Could the US become a theocracy ?

I think you have missed less dramatic means of achieving a theocracy.Essentially if moral majority types gain significant voting power, they can have a lock on gov't and just keep voting in religious types of the same stripe, who in turn place like minded people in nonelected positions which decide how to operate the gov't (justices for example).With the federal and/or supreme court dominated with litmus tested theocrats, they can simply uphold even the most insane laws as constitutional.And at lower levels they can begin hiring into functionary positions, like minded individuals to create a Xian presence everywhere you touch a gov't office. The Faith based initiatives are less subtle than that, aimed directly at replacing gov't programs with religious entities. Why this has not rocked the US by now as a major issue really scares me.In all honesty it will not have to take amendments, or some major power play from on high, it only takes a willing electorate. Of course that does not mean that those on high will not manipulate the electorate, nor try a power play. And of course an apathetic populace helps.Here's an apt quote to fit these days, and apparently those to come:"A shocking crime was committed on the unscrupulous initiative of few individuals, with the blessing of more, and the amid the passive acquiesence of all."
-TacitusThus same as it ever was, just if it is a religious takeover the blessings will be more literal than metaphorical.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I agreed with your post though I think something needs to be added to the following statement... I think the 2004 election witnessed a very active electorate, and indeed they wanted to defend their rights... as they saw them. And yes I am talking about the side which voted for Bush.An active electorate is not the only criteria. One needs an honest and knowledgable electorate unwilling to trade their principles just for power.Unfortunately the "information age" has rapidly become the "misinformation age", where mere opinions and propaganda equal credible fact. And the Bush administration is heavily banking on dumbing down americans. 2001-2004 truly looked like 1984 to me, with a clear majority of US citizens unable to hold on to facts past the next Bush soundbyte.And even those republicans that challenged the Bush administration's claims and actions, knuckled under when it came to a vote just to make sure the Republican party stayed in power. Very sad time.But I think the greatest threat, especially with regard to us turning into a theocracy, is an abandonment of honesty and intelligence, for proselytization and faith alone. The fact that evolution is being pushed out of classrooms and ID (which admits it isn't even a foll fledged scientific theory yet) is coming in, just show how dumb people are willing to get, just to seem sincere. Bush is of course pushing this with his faith based initiatives.Here is another quote which happens to be apt, and I've thought of using as a new signature quote..."Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."
-Voltaire

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That is of course, what they say to cover their actual agenda. Have you ever dug into the reality of what they do? Found out who they are and who funds them?The ACLU is nonpartisan and will support, as well as take support from, any person.The ACLJ was CREATED AND FUNDED BY the 700 club. In other words this is a private organization dedicated to the aims of Pat Robertson and the evangelical arm of Xianity. I was there watching at its inception. If you think it has to do with anything less than getting Xian literature, symbols, etc into public arenas, including gov't areas, above and beyond other belief systems then you are choosing to stay in ignorance.In addition, it also tries to remove things from society that it does not like. That means other belief systems. All of their court cases are not defensive in nature. Can you explain how you are feeling oppressed by the agnostics and athiests through any governmental body? Can you explain where you do not have equal access? At this point if I want to get a loan, or get a social security payment, or get a job, or etc etc I have to be proselytized by a Xian working as a proxy for our government because of faith based initiatives.Get that? "Faith based". And it ain't the buddhists.Let's have a bit of honesty on this subject.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I think its funny that you claim the ACLJ is just seeking equal access, when a casual perusal of the list of issues will show that this is not true at all. Did you actually read them, or just link to it?Here's the link again: Error: 404Just look at the categories. Land Use Zoning, Marriage, and Pornography? Those are all about removing the beliefs of others from public NONGOVERNMENT domain. How is that equal access?Yet ironically they champion proselytization...
