NationStates Jolt Archive

With the huge amount of influence evangelical christians have within the Republican party, do you think the line between church and state has become too blurred?

Bush himself believes he has divine direction.

The US are definitely a mix of religion (fundamental christianity) and politics. Just like fundamental arab states - we'll see how long it takes until both forms of government are equal :) I already see various civil rights restrictions based solely on christian belief in the bible, which is, sorry for the harsh words, oldfashioned and outdated.

We are headed towards theocracy is Neo-Con George and his buddies keep it up

Those who are working to make us a theocracy already claim that we are, and always have been. :(

the US is a secular state that religion has no influence upon.

The motto of the US "in god we trust" does contradict your claim though.
The fact that people put their hand on the bible to swear in front of the judge as well.

The U.S. is officially not a theocracy, but is one in practice. As the previous poster just stated, the mere fact that the oath to testify ends in "So help me God" points to this.

the US is a secular state that religion has no influence upon.
Isn't preaching abstinence in classrooms their idea of sexuell education? Sounds to me like thats straight from the Bible.

You're joking, right?

First, in American Health classes, they go into rather explicit detail as to the forms of STD control, birth control, and plain healthy practices of sex.

Some classes I've heard do mention abstinence. Why? Well, because abstinence is still the only 100% fool proof way at not getting an STD from a sexual encounter. *Gasp, shock.*

It's simply another option presented, not the over-arching one.

----------------------------

Furthermore, in no way is America a Theocracy. Of course it's effected by religious people and their beliefs, however it's not run under the premise of a particular religion or religious beliefs. America is a nation of tolerance diversity, especially religion. You can find practically every known religion on this planet, somewhere in America.

The fact that a vast majority of "Fundamental" Christians do live in America and influence Republican proposals (BLEH... can we say the 700 Club anyone? *shudder*), but they have that right, because of that body of people. It's also in the ability of the Democratic party to form their own beliefs, that are not necessarily effected as much by Fundamentalist beliefs.

It's by that very fact, according to representative government, that we are not a Theocracy, however we might incorporate religious beliefs into the government and make them law. Just like you might have attained your morals from your father and wish those incorporated into the government, some have received their moral judgement from a religious belief - and of course they want to see this represented in the government.

It's their right.

In no way are we a Theocracy. That's simply absurd.

What is a theocracy? A state governed by religiously motivated fundamentalists who impose or try to impose their values on their subjects and sometimes even on other countries.
That clearly applies to the US at the moment.

Just as the current pope has once been called "a metastasis in the body of communism" it is clear that there is now a metastasis in the body of freedom : Bush.

Petrine Primacy, you make some good points, but, from an outsider's POV, I simply disagree for the simple reason that there seems to be a large amount of Christian influence in the government and a lot of fundamenalist Christian movements that seek to censor certain books, games and videos.

I don't think the USA is, or is in any immediate danger of becoming, a theocracy. However, I do think that a tiny minority of highly-motivated, well-funded and swivel-eyed Christian fundamentalists exercise a wholly unwarranted influence over American public life.

These people represent a deeply unpleasant cult who a) really do want to institute literal religious rule, i.e. by them, and b) think that we are all living in the Last Days, just like every other bunch of Christian wackos have since shortly after the crucifixion. I think that they have a corrosive effect on US politics, and I think it's a really bad idea to let a supposed adult who actually believes in fairy stories like "the Rapture" have any control over a dead match, let alone a nuclear arsenal.

The problem of Christianity has always been that it divides more than it unites. The sheer number of Christian or Christianity-related groups is just rediculous and only delivers the ultimate proof that Christianity is not suitable to function as a standard for human behavior to achieve global understanding and peaceful co-existence.

I think that they have a corrosive effect on US politics, and I think it's a really bad idea to let a supposed adult who actually believes in fairy stories like "the Rapture" have any control over a dead match, let alone a nuclear arsenal.

I actually have a co-worker who believes the rapture will happen before the end of this year, and if not then it will definately happen by 2006 or something like that. And of course its all in the Bible. She's a nice enough older lady, just pretty scary if she gets started on anything christian related.

The problem of Christianity has always been that it divides more than it unites. The sheer number of Christian or Christianity-related groups is just rediculous and only delivers the ultimate proof that Christianity is not suitable to function as a standard for human behavior to achieve global understanding and peaceful co-existence.

The tendency to argue amongst each other and have competing interests is characteristic of all human behavior, not just Christianity. Other religions and ideologies such as communism, Islam, and Buddhism have just as many schisms and divisions.

The tendency to argue amongst each other and have competing interests is characteristic of all human behavior, not just Christianity. Other religions and ideologies such as communism, Islam, and Buddhism have just as many schisms and divisions.Pointing to the errors of others does not relativize one's own errors.

How very true. Which is why I stick to agnosticism.

Pointing to the errors of others does not relativize one's own errors.
You are trying to portray modern Christianity as exceptionally divisive, when in fact all human endeavors are like that. For all of CHristianity's bickering and sectarianism there is no doubt that today's Christians are more moderate than most other traditions especially Islam which constantly makes war with all of its neighbors.

You are trying to portray modern Christianity as exceptionally divisive, when in fact all human endeavors are like that. For all of CHristianity's bickering and sectarianism there is no doubt that today's Christians are more moderate than most other traditions especially Islam which constantly makes war with all of its neighbors.
I'd say Christianity is in the top 3. (was once #1)
I think at the current rate, christianity is getting some ground back and may soon take the #1 place again.

You are trying to portray modern Christianity as exceptionally divisive, when in fact all human endeavors are like that. For all of CHristianity's bickering and sectarianism there is no doubt that today's Christians are more moderate than most other traditions especially Islam which constantly makes war with all of its neighbors.

Uh..how many wars/conflicts has the "Christian" USA been in the last 60 years or so? Probably just as many, if not more so than the average Islamic nation.

The tendency to argue amongst each other and have competing interests is characteristic of all human behavior, not just Christianity. Other religions and ideologies such as communism, Islam, and Buddhism have just as many schisms and divisions.
Actually, they have significantly fewer than Christianity, since the original divide in Christianity was the Great Schism, which was mostly likely in the 6th century following the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Byzantine Empire. This was when it split into Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.

I actually have a co-worker who believes the rapture will happen before the end of this year, and if not then it will definately happen by 2006 or something like that. And of course its all in the Bible. She's a nice enough older lady, just pretty scary if she gets started on anything christian related.

See if you can get her to sell you her house cheap before she's carried off up into the sky. She won't be needing it.

It seems this topic is already erroding into a religious discussion on specific theological doctrines. Well, since I'm not here to discuss Eschatology, I'll refrain from discussions on the rapture.

What is a theocracy? A state governed by religiously motivated fundamentalists who impose or try to impose their values on their subjects and sometimes even on other countries.
That clearly applies to the US at the moment.

A state solely governed by religiously motivated fundamentalists all imposing the same religious tenets upon the government.

By your definition, if anyone was religious running for the country, the country automatically becomes a Theocracy. That is absolutely absurd.

Just because there are religious people respresenting within the government (who were elected by people, who wish to be represented), it does not make the government a Theocracy. If the people, on the majority for that section, wish to elect a religious individual, because they share thoughts and views on the same issues, that is within their right.

Because a religous view relates to a procession of law because people were represented in that way, it does not make it a theocracy. There is no Ecumenical councils making proceedings over our government.

This is blatent lunacy, trying to correlate two different things together.

Representation is a prime tenet of a Representative Democracy. Inevitably, some religious people (especially when the majority are "Christians") are going to be represented, but not to the exclusion of all others. There are plenty of things that "Fundamentalist" Christians do not like and don't get their way, and vice versa. Deal with it.

The idea that since some religious views effect the government make it a Theocracy is imbecilic.

Petrine Primacy, you make some good points, but, from an outsider's POV, I simply disagree for the simple reason that there seems to be a large amount of Christian influence in the government and a lot of fundamenalist Christian movements that seek to censor certain books, games and videos.

In no way did I contend otherwise. There are certainly some wide movements. And there's wide movements the other way too! Lobbying is open to everyone. And many of those censors don't fly. Look at video games. They've constantly tried to shut that realm down (and/or greatly censor it), but to no-avail.

This does not make it a Theocracy.

We have the right under this nation to espouse our views concerning that issue. Whether it gets passed or not is up to legislation.

So, what exactly are you disagreeing with me on?

I don't think the USA is, or is in any immediate danger of becoming, a theocracy. However, I do think that a tiny minority of highly-motivated, well-funded and swivel-eyed Christian fundamentalists exercise a wholly unwarranted influence over American public life.

Wholly unwarranted? Well, I certainly don't agree with many of the Fundamentalist Christian views. I normally cringe at Republican candidates (but not always). However, none-the-less - this doesn't make it wholly unwarranted. They are representing groups of people. This is within their right, and we can't take that away. It is warranted under law, as is their right.

These people represent a deeply unpleasant cult who a) really do want to institute literal religious rule, i.e. by them, and b) think that we are all living in the Last Days, just like every other bunch of Christian wackos have since shortly after the crucifixion. I think that they have a corrosive effect on US politics, and I think it's a really bad idea to let a supposed adult who actually believes in fairy stories like "the Rapture" have any control over a dead match, let alone a nuclear arsenal.

:rolleyes: Give me a break. Some yes, but not all. While I myself am a Roman Catholic, and devout at that, I don't agree with many Fundamentalist teachings of the Protestant regions, aka "the Rapture". None-the-less, I know many Protestants that beleive in such a thing, yet are completely sound of mind and get make educated decisions.

