Bush Theocracy

[mystic]

The Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines "theocracy" as "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as devinely guided." The following link seems to indicate that some conservative Christians want the U.S.A. to be a Bush Theocracy:

http://www.bushfish.org/index.html

I wonder what proportion of Christians believe in the separation of church and state. Those who do have been silent. Are they another silent majority?

[piece-it pete]

O mystical one,

:D

Although it might not seem like it at first blush, there is nothing about that site that advocates theocracy.

Looking at websters' definition it is clear we are nothing like a theocracy. We neither have a God as our leader (like North Korea or old Egypt) nor a prophet or preachers (like Iran or in a somewhat different way Israel). We have no state religion. Our law is not directly based on a religious book.

Here's a wider look at theocracy:

http://www.couplescompany.com/Features/Politics/Structure4.htm

Theocracy:
A government which claims to be immediately directed by God, and divinely blessed. The country tends to be intolerant either passively or overtly to faiths other than that recognized by the state. The country identifies itself and its laws within religion and religious doctrine. There is no legal separation between church and state, and citizens of other faiths are often excluded or hampered from participation or expelled. Because a theocracy is exclusionary, it can never be a democracy which requires inclusion without exception of all equally. It cannot be a republic because a republic requires the separation of church and state and equal rights to all.

___________________________________

In any democracy there are extremists of all stripes and colors. Most Christians I know do not want to rid the country of seperation of church and state - we like democracy. For the record, I support this seperation 100%, as defined by the Constitution thusly:

http://www.archives.gov/national_archives_experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

______________________________________

I find it interesting that this freedom of religion is part and parcel with freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and petition. The founders obviously believed these liberties evolved from the same genetic tree :) .

As they (the gov't) cannot prohibit the "free expression thereof" I am as a Citizen allowed to, say, publicly pray on the steps of the Capitol building (gov't property) - something that is illegal in most countries including Canada and Europe. Just as surely as an athiest is allowed to speak here, too.

Even if they work for the gov't. As long as the gov't is not making a law establishing or resticting religion they are free and clear as individuals to do as they wish.

And of course in a true Democracy the makeup of gov't will be a reflection of the people.

Back to BushFish: although I find it perhaps a little over the top to put Bush in the fish (an understatement), it looks like it's only folks who feel strongly about an issue celebrating it.

Pete

[kexodusc]

As they (the gov't) cannot prohibit the "free expression thereof" I am as a Citizen allowed to, say, publicly pray on the steps of the Capitol building (gov't property) - something that is illegal in most countries including Canada. Just as surely as an athiest is allowed to speak here, too.


I can assure you that prayer in government offices is NOT illegal in Canada, just the opposite - in fact there are Parliamentary prayers! I've seen them myself.
Though in today's age of PC feel-good-ism it may be socially frowned upon to pray while on the job in the public service as it is in the US, it is definitely NOT illegal.

You may be surprised to learn that a few of the fundamental freedoms afforded all Canadian are:

" Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
d) freedom of association."

Not that different at all.


Even if they work for the gov't. As long as the gov't is not making a law establishing or resticting religion they are free and clear as individuals to do as they wish.

My Dad is retired from the U.S. Air Force and always talked about military laws that sort of over-ruled the Bill of Rights in some cases...
I'm not a lawyer, but I can imagine instances where political restriction would be required, and freedoms forfeited.

[piece-it pete]

Kex,

My apologies, I did not mean to offend anyone from other countries, particularly those big mean Canadians (please don't beat me :D ), just giving an example...

Military IS different. And there are some public health/safety limits on some rights here, like the well-known "yelling fire in a crowded building".

I heard a Canadian Citizen say the Canadian Gov't would not allow a public prayer meeting on gov't property, could be wrong. I WAS surprised. It was during our annual couple-day round-the-clock prayer thing on the Capitol steps, using a podium and pa system.

I also remember a public school teacher got in big trouble, criminal trouble, for saying in a newspaper article that homosexuality was - a choice? Something like that.

That's it. I certainly don't think yous guys are commies or anything - I've said it before, I enjoy going to Canada, our Brother of the North, the Clean Beautiful Land of the Very Nice People (and good beer)(and Red Green).

Pete

(hey, what are you Mounties doing here. No, really, I LIKE Canada. I swear. Ouch! What're you DOING! Keep that cattle prod away from me!! eyiyiyiiiiiyiiiyiiiiiyiiiiii... plop.)

