American Constitution OR Theocracy - PICK ONE

I'll take the Constitution...it already has the First Amendment...
Freedom of speech
Freedom of press
Freedom of religion
Freedom to assemble
Freedom to petition the Government

That's good enough for me when it comes to "religion"...

reply to post by Cuervo


Religion provides a moral foundation to society. I don't think you'll ever escape that. Imagine I'm wiccan. I would then base my beliefs within the realm of the wiccan foundation.

The same could be said with christianity.

Some religions use their faith for political purposes, ie islam.

Now some use christianity as a blunt instument to beat an ideology into society. There has to be a balance. The Constitution provides for that.

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Religion provides a moral foundation to society. I don't think you'll ever escape that. Imagine I'm wiccan. I would then base my beliefs within the realm of the wiccan foundation.

The same could be said with christianity.

Some religions use their faith for political purposes, ie islam.

Now some use christianity as a blunt instument to beat an ideology into society. There has to be a balance. The Constitution provides for that.

Balance is there because people are influenced by their religions. This is fine. When their religions are directly affecting those who do not belong to their religion, that's when it becomes an issue.

Some churches like to excommunicate their members. That's fine. But that doesn't mean they can excommunicate me or somebody from a different church. I know that's a bit convoluted but I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

So if Judaism became the mainstream religion and people decided to outlaw pork, most American would flip out and shout about freedom fries and start singing country songs about it. To me, it isn't any different than when Christians do this. I just don't sing country songs about it.

It's just dawned on me that I've put out such a mountain of words that I can't even see the OP from here. (Maybe I should put that in my signature.)

WARNING! I'm going to do some serious nit-picking here, you may want to skip this post.

It's just my opinion, but it seems we're talking past each other without real progress on the original statement. Might it be because we don't even agree on what the word "theocracy" means? I don't mind talking about abortion, but I feel some kind of ATS obligation to work toward an answer to the OP's question. So, what is a theocracy.

What's that I see riding to the rescue? It's our old friend Wiki (and the Cavalry). But it's not as much help as I thought because it has lots of different definitions for the word. Let's figure out what we're talking about.

Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance...

or by officials who are regarded as (or claim to be) divinely guided, . . .

or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.

They go on to clarify these definitions.

From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state, hence the term theocracy, from the Greek . . .

Taken literally or strictly, theocracy means rule by God or gods and refers primarily to an internal "rule of the heart", especially in its biblical application. The common, generic use of the term, as defined above in terms of rule by a church or analogous religious leadership, would be more accurately described as an ecclesiocracy

In a pure theocracy, the civil leader is believed to have a direct personal connection with God.

An ecclesiocracy, on the other hand, is a situation where the religious leaders assume a leading role in the state, but do not claim that they are instruments of divine revelation.

So far, at least to me, it doesn't look like we're talking about a pure theocracy or an ecclesiocracy.

Theocracy should be distinguished from other, secular, forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".

en.wikipedia.org...

So, again, I ask "What are we talking about?" Not the name, but what are the defining characteristics of the system the OP fears we are in danger of adopting? I'd like to be playing off the same sheet of music.

reply to post by Cuervo


As an American and a Christian I choose CONSTITUTION!!!

Religion and government should remain separate. No matter what a politician's religious beliefs once elected to public office that should be put aside as their job is to represent their constituents, not to force their religious beliefs on others. The Constitution should be upheld at all costs!

Originally posted by TheOneElectric
reply to post by Cuervo

 

What is Equal Protection under the law? Where can I find it? How much is it? How do I sign up for it?
What is Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), and how do the opinions stated in the majority have a distinct effect on the future of the issue?

Equal Protection clause was never meant for homosexuals, atheist's or devil worshipers. During the early day's of the Republic, Homosexuality was a death penalty offence(and many states where Christian Republics). This whole nonsense of "Separation between Church and State" that atheist's and other miscreants cite is complete garbage. The First Amendment expressly states that CONGRESS doesn't have the authority to regulate religion, the press or speech.

