. This indicates that either Muslims are more religious than Christians, or Christians know that their laws would never be accepted as the law of the land. Meanwhile, the vast majority of nations have rejected both sets of religious laws for a more secular approach to law and governance. Briefly --- Which of these three sets of laws do you think are superior and why? Regards DLChristians have pushed governments to pass laws that support Christian values for millennia, and continue to do so to this day. They are simply not as blatant as Muslims, mostly because Christian influence is mainly in democracies. Christians know they can't demand that Christian law be the law of the land because a democratic population would not support it. So they try to influence voting blocs and individual legislative representatives. They have been successful in countries with established religions. People call for Islamic law in dictatorships where the will of the people carries no weight. Lois You are correct in that democratic nations will only suffer so much religious nonsense. One small glitch that I will not argue here is that all the democracies you see, I call oligarchies. There are no democracies. There likely never was such a thing. Regards DL I agree that "democracies" are not true democracies. We have been led to believe we have democracy, but we have a false version. A pretend version. We've been falsely led to believe our vote makes a difference. Lois
I agree that "democracies" are not true democracies. We have been led to believe we have democracy, but we have a false version. A pretend version. We've been falsely led to believe our vote makes a difference. LoisIf thats true it is kind of sad. But at the same time, if the public is anything like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE I dont think I would be comfortable in democratic America (or republican if one wants to get technical). Maybe there could be a special "voting test" where only people with enough knowledge of American and foreign affairs can vote? Of course thats my opinion which could be completely fallacious.