Could the US become a theocracy ?

It's a book I've wanted to read since I saw the movie (on the grounds that the film was quite good so I expected the book to be better). Haven't got round to it yet...

---

Confused ? You will be...

quote:

---

I also see the need for some absolute authority to restrict things that can destroy a country.

---

absolute authority almost destroyed Germany under Hitler, Italy under Mussolini and Russia under Stalin. Absolute authority is dictatorship. Freedom for all means that you have to put up with things you may not approve of just as those who don't like your beliefs have to allow you to hold them. Absolute authority means one person or group determines for all and eliminates anyone who disagrees...is this what you want? Many Americans clearly do.

quote:

---

Unless, of course, you want your kids to have the right to gamble, see porn on the net, and see every alternative lifestyle tempting them to explore their own little freedom.

---

No we certainly would not want children to explore, learn anything, or determine what appeals to their own tastes..it of course must be predetermined by some absolute authority that nobody can agree on...next thing you know they might want freedom and obviously, freedom must be bad or so many Americans would not be so actively trying to undermine it or happy to see it dimished.

Still alive and thriving.I see a Theocracy not only as likely but nearly certain. And, as so often been the case in the past it will be implemented on the back of lies and half-truths. It will be sold as protecting moral values and our children, but the primary goal will be wealth for the few and misery for the many. IMHO it will be one of the three biggest issues that will lead to the breakup of the United States within 50 years.It does not have far to go. For example, there will be at least four changes on the Supreme Court during this decade. Had there even been two vote changes, the totally absurd case on the Bible Club would not only have been heard, it would have been affirmed by SCOTUS.The biggest threat is at the local levels, the Federal Courts and the bureaucracy. If you look at the fool Ashcroft and his actions, his first effort was to start and international crackdown on pornography. Yet his charge was for Homeland Defense.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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)

There is this : at the HISTORY OF ACLJ page. It doesn't exactly make it clear that it's that Pat Robertson.

---

Confused ? You will be...

quote:

---

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 no matter what, this does happen anyway but at a much more local level. In towns and cities where people know one another, it is easier to find rational solutions based on common interest and positions. It seems to be impossible at the national level.

quote:

---

But before the US takes all the heat, why are we not questioning the ability of Europe to do the same?

---

Ah may friend, don't think I am letting Europe off at all. Europe is a hypocritical, self righteous, disappointment. The actions of the US are almost universally used as excuses for the abject failure of the EU to function properly...and for all the bitching about the US, particularly in Germany, what is the opposition (which leads in all polls) doing? The CDU and CSU are campaining on a Christian moral values and patriotism ticket that explicitly lays the blame for social problems on..take a guess...foreigners. They want to penalize foreigners for not following the German "leading culture". You would think given their history they would be a bit more careful. Going into 2006, