Those who insist Christians are attempting to establish a theocracy....

[Luddly Neddite]

There is a big difference between establishing a theocracy and getting aholes to believe in God and salvation and values based living.

really?

funny I live a values based life and god had nothing to do with it ...
btw calling people assholes who don't buy into your sky fairy fantasy is a touch contradictory and petty don't you think?

The whole "values based" line of crap is just one more example of saying the opposite of what they're really doing.


AND - it works.


`

 

[buckeye45_73]

Nobody's insisting that, that's your problem.

Huh, liberals ALWAYS make that claim, just say I want prayer in schools, that argument is about 2 seconds behind.

so why deny that it exists?

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

that logic doesn't quite work. lack of knowledge of such a sanctioned marriage in history does not negate the fact that marriage is generally defined by the judeo-christian version. absence of knowledge does not negate presence of it.

But marriage is far from the establishment of a theocracy. To accuse Christians of trying to enforce one is way off base.

I appreciate the well formed response. I admit I'm not familiar enough with the start of it all, but I do believe that the people insisting on marriage being heterosexual are religious, and mostly Christian. That's not to say "all Christians" but rather those pushing the agenda happen to move on religious beliefs.

Please, can you act intelligent for one second and tell me one religious sect that openly embraces homosexuality?? No there are none, they will let the gays come in and worship in hopes of saving there lost souls but there is not one religion that openly embraces homosexuality. What I have witnessed is just the opposite and that would be a concerted effort to demonize religion both christian and catholic.

the·oc·ra·cy
THēˈäkrəsē/
noun
noun: theocracy; plural noun: theocracies

1.
a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

Once again how did the republican party tie into this?? You are being called out ....

 

[Katzndogz]

What do the words establish a theocracy mean? What secularists object to isn't a theocratic goverment. It's an individual that lives according to religious principles. In effect a theocracy in their personal lives. At one time this was called freedom of religion. Now refusal to conduct your own business and affairs by purely secular principles is establishing a theocracy.

 

[boilermaker55]

Nowhere can you state with real conviction that anyone is taking away anyone's right to practice their very own religious beliefs.
Because you try to project your religious ideology on to others is where the issue is.

What do the words establish a theocracy mean? What secularists object to isn't a theocratic goverment. It's an individual that lives according to religious principles. In effect a theocracy in their personal lives. At one time this was called freedom of religion. Now refusal to conduct your own business and affairs by purely secular principles is establishing a theocracy.

 

[daws101]

Actually no. 17th century would be 1701 to 1800 and so on. The 00 year is the last year of the century. When you count items you start with "1", not zero.

according to you!
(that was my best kosher hag impression)

No no, it's more like this:
__________________

"Moron."

 

[g5000]

also kosher hag it was the 17th century
a tip: The 17th century was the century that lasted from January 1, 1600, to December 31, 1699,
the 18th century 1700- 1799
the 19th century 1800- 1899
the 20th century 1900-1999

Actually no. 17th century would be 1701 to 1800 and so on.

The 17th century would be 1601-1700.

 

[daws101]

also kosher hag it was the 17th century
a tip: The 17th century was the century that lasted from January 1, 1600, to December 31, 1699,
the 18th century 1700- 1799
the 19th century 1800- 1899
the 20th century 1900-1999

Actually no. 17th century would be 1701 to 1800 and so on.

The 17th century would be 1601-1700.

so a decade is 9 years not ten?

 

[Pogo]

also kosher hag it was the 17th century
a tip: The 17th century was the century that lasted from January 1, 1600, to December 31, 1699,
the 18th century 1700- 1799
the 19th century 1800- 1899
the 20th century 1900-1999

Actually no. 17th century would be 1701 to 1800 and so on.

The 17th century would be 1601-1700.

Pfft - you're right, I focused on the singles and forgot the hundreds

 

[g5000]

Actually no. 17th century would be 1701 to 1800 and so on.

The 17th century would be 1601-1700.

so a decade is 9 years not ten?

1601-1700 is one hundred years. It is 1601 through 1700. A decade is ten years.

 

[daws101]

The 17th century would be 1601-1700.

so a decade is 9 years not ten?

then a century would be 99 years not one hundred

 

[daws101]

The 17th century would be 1601-1700.

so a decade is 9 years not ten?

1601-1700 is one hundred years. It is 1601 through 1700. A decade is ten years.

I know that but 1700 minus 1601 is 99.

 

[Pogo]

Actually no. 17th century would be 1701 to 1800 and so on.

The 17th century would be 1601-1700.

so a decade is 9 years not ten?

A decade is ten years: 1 through 10; 101 through 110; 1701 through 1800 etc. If you have 100 of something, you don't have a hundred when you have 99. We're now in the 21st century; we won't complete that century until we complete the year 2100 (if we get there). Then we start the 22nd century in 2101, "year one" of that century.

And of course there is no Year Zero.

 

[Pogo]

so a decade is 9 years not ten?

1601-1700 is one hundred years. It is 1601 through 1700. A decade is ten years.

I know that but 1700 minus 1601 is 99.

If you subtract that, you have subtracted one year from the 17th century. And a century minus one year is 99.

 

[Clementine]

Virtually every group wants this or that. We all have opinions on every matter and a lot of people express those opinions. That doesn't mean any will get their way.

We have pro-illegal immigration groups that want open borders. We have Muslims who want Sharia law established because they don't want to follow our laws. We have pro-life people who want abortions stopped and we have pro-abortion (I don't call them pro-choice because they're not really) people who would like abortions readily available and done by people other than doctors and they'd like insurance to pay for it. Since many are on Medicaid or other subsidized plan, it would mean tax payers would be paying for the abortions. Some people want gun control or even bans.

Of course, in a sane world, the only things people get their way on are those things that are in line with our constitution. So, they can gripe all they want but if their demands aren't reasonable and legal, they won't be met.

It doesn't get dangerous until politicians think and act like the radical people demanding things that are simply unconstitutional. The government already set aside immigration laws and Obama changes the health care law every other day. This is when we need to worry. The system that is supposed to uphold and defend the constitution are the very ones trampling on it.

There is no proof that Christians want a theocracy. They'll continue to speak out against things, like they've done for years.

There does seem to be an effort to silence Christians. They are being vilified constantly by the left while the more radical Muslims are actually defended.

The only things the left complains about with Christians is their abortion stance and the fact that they are against gay marriage. Since those are clearly a priority with the left, they'll attack all Christians. Muslims don't say shit about it publicly. The left talks about gay rights (even if only for political gain), yet they say nothing about the horrible treatment of gays by Muslims. They behead them, yet nary a peep from liberals on that. The left also claims to be supportive of women's rights, yet again they look the other way as Muslims mistreat women every day.

Bottom line is that people can only speak out. It's politicians who actually make laws and shape the country and they are the ones we need to pay attention to, not the loud group out there getting all the coverage.

 

[g5000]

so a decade is 9 years not ten?

1601-1700 is one hundred years. It is 1601 through 1700. A decade is ten years.

I know that but 1700 minus 1601 is 99.

It is year 01 through 100. The next century starts in year 101.

 

[daws101]

The 17th century would be 1601-1700.

so a decade is 9 years not ten?

A decade is ten years: 1 through 10; 101 through 110; 1701 through 1800 etc. If you have 100 of something, you don't have a hundred when you have 99. We're now in the 21st century; we won't complete that century until we complete the year 2100 (if we get there). Then we start the 22nd century in 2101, "year one" of that century.

And of course there is no Year Zero.

really? what about this..

 

[koshergrl]

Wow I see a lot of crazy in the posts that are wailing because there is absolutely zero evidence that there is a concentrated Christian movement in the US to establish a theocracy.

Makes a person almost believe the devil's at work. Particularly if by *devil* one means ignorant drop outs who think they're SUPER INTELLECTUAL and biblically savvy!

 

[initforme]

I don't believe there is a movement to create a theocracy. What I do see is HYPOCRISY by those evangelicals of whom I am one. I have been a practicing Christian my whole life. I have a firm faith in my creator. But I detest those of my fellow evangelicals who look down upon the poor and believe their wealth is what god wants for them. In reality, their religion preaches nothing of what their lifestyle is. My bible preaches nothing but helping the less fortunate. They have taken this and twisted it.

 

[g5000]

Wow I see a lot of crazy in the last few posts.

Makes a person almost believe the devil's at work.

Claiming the Right is trying to establish a theocracy is a rhetorical shortcut. I doubt anyone actually believes the Religious Right is trying to install a Pope or other religious figures as the leadership of our country.

I think what is meant is that the Religious Right is trying to force everyone to live by the more extremist opinions for which the Christian bible is frequently thumped as the basis for these views. Banish gays back to the closet, put the darkies back in their place, keep women in the kitchen, put the Ten Commandments on the entrance to Town Hall, and so forth. And for God's sake let's lock up all the Muslims! They are all terrorists.

The very worst of extremist Christian views seem to be peeking through our socio-political fabric more and more strongly these days. There is a lot of un-Christian-like hate in the air.

It is easy to comprehend the purpose of the First Amendment by simply looking at a real theocracy like Iran.

I will part with the wisdom evoked by the late great Alexis de Tocqueville in 1833 as he looked back at the poisoned environment created by the theocratic powers of Europe. When you read the words, I think you will find they are eerily applicable to America today.

Such is not the natural state of men with regard to religion at the present day, and some extraordinary or incidental cause must be at work in France to prevent the human mind from following its natural inclination and to drive it beyond the limits at which it ought naturally to stop.

I am fully convinced that this extraordinary and incidental cause is the close connection of politics and religion. The unbelievers of Europe attack the Christians as their political opponents rather than as their religious adversaries; they hate the Christian religion as the opinion of a party much more than as an error of belief; and they reject the clergy less because they are the representatives of the Deity than because they are the allies of government.

In Europe, Christianity has been intimately united to the powers of the earth. Those powers are now in decay, and it is, as it were, buried under their ruins. The living body of religion has been bound down to the dead corpse of superannuated polity; cut but the bonds that restrain it, and it will rise once more. I do not know what could restore the Christian church of Europe to the energy of its earlier days; that power belongs to God alone; but it may be for human policy to leave to faith the full exercise of the strength which it still retains.

It is just as important for the survival of religion to keep itself separate from the government as vice versa.

Inviting the government into your religion is inviting the devil into your home. Tying your church to a party is tying the survival of your church to the political successes and failures of that party. A huge mistake.