Honestly, you are now the one who is bleeding the two against eachother. This is absolutely non-sensical accusations of religious bigotry. I don't care if you don't agree with Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, LDS, etc...etc...

But to say because they have some religious beliefs it makes them incapable of running the government (i.e. "I think it's a really bad idea to let a supposed adult who actually believes in fairy stories like "the Rapture" have any control over a dead match, let alone a nuclear arsenal"), that's just being ignorant.

Uh..how many wars/conflicts has the "Christian" USA been in the last 60 years or so? Probably just as many, if not more so than the average Islamic nation.
None of the wars the USA recently fought were religiously motivated though... they were nearly all wars to enrich the clique of wealthy bankers and industrialists who run this country. Sure, a war of greed is just as bad as a holy war, but you are incorrectly portraying modern Christianity as causing this violence. Christianity has been weakening throughout the world, including the US. Meanwhile the religion of Islam is strenghthening and ordinary Muslims are becoming more pious while Islamic fundamentalism is also getting stronger. You can't compare the US with an "average Islamic nation"... the US has larger and has more diverse interests than any Islamic nation and thus the US will inevitably have more wars. However the Muslim world as a whole has probably waged more war per capita than any non-Muslim society... Islam has been in constant war with all of its neighbors including Jews, Christians, pagans, Hindus, Chinese, Russians, and other religious/ethnic groups.

You are trying to portray modern Christianity as exceptionally divisive, when in fact all human endeavors are like that. For all of CHristianity's bickering and sectarianism there is no doubt that today's Christians are more moderate than most other traditions especially Islam which constantly makes war with all of its neighbors.But still Christians are claiming to own the sole truth while they cannot even make their minds up among themselves. Christians cannot even clarify who those are whom they worship, since the question of Jesus being Yahweh completely, partially, or not at all has not really been answered.

But to say because they have some religious beliefs it makes them incapable of running the government (i.e. "I think it's a really bad idea to let a supposed adult who actually believes in fairy stories like "the Rapture" have any control over a dead match, let alone a nuclear arsenal"), that's just being ignorant.
I agree with him. Someone believing in an axis of evil or in the end of the world coming soon is dangerous and should not have control over nuclear weapons.

I'd say Christianity is in the top 3. (was once #1)
I think at the current rate, christianity is getting some ground back and may soon take the #1 place again.
Pious Christianity is nearly nonexistent in Europe and is declining in the US... gay marriage and other socially liberal positions are becoming very acceptable. The warmongering of the George W. Bush regime is not motivated by religion but by godless, inhumane corporations like Halliburton that seek profit from war.

None of the wars the USA recently fought were religiously motivated though... they were nearly all wars to enrich the clique of wealthy bankers and industrialists who run this country. Sure, a war of greed is just as bad as a holy war, but you are incorrectly portraying modern Christianity as causing this violence. Christianity has been weakening throughout the world, including the US. Meanwhile the religion of Islam is strenghthening and ordinary Muslims are becoming more pious while Islamic fundamentalism is also getting stronger. You can't compare the US with an "average Islamic nation"... the US has larger and has more diverse interests than any Islamic nation and thus the US will inevitably have more wars. However the Muslim world as a whole has probably waged more war per capita than any non-Muslim society... Islam has been in constant war with all of its neighbors including Jews, Christians, pagans, Hindus, Chinese, Russians, and other religious/ethnic groups.
I think the difference is that the christians are controlling the ressources. Therefore they don't have to start wars.

With the huge amount of influence evangelical christians have within the Republican party, do you think the line between church and state has become too blurred?

Bush himself believes he has divine direction.

Question: what is so wrong about a national leader who is also a person "of faith"? Holding the beliefs and looking to Providence for guidance is not a bad thing at all. Should we make it a law that only atheistic people can hold office in the USA? That's absurd. The religion of the leader him/herself is not the problem. It's what is done in the name of that belief that can be horribly in error. Like the war in Iraq, just to pick an example.

That said, I don't forsee that the States will move toward a theocratic government style a la Arab states, or of any kind. The secular element in US society is not going to go away, and is not going to let that happen. Even the more mainstream Christians won't let it get carried away.

Of course, I don't see what's wrong with a little...how shall I say this...Christian moral thought creeping into the political dynamic. But then, I believe that people are accounatble for their actions, and that there is a right and wrong. I can't help but think that we'd all benefit from a political structure that recognized this.

:) Aiera

Pious Christianity is nearly nonexistent in Europe and is declining in the US... gay marriage and other socially liberal positions are becoming very acceptable. The warmongering of the George W. Bush regime is not motivated by religion but by godless, inhumane corporations like Halliburton that seek profit from war.
Well if you take a time window of 50 years, this is true. However, I was under the impression that christians were on the rise in the last 3 years.