in the workplace: Error: 404
and even if you are a government officer on duty: Error: 404The latter is made extra ironic as a police officer was just allowed to be fired for communicating sexually while in his uniform (he made porn tapes of himself). This wasn't even foisted on anyone else. Ahhhhh, but just having a different sexual belief can get you fired as a harm to the employer. Proselytizing to citizens while in uniform is not.Equal access?Here's where they invent the myth that "In God We Trust" is the "national motto".:
Error: 404They do this by explaining that Francis Scott Key wrote that phrase in a poem, which of course is not in the song "Star Spangled Banner". And of course that was written in 1814, and not adopted by any of the founding fathers. But of course it was given a run in the US mint on some new coins in the late 1800s. Then later this was expanded on coins and paper in the early 1930s Roosevelt nixed it, only to get into a fight with congress and ended up giving in. In the 1950's it was made more official on money.Our national motto? Oh but in defense he says... "It is commonly understood that our government, its Constitution, and its laws are founded on a belief in God." Common to whome exactly?And let me ask you something honestly, if the above is the position of the ACLJ, how are they not working for a theocratic US? That would be just about the definition of a theocracy.Equal Access?Here is the story of the founding of the ACLJ: Error: 404He says they are founded with a mandate even, and a public enterprise which just gets their money from wherever God can get it to them. You notice something funny? Not one mention of the 700 club, or Pat Robertson. I did a little checking around and could not find a mention anywhere. Maybe I missed it but it sure is interesting that that connection is not stated prominently on their history. It sure was the day it was founded by Pat Robertson right on his show.Hmmmmmmmm. You really want to stick with your story of equal access against the forces of agnostics and athiests?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Ever read the Handmaid's Tale? It wasn't quite so simple, but exteremely disturbing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm not sure which is more frightening to me, a majority who actually come to hate these things and so shred the constitution, or a majority who believe they need to alter the Constitution because they love those things so much and changing it is the only way to protect their decent society, or a majority that is so afraid of maybe one day being attacked that they are willing to trade those rights for security. I'm going to both agree and disagree with this statement. I do agree that personal positions should remain intact and polarized. That is good for the US. However I think it is bad that people are unwilling to come to the table to create rational solutions, and instead stand on all or nothing political positions.I think we should be uniting on the very things that we do have in common and that is (or was) our civil ethics. It is the drive to make gov't act like a moral system, instead of a gov't, and so replace general civil ethics with specific personal ethics, which is causing all the problems. Ironically this is being championed by the Republicans who are supposed to be about getting gov't out of our lives.But before the US takes all the heat, why are we not questioning the ability of Europe to do the same?It was not many months ago that they were wrangling over putting Xianity into the EU constitution... something the US constitution does not have.What's worse, right now in the EU, commissioners are debating what belief systems all Europeans must unite under. While US media and some politicians may be pressing for this in the US, it is actively being worked on as we speak by officials in a gov't that isn't truly elected, for all Europeans.It was started by the current EU President Balkenende, professed Brother in Christ to Bush, and winner of an award for combining religion with politics, based on the religious moral initiatives he has started in the Netherlands. While it should have gone down in flames, it has caught on. Austria has agreed to continue the EU debate on the future single moral system for all Europeans when it takes over the Presidency.This should be scary as all get out, and a big kick in the ass to any European thinking they are somehow better than the US. I came to Europe hoping to live here instead of the US. But the stuff I am seeing makes US political shifts to the right seem minor.And let me repeat, the EU is currently discussing what moral system should unite all Europeans and we are not discussing just civil ethics. Just like John Ashcroft who pronounced that civil ethics were not enough, that is also Balkenende's position, and the current reigning them in discussions.It's 1pm in Europe, do you know where your moral system is?