[kexodusc]

ha ha...Pete, I have dual-citizenship and play both sides of the fence to my advantage. .I like to think I get the best of both world's. It's funny how considerably different each populations opinion of the other country is yet both seem to ACT very similar in my experience. Politicians are different...there's bad apples in both and that's almost always where the problems start and end.

Don't worry, no offense taken. I agree, though I'm hardly the model christian , I feel there's been too much emphasis on removing God from the establishment..Does the money back home still read "In God We Trust"? :D
Be careful what you say to those crazy Canucks...they're an ornery bunch...Don't forget they've marched straight to Washington and burned down the White House before...it's that crazy Rye-Whiskey they all drink here...liquid courage...:D

[trollgirl]

Disturbing things are going on at this time in our history, as we make the transition from Republic to Empire (no, not a Star Wars reference, I have been of this opinion for many years).

The conservative, fundamentalist, right-wing Christians are grasping for political power. Some call them "Dominionistas". They think they are well on their way to a firm grip on political control of this country. We have seen this happen before, after Rome became an Empire, Christians eventually became numerous and influential enough to take power. I don't recall from my study of history that the State was much improved (mostly Pagans were now persecuted, not Christians), but the Church became apostate. It could happen again.

These Dominionistas think Dubya is their man, I know some of them personally. From what I have searched out, I think he is just a cynical politician who said what he had to say to get the Christian vote, at least the Dominionista vote. People note that he talks about his "faith", but others note that he rarely goes to church. Did anyone note that he took his oath of office on a Masonic Bible? His is the "G" god of the Masons at best, and at worst - no, I won't say it for fear of being flamed or deleted. However, I will say that most of the people who actually run this country worship a different god than the populace.

Laz

[nobody]

The problem is not that we are a Theocracy now. The problem is that we have a growing number of polititians and political activists/lobbyists who would like us to grow into one, and it is something about which we should be aware and guard against.

[piece-it pete]

Kex,

Thanks for the good humor and mentioning Washington - touche'! Can you get the Mounties to stop kicking me now? I need a shot.

Agreed the Canadians I've met, although often long of beard, eh? - have been quite similar to us.

Yes it still says "In God We Trust", although I think "In Lust We Trust", or money, or something like that is more applicable. Wait - In The Feds We Trust! Better: In the Judges We Trust! Sorry, had to say it :) .

Laz,

We see some things eye to eye. I feel you're probably right about Bush, however he will have to face Him about it. Not my call, not enough evidence. Also agreed about empire, and it kinda fits into historical patterns in an overall way.

It makes me sad, it's the death of the closest thing to a true democracy the world has ever seen. Our downfall will either be spectacular, or a slow decay. I think we're well along the slow decay already. Democracy - always a victim of it's own success.

Although it's not only the Christian right, everyone loves the cash we make worldwide (stability). If you look at say Hillarys' comments about Iraq, of course she beats up on Bush BUT will stay the course. Kerry had a cow when Bush said he was drawing down troops in Europe. It appears we are firmly empirical throughout the upper classes (read: the ruling classes). They like the power, the vast power, and the massive wealth that comes with it.

Christians should remember that the gov't will be a vicious prosecutor of us when satan comes into his own.

My problem is, if we are going downhill from a peak-of-success type thing, history shows we will either expand or contract, there is no true stability. So what's better, the slide back to largely worldwide chaos or the somewhat currently benevolent hand of American Empire? I don't like this question - it gives me the heebie jeebies, an ominous feeling.

Particularly when we add in the almost rediculously easy success of Iraq, I'm afraid it'll make regular folks more prone to jingoism overall.

Pete

[trollgirl]

...and the questions you raise give me the heebe-jeebies too. I look at our easy initial victory in Iraq, but events are trending against us now. The mainstream media puts a good face on it all, but we're going to lose. At home, the media tries to distract us with the Jackson trial while our nation falls apart. The invasion of illegals and everything that goes with it is even being called the "Reconquista". They have declared LA to be part of Mexico. I watch the unfolding catastrophe, but I feel powerless to turn it. Times are going to be interesting...

If it were not for my very personal visions of a better life in a very better place, I would be in fear, but no, I have no fear now...