Question: what is so wrong about a national leader who is also a person "of faith"? Holding the beliefs and looking to Providence for guidance is not a bad thing at all. Should we make it a law that only atheistic people can hold office in the USA? That's absurd. The religion of the leader him/herself is not the problem. It's what is done in the name of that belief that can be horribly in error. Like the war in Iraq, just to pick an example.

That said, I don't forsee that the States will move toward a theocratic government style a la Arab states, or of any kind. The secular element in US society is not going to go away, and is not going to let that happen. Even the more mainstream Christians won't let it get carried away.

Of course, I don't see what's wrong with a little...how shall I say this...Christian moral thought creeping into the political dynamic. But then, I believe that people are accounatble for their actions, and that there is a right and wrong. I can't help but think that we'd all benefit from a political structure that recognized this.

:) Aiera
The population shouldn't fall asleep though. Things are not granted for eternity.

I agree with him. Someone believing in an axis of evil or in the end of the world coming soon is dangerous and should not have control over nuclear weapons.

This is so terribly ambiguous and stereo-typical, it doesn't do the Eschatological view any justice! I'd hate to have to get into it and actually explain the Rapture here (even though I don't even believe in it!). A proper understanding of it would show that most do not believe that "The End is Nigh!" and so they can believe, "Eh, who gives a shit? I'll just nuke everyone."

Jeese. Atleast think about this before you start spouting off inane babble. I know I'm going to be branded as a jack ass now, but for goodness sakes, talk about taking other people's views out of context, and deriving your own conclusions of their motives and possible future choices.

Good Lord... I'm anti-Bush, but your espousing to him not being able to be President because he most likely believes in the rapture is sheer imbecility.

But still Christians are claiming to own the sole truth while they cannot even make their minds up among themselves. Christians cannot even clarify who those are whom they worship, since the question of Jesus being Yahweh completely, partially, or not at all has not really been answered.
So? Buddhists don't agree on whether Buddha should be worshipped or not. Some Muslims believe in a messiah, other Muslims do not. Hinduism has practically a sect or subdivision for every other believer, and they don't agree on who is divine and what is the nature of gods, miracles, etc. Anyways all religions have petty theological disputes, and disagreements don't make religions violent (for example the Jains), and it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand, which is whether modern Christianity is actively promoting violence and discord in the world.

US becoming a theocracy?

With the huge amount of influence evangelical christians have within the Republican party, do you think the line between church and state has become too blurred?

Bush himself believes he has divine direction.

Becoming?? :p Pharao Bush already rules the nation

Wholly unwarranted? Well, I certainly don't agree with many of the Fundamentalist Christian views. I normally cringe at Republican candidates (but not always). However, none-the-less - this doesn't make it wholly unwarranted. They are representing groups of people. This is within their right, and we can't take that away. It is warranted under law, as is their right.

Perhaps "wholly unwarranted" wasn't the right phrase. "Massively disproportionate" might have been better. They represent a tiny strand of American public opinion, and yet exercise a totally out-of-scale level of influence on politics, education, the media, and life in general.

:rolleyes: Give me a break. Some yes, but not all. While I myself am a Roman Catholic, and devout at that, I don't agree with many Fundamentalist teachings of the Protestant regions, aka "the Rapture". None-the-less, I know many Protestants that beleive in such a thing, yet are completely sound of mind and get make educated decisions.

Honestly, you are now the one who is bleeding the two against eachother. This is absolutely non-sensical accusations of religious bigotry. I don't care if you don't agree with Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, LDS, etc...etc...

But to say because they have some religious beliefs it makes them incapable of running the government (i.e. "I think it's a really bad idea to let a supposed adult who actually believes in fairy stories like "the Rapture" have any control over a dead match, let alone a nuclear arsenal"), that's just being ignorant.

I'll try to be more clear. I regard the literal belief in the imminent cartoon end-of-the-world, as espoused by the above-mentioned tiny strand of cultists, as a sign of mental deficiency or at best instability. There is, in my opinion, something wrong with adults who believe that these things are literally true. If they believed in the literal truth of pixies, unicorns, or Santa Claus, we would, quite naturally, be concerned for their mental health. And yet, somehow, this equally childish and nonsensical set of beliefs gets a free pass.

I also think that it is a bad, bad idea to let someone who thinks that "armageddon" is just around the corner have any potential say in whether or not to launch nuclear weapons. I don't want some superstitious loon sitting there and thinking, "Oh, well, I suppose it was foretold and all that... at least all the good people will go to heaven and I'll have fulfilled the Lord's Great Plan." I don't even want that kind of tripe to be hovering around the back of their mind. It's cold comfort indeed to think of George W, surveying the glowing rubble and saying "Wot no rapture?" as the ruined planet spins on and no God or angels or fairies appear to magic everything all right again.

I do not lump all Christians, or all religious people, into one mass. I have a great deal of respect for spirituality and intelligent faith. I have no respect, however, for those who turn off their brains and uncritically swallow, hook, line and sinker, a pack of superstitious rubbish.