That is why States, but not Congress, passed public indecency law's in regard to speech because only the States have the legal authority to regulate the press, religion and speech. Rewrite history all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the same Chief Justice who worked towards expanding the prohibition Congress faced onto the states also justified a different ruling via "The Constitution is not a death pact" aka beginning of the line of thinking that the Constitution is just "a scrap of paper".

The funny thing is, society tried the tolerance thing and within a decade bigots began doing everything they can and could to persecute Christians. So if left with the choice of persecuting atheist's and homosexuals, or have myself be persecuted against, it is not that hard of a choice at all and I am beginning to understand why the Bible say's not to overly tolerate atheist's and homosexuals.

Originally posted by korathin
Equal Protection clause was never meant for homosexuals, atheist's or devil worshipers. During the early day's of the Republic, Homosexuality was a death penalty offence(and many states where Christian Republics). This whole nonsense of "Separation between Church and State" that atheist's and other miscreants cite is complete garbage.

Now I understand why so many are afraid of the whole concept of evolution. I think it reminds people of how society is evolving and that their own limited narrow viewpoints are going extinct.

I cannot wait until archaic, antiquated, ignorant ideas that push an agenda of inequality based on mythology are dead. It's going to happen far sooner than you think and I believe we are seeing the death throws of ignorance being paraded around today.

Originally posted by korathin

Equal Protection clause was never meant for homosexuals, atheist's or devil worshipers. During the early day's of the Republic, Homosexuality was a death penalty offence(and many states where Christian Republics). This whole nonsense of "Separation between Church and State" that atheist's and other miscreants cite is complete garbage. The First Amendment expressly states that CONGRESS doesn't have the authority to regulate religion, the press or speech.

Equal protection applies to ALL US Citizens, some of those citizens happen to be homosexuals, atheists,and devil worshippers...so it most certainly applies to these people as well.

Homosexuality carrying the death penalty means nothing so i dont know what ou're trying to say here. Just because something used to be one way does not mean it should continue to be so. People also owned slavs, we recognize that was wrong now.

The 14th Amendment expressly says that STATES shall make no law abridging the freedoms illustrated in the US Constitution, so you are wrong in your about your assertions that states are not beholden to the Constitution. Rights are not given to us...the Bill of Rights only serves to prohibit BOTH the federal and state governments from infringing upon them.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Source

See that part about not denying "any person" equal protection under the law? Theres no asterisk there. No exceptions.

It would be unfair to ask elected officials to act without regard to their beliefs. It's unconstitutional for the state to endorse a religion, but not for a citizen or even a party (Christian Liberty Party). I don't think America is in danger of becoming a full blown theocracy, if Romney gets elected they aren't going to start throwing out the Muslims and there is still a large faction of politicians who do not support fundamental Christian reasoning.

I think more religious philosophy should be taught in public schools. When it comes to the thinking of humanity, the names that matter most are Moses, Jesus, Buddha, Muhammad, Lao Tzu, etc. The prophets. Separation of church and state has made religion taboo in school, when it would be much better to give an even handed account of all religions instead of leaving them out all together.

I actually wrote a thread earlier this morning that no one has responded to about the lack of Confucian thought in America. Confucian Solutions He was more of a political philosopher and educator than mystic, and his teachings apply well to American society.

It is not the presence of religion in politics that is the problem as much as the way it is used. Christianity has become a source of votes and not ethics.

reply to post by Cuervo

I'm impressed.

Religious zealotry in politics (next to lobbyism) is one of the major burdens the U.S. faces today.
Good to read a plea for secularism by a U.S. citizen for a change.

ETA: The fact that your location says: "Republic of Cascadia" just earned you another star
I love the concept of regional independence.

You are right, but not only that, those who are clamoring and preaching from their pedestals now over this issue are the same people and politicians who go against the same religion every other day of the week. The hypocritical nature of religious people is insane. The problem is not always with the religion itself, but with those who wish to cherry-pick what religious laws they follow.

Church and state should never influence one another, because the stakes are too high. We see what happens in Muslim countries where their ridiculous Sharia law is in effect. Injustice rules in those systems, not justice. I think every person is born with a sense of justice, right and wrong, and mostly it comes down to respecting the rights of others, and not trampling on them...This basic tenet is cast aside under Muslim rule, and that is why it is evil.