Laz

[mystic]

Hi Pete, Kex, Laz, and Nobody

Perhaps making Christianity in some broad way our Official State Religion would appease the fundamentalists. Many countries have official religions. It doesn't necessarily mean much, and doesn't have to interfere with the beliefs and practices of those who aren't Christians. However, it would get God in government, which is what the fundamentalists say they want. There still would be religious freedom issues regarding sayings on money, lyrics in patriotic songs, etc. The Wiccans, for example, might want "In God We Trust" changed to "In Gods We Trust." The atheists might want "under God" changed to "under God or not." But you can't satisfy everyone when it comes to religion.

[trollgirl]

...America has had a (sort of) State-sponsored church for some time now, in the form of the approved, tax-exempt 501(C)3 churches. Well, I hope I got that moniker correct. It has not been kind to purity of religion, IMHO.

Laz

[daviethek]

...America has had a (sort of) State-sponsored church for some time now, in the form of the approved, tax-exempt 501(C)3 churches. Well, I hope I got that moniker correct. It has not been kind to purity of religion, IMHO.

Laz

This church and state stuff gets to me fast. I find myself tolerant on almost anything but W has a way of makin my hair stand up like no one else. Presidents should fix social security, defend the country, spend wisely and let everyone live in peace as long as it is lawful. Religious practice has practically no place in public policy. I hope to someday see a candidate for president with the guts to admit he hasen't a clue what or who God is and doesn't attend church except for marriages and funerals.

A constitutional amendment defining marriage was my last straw for W. This isue affects probably .05% of all Americans but man did he get some serious mileage from it. Bush is a windbag reformed drunk, he's not too smart and has no common touch.I don't care about his soul, his definition of marriage. I don't necessarily disagree with his military policy but I object to his complete lack of trust in the American people's judgement of the truth which is:. We are in Iraq to 1) fuel our SUV's 2)draw terrorists from other countries into the fight in Iraq and 3) to piss off the europeans. . Now If I could just get some of my old CD's to sould good .

[piece-it pete]

Mystic, I am 100% dead set again the establishment of a state religion, and will fight it tooth and nail. Although I appreciate the offer lol.

One thing missing from this conversation: the fact that we have LESS religion in government than since... well, never!

Christians INVENTED separation of church and state. Who designed and built our system of gov't? Christians. Where did the Founders say the inalienable rights we love came from? God. Guess which one!

Allah? The spirit of the tree? Budda? Science? Ra? Satan? Zeus? Our inner child? Reverend Sung yun Moon?

Hahaha so I'm getting a bit silly. But the facts remain the same.

Pete

[mystic]

Mystic, I am 100% dead set again the establishment of a state religion, and will fight it tooth and nail. Although I appreciate the offer lol.

One thing missing from this conversation: the fact that we have LESS religion in government than since... well, never!

Christians INVENTED separation of church and state. Who designed and built our system of gov't? Christians. Where did the Founders say the inalienable rights we love came from? God. Guess which one!

Allah? The spirit of the tree? Budda? Science? Ra? Satan? Zeus? Our inner child? Reverend Sung yun Moon?

Hahaha so I'm getting a bit silly. But the facts remain the same.

Pete

An official state religion doesn't necessarily mean much. Some countries that have official religions -- England(Episcopalian), Scotland(Presbyterian), Denmark(Lutheran) -- don't have a lot of religious zealots trying to run for public office or influence politicians. A state religion can be mostly symbolic, like an official state bird or state flower. I am not trying to trivialize religion, but symbolism does seem important to the fundamentalists, as evidenced by the strong feelings about the ten commandments being displayed in court houses.

[piece-it pete]

Because of the Ten Commandments, we should have a state religion?

If a Federal judge wants to put up the Commandments in his courtroom, he can, see the 1st amendment, above.

Since the start of our country, we have had a Chap in Congress and the armed services, Presidents and judges sworn in on the Bible (which is anti-biblical, btw). There are numerous references to God in our state monuments all over DC. This by the same folks who codified separation of church and state, who wrote the Constitution!

What's different now?

Pete

[nobody]

Biggest difference now is that you have a much larger percentage of the population who are non-christian than was once the case.

[mystic]

Because of the Ten Commandments, we should have a state religion? Pete

No, because having an official state religion would make a lot of people happy, and those who didn't like it would be free to ignore it, as is the case in England, Scotland, Denmark, Norway, and some other places. Some taxpayers might object if much Federal money was spent on religion. A U.S. Department of Religion headed by a Secretary of Religion with a large staff could be expensive.