See, the problem is:

Bush is doing things in the name of his God (in specific, the pumped-up version of the Defense of Marriage Act) that the majority of people who are even semi-intellectual or who believe even a little in the tenet of 'Love thy neighbor' find repulsive.

*shrug*

Just my two cents.

Actually, they have significantly fewer than Christianity, since the original divide in Christianity was the Great Schism, which was mostly likely in the 6th century following the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Byzantine Empire. This was when it split into Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox.

Other religions have had just as many schisms, but you never hear about them because in western education history class mainly focuses on Church history. Islam divided into Shiism and Sunnism just a few decades after Mohammed died. Shiism divided into the Fivers, Twelvers, and the Seveners (Ismailis), numbered according to how many imams they believed in. In Shiism every ayatollah has his own "church" analagous to the Protestant denominations. Sunnism has also divided many times. For example Indian Islam dating from the Delhi sultanate has a caste system adapted from Hinduism. Sunnis are also divided according to interpretation of Islamic law. Buddhism has even more divisions, national churches, and cults of personality. Hinduism is even more disorganized and schismatic. The East-West schism in Christianity officially occurred in the 11th century but you are correct that marked differences in practice and traditions originated hundreds of years before that.

Other religions have had just as many schisms, but you never hear about them because in western education history class mainly focuses on Church history. Islam divided into Shiism and Sunnism just a few decades after Mohammed died. Shiism divided into the Fivers, Twelvers, and the Seveners (Ismailis), numbered according to how many imams they believed in. In Shiism every ayatollah has his own "church" analagous to the Protestant denominations. Sunnism has also divided many times. For example Indian Islam dating from the Delhi sultanate has a caste system adapted from Hinduism. Sunnis are also divided according to interpretation of Islamic law. Buddhism has even more divisions, national churches, and cults of personality. Hinduism is even more disorganized and schismatic. The East-West schism in Christianity officially occurred in the 11th century but you are correct that marked differences in practice and traditions originated hundreds of years before that.Any religion is bullshit IMO.

Well if you take a time window of 50 years, this is true. However, I was under the impression that christians were on the rise in the last 3 years.
Christianity in Europe isn't even close to making a comeback, and in the past three years probably weakened even further because of immigration and Europeans are becoming more accomodating of non-Christians, opposed to what they percieve as the Christian USA, and legislating extremely liberal social reforms. The American Christian right is highly vocal and thus would make you think they are powerful, but their strength is illusory... the gay marriage ammendment was soundly defeated and accurately gauges the secularization here in the US. Any sign of strength Christianity is showing in the US is probably a desperate and futile last bid for influence.

"Theocracy is a form of government in which the governmental rulers are identical with the leaders of the dominant religion, and governmental policies are either identical with or strongly influenced by the principles of the majority religion. Typically, the government claims to rule on behalf of God or a higher power, as specified by the local religion." (wikipedia)

... and that -to me- does not seem to apply to the US. ...haven't heard of any 'religion of bush' yet ;)

Perhaps "wholly unwarranted" wasn't the right phrase. "Massively disproportionate" might have been better. They represent a tiny strand of American public opinion, and yet exercise a totally out-of-scale level of influence on politics, education, the media, and life in general.

Tiny strand? Have you heard the phrase, "Bible belt"? The amount of Fundamental Christians in America is still quite large, believe it or not. One merely could check out the 700 Club's donational record and other groups like it.

Again, I don't agree with these groups, because most of them are propogandists (Rush Limbaugh, anyone?). However, it's not disproportionate. There are many of them still, and obviously through the money the receive from donators, rallying conventions, public support, they're able to use such resources to their advantage: That is to influence the government with their views (which is a pinnacle of Representative Democracy [now, whether you like such a government is another issue entirely]).

I also think that it is a bad, bad idea to let someone who thinks that "armageddon" is just around the corner have any potential say in whether or not to launch nuclear weapons. I don't want some superstitious loon sitting there and thinking, "Oh, well, I suppose it was foretold and all that... at least all the good people will go to heaven and I'll have fulfilled the Lord's Great Plan." I don't even want that kind of tripe to be hovering around the back of their mind. It's cold comfort indeed to think of George W, surveying the glowing rubble and saying "Wot no rapture?" as the ruined planet spins on and no God or angels or fairies appear to magic everything all right again.

Again, this is simply ignorance concerning the Eschatological view of the Rapture and the coined term "Armegeddon." Those Christians that do believe in it (not all do, as I do not), the majority still believes the are not to enact it in the sense, "Let's nuke everyone!!!"

Besides, furthermore, most are Pre-Tribulation believers (not all, though), and would know the rapture happens before the actual Tribulations, so they would not be part of the actual destructive catastrophes that befall the earth.

