Theocracy In America--Who wants this?

[catzmeow]

Weren't you forced to remove the avatar because this country is turning into a theocracy?

Damn those fundies.

Anyway, back on topic:

This country isn't a theocracy. In fact, it's less theocratic than it has been at any point in its history. Furthermore, the odds of it becoming a theocracy are on par with you getting sane in the near future, which is to say, not good.

Lastly, High Dancer, your posts on this topic are all paranoid hyperbole. Is there a branch of reconstructionists who would love to see us become more religious as a nation? Sure. They're small in number, virtually powerless, smell funny, dress even funnier, and their desire to tilt at windmills keeps them busy. We should applaud it.

It's like Roe V. Wade. Every election year, conservatives and liberals drag it out, flog it, make their key supporters paranoid with it, but nothing will ever result from these public beatings. Same with the spectre of theocracy.

You're safe being as whacky buddhist as you want to be, for the foreseeable future.

 

[KittenKoder]

Weren't you forced to remove the avatar because this country is turning into a theocracy?

Damn those fundies.

Anyway, back on topic:

This country isn't a theocracy. In fact, it's less theocratic than it has been at any point in its history. Furthermore, the odds of it becoming a theocracy are on par with you getting sane in the near future, which is to say, not good.

Lastly, High Dancer, your posts on this topic are all paranoid hyperbole. Is there a branch of reconstructionists who would love to see us become more religious as a nation? Sure. They're small in number, virtually powerless, smell funny, dress even funnier, and their desire to tilt at windmills keeps them busy. We should applaud it.

It's like Roe V. Wade. Every election year, conservatives and liberals drag it out, flog it, make their key supporters paranoid with it, but nothing will ever result from these public beatings. Same with the spectre of theocracy.

You're safe being as whacky buddhist as you want to be, for the foreseeable future.

Like all catch phrases (the gay agenda, satanism, etc) they are nothing but political banter used for political terrorism.

 

[catzmeow]

Like all catch phrases (the gay agenda, satanism, etc) they are nothing but political banter used for political terrorism.

Truthfully, they are, and both teams use them.

 

[AllieBaba]

It's not a theocracy, never has been.

And what's more, it's NOT a theocracy because the FUNDAMENTALISTS, i.e., BAPTISTS, convinced Jefferson that it would be a mistake to lump religion and government together:

The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut sent a letter, dated October 7, 1801, to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against a government establishment of religion.

In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists affirmed that "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..."[2]

As a religious minority in Connecticut, the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious majority might "reproach their chief Magistrate... because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ," thus establishing a state religion at the cost of the liberties of religious minorities.

Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice. Jefferson writes: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [3]
Baptists in the history of separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservative Christians do NOT want anything of religion to be instilled in government. Likewise, they don't want anything which RESTRICTS religion in the government. Which is why we have such a fit over the secularist insistence that passages of the bible be declared "hate speech". That is a clear crossing of the line between having a separate church and state..and having a state which dictates religion to us.

 

[catzmeow]

It's not a theocracy, never has been.

And what's more, it's NOT a theocracy because the FUNDAMENTALISTS, i.e., BAPTISTS, convinced Jefferson that it would be a mistake to lump religion and government together:

The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut sent a letter, dated October 7, 1801, to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against a government establishment of religion.

In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists affirmed that "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..."[2]

As a religious minority in Connecticut, the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious majority might "reproach their chief Magistrate... because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ," thus establishing a state religion at the cost of the liberties of religious minorities.

Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice. Jefferson writes: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." [3]
Baptists in the history of separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservative Christians do NOT want anything of religion to be instilled in government. Likewise, they don't want anything which RESTRICTS religion in the government. Which is why we have such a fit over the secularist insistence that passages of the bible be declared "hate speech". That is a clear crossing of the line between having a separate church and state..and having a state which dictates religion to us.

Damn, Allie. Good post!