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That looks like a legitimate case. Other than the access to the public address system, I'm not sure what the extent of that was supposed to be, I would agree that they should be able to form a bible group.Can you explain why this was oppression from Agnostic/Athiests? For example what groups of those were allowed in that school and how they were able to block the bible group? Furthermore can you explain why if the ACLU had been asked, they would not have taken it up?Just because the ACLJ takes on particular cases which are about protecting religious speech, does not mean that all their cases are, and that that is the actual purpose of the organization. If you believed that then what is your problem with the ACLU, which has already been pointed out as having protected religious speech?Remember there are a lot more cases. Why not deal with the ones that have nothing to do with equal access, and all to do with preventing any access? Oh it is more than just his attack dogs, but it certainly is nothing less than his attack dogs. Is it founded and funded by him or not? Did he not say as he was announcing its creation by himself and the 700 club that it would work to get god back into the government?While the ACLU will fight for the constitutional rights of YOU to have religious speech, will the ACLJ take up my cause to protect my constitutional rights of nonreligious speech? How about some honesty here?You and I both know that Sekulow is not going to be protecting me any time soon, and if it were up to him, people like me and my gf would be going to prison for the way we express ourselves. Furthermore he will fully fight for people to proselytize to us when we go to get government services, while preventing me from speaking about my beliefs while I am working in the government.Right or wrong?Just because he is an expert in constitutionl rights does not mean that he is always fighting for them. And non religious speakers will not have access at all in education and public areas, right or wrong?You are being extremely disengenuous in this thread Phat. Very disappointing.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

That is true throughout much of europe. What's the problem? I live on a street where porn shops with fully graphic sexual images (including bestiality), as well as prostitutes selling themselves, are open to public view including kids, right next to (and I am not exaggerating) churches, schools, and daycare centers. Hell, there is a day care center sandwiched between banks of prostitutes in their windows.What's the problem? Yes, that is theocratic. Absolute moral values imposed by a gov't, based on religious beliefs, is theocratic. By "others" I assume you mean our founding fathers? You can have a democratic theocracy. The discourse on that threat by the people that founded the US can be seen in their writings. Perhaps you should read some?As soon as a majority can wield the gov't on moral values, no one is safe. What's wrong with legalized gambling? It hasn't destroyed the US, or Las Vegas and AC in specific. It helped revitalize some of the Native American territories' economies. It hasn't destroyed the Netherlands.Who are you to claim that a moral proscription based on your religious beliefs will be able to destroy a country? Oh wait, I see your point now. I tell you what... I'll let you shut down all the greedy profiteers hawking their "garbage" you see, if you let me shut down all the ones I see. Right now I'm looking in the direction of Robertson and Falwell. Are you telling me that Europeans have no consciences? Man they take school groups through my city and I've seen adults helping the kids take pictures in front of the sex videos and dildos.But I see your point. I'll tell you what... you get to wipe out any kind of expression you feel nobody with a conscience would want their kids to see, and I get to do the same. Right now I'm looking in the direction of all organized religion, specifically monotheistic ones. What's wrong with that? They even have bestiality, scat, and hardcore SM videos open to the public around here. And yes even gambling can be seen, though the places aren't as gleaming as Las Vegas.You want pix of this? Maybe you should just take a trip to Las Vegas, or better yet somewhere in Europe. Maybe Amsterdam. Just don't eat anything while you're walking around. You might choke.By the way, why wouldn't I want my kids to explore their freedom?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Exactly. His only credential is listed as a yale law school graduate, not televangelist extraordinaire. I had a boss named michael jackson once, that didn't make him the singer.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm definitely in a different nation than yours, but still in the exact same political boat. This is my position. I fear that ignorance has made a global comeback, ironically riding the power of the information age. The rise of nationalism and theocracy as important "cultural identity" issues, is linked hand in hand to the level of willfull ignorance and base stupidity of the masses.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

He's still around all right. During the last four years he suggested that someone (even a US citizen) should blow up the State Department with a nuclear device (because Colin Powell was weakening the US), and held a "prayer offensive" in which he had followers pray to God to make one of the liberal Supreme Court justices fall victim to an illness.Heheheh... the fact that the first guy hit was the conservative leader of the SC, had me laughing. Does God have bad aim, or was he sending a message who the real problem was?He then pissed off Falwell during the 2004 election cycle, by talking publically about his private discussions with Bush, in which he made Bush sound like an idiot for not realizing how to create strategy on Iraq. It seems to me anyone concerned about that missed a bigger issue. Why the hell is Bush hanging out talking with Robertson about US military decisions?In any case I have heard that he still wants to run for President again sometime. 