Could the US become a theocracy ?

MT,The united under traditional christian values thing has been rumbling on for a while (especially during the Italian stint at the presidency), and I have seen it mentioned a few times in the paper (although from a liberal Indy 'look what could happen' perspective rather than a Daily Mail 'European Superstate taking away our bendy bananas' one).You should be right though, the issue will be well and truly scotched before it ever gets too hot. This is not only due to the church/state separation in places like France and Germany (as Mr Jack pointed out) - just look at the whole headscarf caffuffle - but also for a couple of other reasons: votes and money:1.An electorally significant minority of Europeans are not Christian, and such a move would really get up their noses.2.The rather popular (and no doubt profitable) push for Turkey to become an EU member would be in very serious jepardy.Just my opinion

I'll give you the proper response your post deserves in the morning , but I would like to make a couple of points before going up the wooden hill.Firstly, I think you are underestimating the bedrock of religious tolerance that exists in Europe - maybe the result of hundreds of years of intolerance but there you go. There is a significant segment (probably a majority, but I have no hard and fast stats) of the population which wants no truck with the kind of views expressed by Balkenende and his ilk. Recently a EU commision was not voted in because the parliament (and therefore, arguably the electorate) objected to the bloke who was to be in charge of justice when he said that he thought homosexuality was a sin.Secondly, I would say that the emergence of values as a political tool is not a new thing, and not always a bad aspect of politics. It's when the (easy to articulate) values of nationalism and intolerance start to creep into politics that problems start - and I suspect this is what you percieve as the 'dumbing down' effect. Of course this is JMHO etc Thanks, I will.

I agree, we do seem to be singing from the same songsheet regarding what should and shouldn't be accepted as tolerant ploitics. I do still think that you are overestimating the significance of 'values' cropping up in European politics. This is the way I see it:The EU has prided itself on 'shared values' of 'co-operation', 'tolerance' and 'peace'. It's a bit of a cliche, but I still think an aspect of "Never again!" still hangs over Euro politics. On top of the economic considerations and organisational problems involved in EU enlargement, I get the feeling that many politicians (including those from the secular camp) want to ensure that these values are maintained by writing them into the new EU constitution. The Christian Right has viewed this as an oppurtunity to express their views, by demanding a statement in it referring to 'shared Judeo-Christian values' or some such rot. As I said before, I don't think this will happen because A) Turkish politicians could never sign such a document (and big business wants Turkey in the EU) and B) The electorate (at present) don't want that kind of attitude, and that multiparty system that exists in EU countries (as mentionned my Mammuthus) should help ensure that it doesn't weasel it's way into such an important piece of legislation.I'm not saying that we don't vigilant (I think you're right about a religious political position becoming slightly more acceptable), nor do I want to come across as arogant (European politics, as discussed in your other posts is far from perfect), I just don't think it is in anything to get over-panicky about yet.
Now in the good old US of A, where the election can be won by appealing almost exclusively to evangelical Christians...mmm... I'm less confident.This message has been edited by Ooook!, 12-09-2004 08:55 AM

This kind of argument reminds me of a discussion I sometimes have with my mate, down the pub (yep, our night's out are that wild!!) . He argues that the left-wing has no answer to the problem of immigration and asylum seekers, whereas I tend to say that it does have one, it's just not as quick and easy to articulate as the right-wing 'solution'. By the time someone has said "Well, one the most important things to do is to tackle the international causes and to ensure that a proper system to cope with genuine economic migrants is in place...", someone else has shouted "CHUCK 'EM OUT! KEEP 'EM OUT".It's the same problem with 'moral', with-us-or-against-us politics. It may be quick and easy to ban things because you think they are morally wrong; and it may prevent children from getting addicted to drinking and gambling, but it tramples over other people's rights.Wouldn't it be better to introduce legislation which regulates these new, tempting activities in a tight (but fair manner, increase funding to inform people about the risks, and actively help parents educate their children. It will have the effect your like-minded 'moral' families are looking for, but still allow adults to sit in a pub and drunkenly discuss politics...... it's just not that easy to chant!This message has been edited by Ooook!, 12-13-2004 06:31 AM