 

[Agnapostate]

Pffft...the idea that secularists do that is as stupid as their little idea of the ACLU being virulently anti-Christian and hostile to religion.

 

[catzmeow]

Pffft...the idea that secularists do that is as stupid as their little idea of the ACLU being virulently anti-Christian and hostile to religion.

You don't think that some secularist organizations have a vested interest in establishing their own relevance by implying that there is a creeping scourge of fundamentalist theocracy in this country? I mean, it is the very image of the fundamentalist organizations (think D. James Kennedy) who raise funds by implying that there is a war on Christianity.

You don't think that both Planned Parenthood and Focus on the Family use the abortion issue to raise funds and establish the fact that they are constantly needed to protect America from the other side?

My, aren't you ever the little idealist. That's so cute. I remember when I used to think like that.

 

[AllieBaba]

I get tired of the anti-Christian hysterics insisting that it's the fundamentalists who want to inject religion into politics, when it's just the opposite.

They want to remove the freedom of individuals to worship openly as they please.

It seems the right to be involved in homosexual relationships includes being "open" about your relationship...but Christians who dare to be openly Christian are suspect and must be silenced.

 

[KittenKoder]

You don't think that some secularist organizations have a vested interest in establishing their own relevance by implying that there is a creeping scourge of fundamentalist theocracy in this country? I mean, it is the very image of the fundamentalist organizations (think D. James Kennedy) who raise funds by implying that there is a war on Christianity.

You don't think that both Planned Parenthood and Focus on the Family use the abortion issue to raise funds and establish the fact that they are constantly needed to protect America from the other side?

My, aren't you ever the little idealist. That's so cute. I remember when I used to think like that.

While the first half could probably be reworded or made clearer, the second part is spot on. Talking about Agan's comment you are commenting on .... grrr. Now I need to be clearer.

 

[catzmeow]

I get tired of the anti-Christian hysterics insisting that it's the fundamentalists who want to inject religion into politics, when it's just the opposite.

They want to remove the freedom of individuals to worship openly as they please.

It seems the right to be involved in homosexual relationships includes being "open" about your relationship...but Christians who dare to be openly Christian are suspect and must be silenced.

Actually, I think both are protected by our constitution, for the record.

But don't tell anyone. It will make me look moderate and/or libertarian.

 

[sky dancer]

Do you want America to be a Christian theocracy?

 

[catzmeow]

While the first half could probably be reworded or made clearer, the second part is spot on.

Just look at High Dancer's sources for this thread and you'll get a sense of what I'm talking about. It's all about advocacy politics.

 

[KittenKoder]

The ACLU is virulently anti-Christian and hostile to religion.

Um ... yeah ... with all the times they have helped out christian cults with their rights, sure.

 

[catzmeow]

Do you want America to be a Christian theocracy?

I don't think there has been a SINGLE commenter on this thread who has been in favor of this.

 

[KittenKoder]

Actually, I think both are protected by our constitution, for the record.

But don't tell anyone. It will make me look moderate and/or libertarian.

*rae* You aren't a moderate? Ack! We are enemies ... we MUST stop agreeing or they will hunt us down!

 

[AllieBaba]

Actually, I think both are protected by our constitution, for the record.

But don't tell anyone. It will make me look moderate and/or libertarian.

they are, but that's not the way it's applied by the liberal jihadists.

 

[sky dancer]

I don't think there has been a SINGLE commenter on this thread who has been in favor of this.

Ask Allie Baba. The question was for her, not you.

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't think there has been a SINGLE commenter on this thread who has been in favor of this.

It's a myth perpetuated by the left to incite hatred against Christians. Pure and simple. And to justify legislation which restricts them.

 

[dilloduck]

I don't think there has been a SINGLE commenter on this thread who has been in favor of this.

CMON---if Windy doesn't have an oppressor she'll fall over. A lot Anguille in that respect

 

[catzmeow]

Ask Allie Baba. The question was for her, not you.

In Allie's defense, read the fucking thread. She SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSED THIS QUESTION.