2008?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Not quite. Go back and look at your own posts. I care about how my kids are raised, but religious conservatives care about how my kids are raised as well.See, that's the problem. They think they know better and are trying to enforce their views on everyone else, which is exactly what I am not doing. I am just wanting to live the only life I have, and raise the only family I will ever get, the only way I think is right. That appears not to be good enough for the religious.To make matters worse, they must be able to proselytize their beliefs to me during gov't hours that I am paying for with my taxes. I am not asking that right, nor have I forced an "athiest based" initiative on the US public, taxing the religious so that my athiest friends can tell them how wrong they are with their religious beliefs when they go to the social security office.This idea that conservatives are scared of liberals and vice versa is a nice comforting idea for you I am sure. The problem is that it is just the conservatives scared of liberals. The liberals... and I guess from your use of these terms social rather than religious conservatives fall in this too... are not scared of the conservatives, only what they are doing with the gov't to get their ideas imposed on others.Before making any more comments, perhaps you can detail one government program which actively proselytizes atheist or agnostic beliefs to you. Or name one nonreligious NGO, which is allowed to not hire religious people while working with US tax dollars because the person is not religious.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Other than movies, tv, and radio being new mediums for communication, they had all the same things being discussed back then as they do today. Indeed other than extra gadgets they were doing the same things back then as we do today.Have you read any of the books by libertines of that era, of which mssr Franklin was assuredly a part of? They have stories that would be downright illegal to write today. No joke, 1700-early 1800's porn puts today's stuff to shame. I think they just had a news blurb on that recently as well, where one of the oldest porn books in England got auctioned off. The people noted that the stories were much more daring.My guess is that religious fundies would be more shocked if they went back in time and saw how the founding fathers lived, than vice versa.You know many of them had mistresses and engaged in duels and... well you get the picture.If the Founding Fathers rose from their graves they would probably be surprised at the technology we have today, be impressed with the accumulated prosperity, cry rivers at "in god we trust" being stamped on money, as well as the pledge of allegience (with or without "under God" they disliked such oath taking).Then they'd wonder why they had to show ID to get a simple beer or smoke, not to mention having to leave the building to smoke at all. Then they'd look puzzled that they're being arrested for hiring a prostitute. And finally they'd find out about the faith based initiatives and drop dead again.Its what we can't do, or must do, in the name of "security" and "create a decent society" that would shock the hell out of them.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

If he holds the presidency, does that not make him the President? I totally accept any criticism if I just bastardized some terminology. What on earth did you google? I entered "Balkenende eu values" and the first link was from the eu business site on the first conference.I went through other links as well gathering some for those that are interested. I was both heartened and disheartened by what I saw. I had not heard some of the conclusions coming out of them and who had been attending, so this was a bit of a good news thing for me.It appears it is less of an official EU function, that is legislators actively negotiating, than an EU financed moneydrain hoping to create a philosophical position from which to excite Europeans and drive legislation. In other words they could have saved everyone money and just opened up a thread here at EvC, titled "What is a European?" Maybe I'll write that in to somebody.In any case it appears that there are people critical of developing a unified value system, though it appears they are more concerned that it not be a unified secular value system. For example they seem to think secularism and that enlightenment derived values have proven to be failures because the French Revolution, the Holocaust, and WW2 all happened after them. Thus we should look for answers in newer or older ones. Uh, yeah.In any case here are some good links. This is an eubusiness article from which there is... This was a page with many documents, of which I could not cut and paste excerpts, so you should give some a once over to see where EU taxpayer's money is going.Here is a very brief excerpt from the 2nd page of the summary of the first convention.. This is a link to Balkenende's closing remarks. In it he recaps many of the different positions that were voiced. It appears there was a rejection of moral universalism by many, and I still am not sure if that is bad or good. This is an overview.This is another overview. And if you feel that there doesn't seem to have been much emphasis on religious values in the stuff you have seen so far, remember that this is Balkenende's agenda. Europeans don't want to talk about values like US evangelicals do, and this is his