As I said, This is absolutely silly, to think that since they hold this Eschatological view, that they are now unstable and are going to slam the nuke button down. Hey, I don't like Bush and I do think the guy is a war-mongerer, but this is plain silly arguing that since he "might" believe in the Rapture (I'm not sure, to be honest, but for argument's sake, let's say he does), that automatically he thinks he's the prime mediator of God's justice on the earth with nukes.

I think what you first need to do is get a proper understanding of Eschatology before you run around saying what these people think and believe, and what kind of motives will develope from such.

If they believed in the literal truth of pixies, unicorns, or Santa Claus, we would, quite naturally, be concerned for their mental health. And yet, somehow, this equally childish and nonsensical set of beliefs gets a free pass.


Non-sequitor. While I don't believe in the Rapture either, I'm sure there are some things, as a Roman Catholic, you would contend are fairy tales in my faith. You simply espouse it like you are correct. This assumption can't be made pertaining to the topic.

However, we could apparently open an entirely new topic about the validity of base Christianity, etc... etc... Philosophy, Theology, and Apologetics. However, this topic has been beaten to death so many times on this message board, I would welcome you to e-mail me for discussion on that topic.

starwarsgl@yahoo.com

Feel free to drop me a line, for I enjoy e-mail correspondance much more than message board debate, to be honest.

You're joking, right?

First, in American Health classes, they go into rather explicit detail as to the forms of STD control, birth control, and plain healthy practices of sex.

Some classes I've heard do mention abstinence. Why? Well, because abstinence is still the only 100% fool proof way at not getting an STD from a sexual encounter. *Gasp, shock.*

It's simply another option presented, not the over-arching one.
Not true; it all depends on where you are within the US. Colorado, for example, is in the midst of a furious struggle over sex-ed. The groups that have been doing the sex-ed in that (my) state for some years now teach abstinence-ONLY. As in, no mention of contraceptives and/or any sort of "safe sex" practices are allowed, save in passing references to how often they fail. Fortunately, most people are more reasonable, and they're reaching a compromise. Abstinence will still dominate, but safe sex will be discussed as well (which is a damn good thing).

As for the US being a theocracy; no, it isn't. There are, however, a large number of people who would love to turn it into one, so we must remain vigilant.

Any religion is bullshit IMO.
I agree. Though even as a non-believer I think these attacks on Christianity are unfair and wasted effort, because modern Christianity is as a whole very moderate... we are ignoring greater threats including rising nationalism around the world, Islamic fundamentalism, and multinational corporations manipulating politics and peoples lives to make money.

Christianity in Europe isn't even close to making a comeback, and in the past three years probably weakened even further

I'm guessing this is true for northern Europe, but in the south, especially Italy and Spain christianity has always enjoyed great support from the population.

As for the US being a theocracy; no, it isn't. There are, however, a large number of people who would love to turn it into one, so we must remain vigilant.

Again, the US doesn't really have a religious leader, thus there is no threat of that religious leader taking over the government, thereby making the US a theocracy.

(just to make sure... that's a NO for 'US = theocracy' ;) )

I'm guessing this is true for northern Europe, but in the south, especially Italy and Spain christianity has always enjoyed great support from the population.
Christianity in the south has been stronger than Protestantism in the north but it has also been declining. Church attendance in Spain has repeatedly hit record lows in recent years. And Southern Europeans subscribe to Catholicism because it is part of the national identity - it is like an automatic knee jerk reaction, not because they are pious believers. Secular liberal social standards are increasing all round Europe, not just in the north.

It's not a theocracy because Bush isn't a religious leader.

What we do have is "Devine Mandate," Used in ancient China and medieval europe. The ruler claims to have the endorsement of god, or other divine powers. When disaster strikes, it is believed the ruler has fallen out of favor and a new one comes to take his place.

Taking into account terrorism, even more similarities pop up. Anyone read that Chenny said if Kerry is elected, the terrorists will attack?

Christianity in the south has been stronger than Protestantism in the north but it has also been declining. Church attendance in Spain has repeatedly hit record lows in recent years. And Southern Europeans subscribe to Catholicism because it is part of the national identity - it is like an automatic knee jerk reaction, not because they are pious believers. Secular liberal social standards are increasing all round Europe, not just in the north.Overall, Europeans for the most part are rather Christians out of habit than out of true conviction.

...However, this topic has been beaten to death so many times on this message board, I would welcome you to e-mail me for discussion on that topic.

starwarsgl@yahoo.com

Feel free to drop me a line, for I enjoy e-mail correspondance much more than message board debate, to be honest.

