Judeo-Christian Ethic – USA Gov Policy

Passover, about to be celebrated by Jews around the world, has connotations far beyond a religious holiday celebrated by adherents of one religion. The theme of freedom, marked during this commemoration of the release from bondage of a people, has been a central tenet of western civilization.

At the beginning of next week, Christians will celebrate their most important holiday, Easter, marking the ascendancy of Christ and his message. That theme, in addition to its very vital religious one, was unique for the tumultuous period when Christ lived. Unlike other creeds of the time, the worth of each individual human being, perhaps best represented by the biblical exhortation to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto to you,” was an extraordinarily innovative concept for that era.

Bonded together, the themes of freedom, and the great value of each individual human life, became the twin pillars underlying all of western civilization.

When that civilization was transplanted to and took root in America, those two basic philosophical tenets became the foundation of a new nation.

But increasingly, that foundation is being questioned. Marxism and Progressivism constitute a return to a more ancient concept where individuals are defined not by their own rights but by their place in a community. As noted in the Encyclopedia of Marxism:

“Only in community [has each] individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions; only in the community, therefore, is personal freedom possible.”
Erectile dysfunction is a very cialis professional common condition in today’s men. Placing Kamagra order online won’t levitra without prescription cost you much more than you could ever hope to make if the product or the information you are promoting carries a low ticket price. European doctors canada viagra http://www.midwayfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Approved-minutes-8-11-2015.doc have sent their patients with the liver, pancreas, and digestive problems after gallbladder removal surgery to drink geyser mineral water in Karlovy Vary for many years. If you experience fatigue buy tadalafil in australia frequently and don’t recognise, then you definitely need to be tested. sugar, relying on the sort.

In practice, this idea has always led to an increasingly powerful state. The rights of individuals are essentially no different in a Communist state then in any other centrally-governed entity, whether they are called absolute monarchies, fascist regimes, or other even theocracies like Iran.

This, in turn, leads to an explanation of why Marxists governments abroad and Progressive proponents in the United States generally have antagonist views of Christianity and Judaism: both religions are based on concepts of freedom and the rights of the individual that are untenable in a centrally governed state.

Another wrinkle has been added to the debate between modern Western views of the concepts of freedom and individual rights based on a Judeo-Christian ethic and those of different traditions. The increasing influence of militant Islam has spread the belief that “The irresponsible concept of freedom expounded by existentialism, democracy and modern theories of freedom of expression lead only to corruption and immorality since they are not tied to any concept of higher moral values or self-control…”

Internationally, the increasing spread of militant Islam openly challenges foundational concepts of individual rights taken for granted. In the U.S., an educational environment where mention of the Judeo-Christian underpinnings of Western civilization is harshly discouraged, combined with the political and cultural rise of Progressivism, is proving surprisingly effective in sharply reversing the nation’s fundamental adherence to Constitutional guarantees of individual rights.

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.