machine to begin the process. Get people comfortable with thinking our personal values are legitimate political topics.He is much more open about this within the Netherlands, though he still sneaks thing past many. Note the last two sentences of the above link. This is from a religious blogger. Some of it can be skipped over as it deals with just Xian stuff, but the beginning and end of the blog give you a better picture of Balkenende and the kind of stuff he is doing within Holland.Balkenende makes it very clear in dutch material (which I will not try an find links on unless you want me to) that he is concerned that the dutch get norms and values that are set and appear to be from an older more conservative time. Indeed he is concerned that everyone be seen as stemming from a Xian past and therefore always a Xian even if you don't go to church... how wound up is that?This is the kind of stuff pointed to in the blog.Interestingly he has openly said that they should no longer be tolerant of pot which has been a dutch value for quite a while. Oh yeah, he isn't cool with sex either, trying to end prostitution which has been around longer than pot. He raised some chuckles when he suddenly had it in for sex with animals and animal porn. It kind of came out of nowhere. And he successfully had a poster which lampooned him as a pornstar banned. Yes, in the Netherlands they do not have freedom of speech if it involves sex and making fun of a prominent citizen.He talks of tolerance and freedom, but then there is always respect, and that is what he hangs his repression on. Respect for others appears to be not offending others' sensibilities, and self respect means not doing things that other more conservative types do not want you doing.When polled, 70% of Dutch people said they would not invite him over for coffee. And this guy says his finger is on the pulse of the Dutch value system.(Edited in the following...) This is from the norms and values website that Balkenende created for the Dutch. Unfortunately it's in Dutch so you won't get anything out of the site itself. I was chilled to note that it is no spreading to other nations... gag.In any case, the page I linked to has a pdf file at the bottom titled "concluderde speech" or something like that. It is Balkenende's concluding speech at the final values conference. DEFINITELY DOWNLOAD AND READ the speech. He has switched from using "respect" to "responsibility", but otherwise his message is the same.It is interesting that near the beginning he says they decided that there is no one set of values, but by the end is repeating how important it is that they work policy from their shared values.And of course the final line of his speech is what I'm talking about: "Let's continue to build bridges between values and policies."That is his goal and exactly where democracies, if they are going to be practical, unfiying instruments, should avoid going. Personal values and politics should be kept far apart. That is what we come to the table with, not what should be placed on the table for debate.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-08-2004 06:25 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Well, this is on the EU payroll, so no politician is going to turn down an offer to go to great hotels and talk about metaphysical concepts which require simple opinion and no real research. There is the money. The problem is not whether it is simply Xian values that are adopted, but the idea that any value system gets adopted by a gov't, especially as an identifier for its people.Think about that... if they do such a thing, Europeans are supposed to stay that way with those same values forever? The whole of European History has been about change of values. It has been naming a single value or set of values that has led to so many problems in the past.It is true the Balkenende would like to push the Xian value thing, but that is not his sole purpose. His main purpose is to get the debate back into politics, where it currently isn't because of all the tragedies Europeans have had when getting it involved in the past.Once accepted that values are a normal and necessary part of political discourse, that frees him and future evagelicals up from the verbal shackles they currently have in most European politics. He can talk about what is right and wrong, or good and bad, without embarassment and point to those "values" as the reason he can come to objective conclusions, and then we know which to label legislation we want passed.It's kind of a win-win situation for him.This is part of the whole dumbing down that is going on in the world and I can't stand it. Secular government was good. Values driven government is bad.If you haven't seen the links I posted on the topic, check out my post #47. Actually many pro-moral guys are for letting Turkey in, though some have certainly pointed out if it is Xian morals that are supposed to dominate, Turkey is an odd choice to enter into the system.Balkenende is for letting Turkey in, stating that religious differences are not supposed to matter. I'm not sure if this is his real position, or just the position he is assuming because Bush told him to. In any case he is for it, while at home fostering Xian values at home and backing some rather anti-islamic immigration measures. Perhaps he thinks that if Turkey is part of the EU, they won't have to move to the Netherlands anymore.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-08-2004 06:44 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)