I don't, to be honest. Sorry. But I'll close with a statement that my central antipathy is directed towards Biblical literalists (I don't know if GWB is one, and I don't know his attitude towards the Rapture either -- he was just a sample Born-Again President for the sake of argument). You're right, there are many elements of Roman Catholic belief which I regard as fictional at best -- and increasingly weird as we slide down towards Tridentines, who probably for me cross the line into the crackpot camp -- but I don't generally see them or other mainstream religious people as part of the same category of wilful ignorance espoused by those who insist that the entire book, from beginning to end, is absolutely true and the literal Word of God. Even the bits that contradict the other bits. Even the bits that are patently untrue. And even the bits that are just plain nonsensical.

I suppose ultimately my objection is aesthetic. I think it's all nonsense, at heart, but the Biblical literalists insist on such petty, stupid and unsatisfying nonsense. At least other, broader faiths don't require an outright abandonment of reason, and at least they are capable of achieving something approaching the necessary sense of cosmic scale. The Biblically literal view is just so painfully limp.

Overall, Europeans for the most part are rather Christians out of habit than out of true conviction.

... yeah...cause church over here isn't half as much fun as in the US ;)

not that this is in any way related to the topic of this thread :-d

Question: what is so wrong about a national leader who is also a person "of faith"? Holding the beliefs and looking to Providence for guidance is not a bad thing at all. Should we make it a law that only atheistic people can hold office in the USA? That's absurd. The religion of the leader him/herself is not the problem. It's what is done in the name of that belief that can be horribly in error. Like the war in Iraq, just to pick an example.

That said, I don't forsee that the States will move toward a theocratic government style a la Arab states, or of any kind. The secular element in US society is not going to go away, and is not going to let that happen. Even the more mainstream Christians won't let it get carried away.

Of course, I don't see what's wrong with a little...how shall I say this...Christian moral thought creeping into the political dynamic. But then, I believe that people are accounatble for their actions, and that there is a right and wrong. I can't help but think that we'd all benefit from a political structure that recognized this.

:) Aiera


We are in the process as we see more and more rulings in favor of the Christian model. Most of the "faith based" crap is very slanted towards the Christians. Most of the mony allocated is towards the Christians.

There is nothing wrong with a leader being Relgious. Teddy Roosevelt was a very deeply religous man. However, he was a leader and did what he thought was right and not what the Robertsons and the Fallwells wanted.

The shrub makes laws for Religion and not guided by the principles tought by Religion.

Again, the US doesn't really have a religious leader, thus there is no threat of that religious leader taking over the government, thereby making the US a theocracy.

(just to make sure... that's a NO for 'US = theocracy' ;) )

Pat Robertson is pretty damn close. Especially when he influences public policy.

I commend the author on this very interesting topic. The United States is not a theocracy if viewed from the specific definition of the term. Moreover, the US has a constititutional amendment prohibiting the formal "marriage" of government and religion; the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. From a political and legal standpoint, therefore, the US cannot be considered a textbook theocratic government.

This is not to say, however, that we are not theocratic in practice. Much of our statutory law (i.e., those laws formally legislated and adopted as part of the official state and federal codes)---particularly those in the criminal arena---are morally-based and arise from long-held religious beliefs. While these laws serve practical ends (the protection of body and property,) there is little dispute as to their origin.

It is equally true that many of our senior elected officials in both state and federal government openly espouse their religious beliefs, and admit that many of their public stances on key, divisive issues is religion-based (e.g., governmental regulation on abortion.) Entire political lobbying groups and think tanks exist which dedicate themselves to the formulation of governmental policy based principally on religious doctrine (e.g., The Heritage Foundation ( http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usconservatives&zu=http://www.heritage.org), The American Enterprise Institute (http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usconservatives&zu=http://www.aei.org) and others.) We do not even have to get into the issue of the US government's official stance on support of Israel and the basis for such.

IMHO, the US is theocratic in practice, if not in principle. There is simply to much evidence to the contrary to dispute this.

I commend the author on this very interesting topic. The United States is not a theocracy if viewed from the specific definition of the term. Moreover, the US has a constititutional amendment prohibiting the formal "marriage" of government and religion; the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. From a political and legal standpoint, therefore, the US cannot be considered a textbook theocratic government.

This is not to say, however, that we are not theocratic in practice. Much of our statutory law (i.e., those laws formally legislated and adopted as part of the official state and federal codes)---particularly those in the criminal arena---are morally-based and arise from long-held religious beliefs. While these laws serve practical ends (the protection of body and property,) there is little dispute as to their origin.

It is equally true that many of our senior elected officials in both state and federal government openly espouse their religious beliefs, and admit that many of their public stances on key, divisive issues is religion-based (e.g., governmental regulation on abortion.) Entire political lobbying groups and think tanks exist which dedicate themselves to the formulation of governmental policy based principally on religious doctrine (e.g., The Heritage Foundation ( http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usconservatives&zu=http://www.heritage.org), The American Enterprise Institute (http://usconservatives.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=usconservatives&zu=http://www.aei.org) and others.) We do not even have to get into the issue of the US government's official stance on support of Israel and the basis for such.

IMHO, the US is theocratic in practice, if not in principle. There is simply to much evidence to the contrary to dispute this.
And that's exactly the impression the world has of the US and its policies.

And that's exactly the impression the world has of the US and its policies.

what does it matter which impression the world has of the US and its policies?

what does it matter which impression the world has of the US and its policies?

And that is why there are incidents like the 9/11 bombings.

'Why should we care?'

Well, guess it needs to happen again before people learn.

*shrug*

I'm Canadian, and despite the 800 Canadians that died in the 9/11 incident, I can still point my finger and laugh.

what does it matter which impression the world has of the US and its policies?Well, the impression the world has of the US and its policies is the groundwork for the way that others are dealing with the US and its citizens. If the US proceed with the attitude they show to the world, they need not be surprised by more and more attacks against them.

uhm...
what I meant was going in the more general direction of 'what does the rest of the world's opinion change about the US being or not being a theocracy?' ...

but I do agree with you guys that in politics the other's opinions *do* matter ;)

Science teachers are forced to teach creationism in science class in some of the U.S. Seems like theocracy to me ! On the other hand how long can it take to teach creation"science". You just say "God did it." and that pretty much covers it.

You have to be a total idiot to ask that question. Get a clue.

The motto of the US "in god we trust" does contradict your claim though.
The fact that people put their hand on the bible to swear in front of the judge as well.

Um, wrong. "in god we trust" was added in 1956.

Here, educate yourself: http://ffrf.org/nontracts/?t=xian.txt

Question: The leaders of a nation can be religious without it becomeone a theocracy. But which religion is more dangerous to follow: Christianity/Islam (put on the same boat here), or The Almighty Dollar?

I'm an evangelical Christian myself, and even I don't think politics and religion are a good mix.

With the huge amount of influence evangelical christians have within the Republican party, do you think the line between church and state has become too blurred?

Bush himself believes he has divine direction.


Yeah, I hate to admit it, but certain Christians are hell bent on turning America into a theocracy and will even admit to such, they don't care about the rest of America.

Theocracies really just don't work very well. If more Americans made themselves aware of other countries, they might see this. In the middle east, just about everyone realizes that pure theocracy is a bad idea - because Iran is right next door. I'm not Islamic or anywhere near the area, but I do have friends and peers from the area. According to them, most middle easterners look down on Iran as the most "backward" Islamic state because the people have degenerated back to the most fundamental levels of Islamic society.

Of course, that doesn't mean Iranians are hated. Other countries simply see their government as ineffiecient and harmful to the people mentally.

Theocracies really just don't work very well. If more Americans made themselves aware of other countries, they might see this. In the middle east, just about everyone realizes that pure theocracy is a bad idea - because Iran is right next door. I'm not Islamic or anywhere near the area, but I do have friends and peers from the area. According to them, most middle easterners look down on Iran as the most "backward" Islamic state because the people have degenerated back to the most fundamental levels of Islamic society.
Of course, that doesn't mean Iranians are hated. Other countries simply see their government as ineffiecient and harmful to the people mentally.It seems you do not know too much about Iran, do you?

It seems you do not know too much about Iran, do you?

Well, as I said, it all comes from second-hand sources. I know about official Iran stuff: I know about the conservative rebellion in 1979 (something which hasn't happened in any other country as far as I'm aware). I know it's a Theorcracy based on Islam. I know about the Guardian Council and benighted citizens and their views of America. I don't actually know how the rest of the middle east views them - no. I trust the people I know from the area - Egypt, India, and Israel to be specific.

Is there something you wish to add or correct? If so, present it and we'll discuss.

With the huge amount of influence evangelical christians have within the Republican party, do you think the line between church and state has become too blurred?

Yes, it most certainly has.

You have to be a total idiot to ask that question. Get a clue.

Stop flaming, consider yourself warned.

Stephanie
Game Moderator

As to the original question... yes, becoming, but not yet there. I wish luck to all the sensible USA citizens I know there are (and whose numbers I hope exceed those few I know personally), and for their, if not for the world's sake, I hope Kerry wins the election this fall.

I'm an evangelical Christian myself, and even I don't think politics and religion are a good mix.

Ahh, it's nice to know that not all the evangelicals are somewhat unhinged. :D

Personally, I don't think the US is a Theocracy, but at least with this president, you can certainly see elements of a theocracy there. A religious president is alright, but a president who tries to enforce his religious views on others is most definately not (abortions and gay marriage being examples of this IMO).

Of course, I'm still undecided which faction has more sway over Mr Bush - the fundamentalist christians, or the big corporations. :D


If Kerry doesn't win the election, at least things will get really interesting over the next 4 years. :rolleyes:
I love politics, it's like watching a soap opera. :)

I love politics, it's like watching a soap opera. :)

It's much funnier if you play it fast forward and dub in some circus music. :D

It is a bit less funny if you watch it from Iraq.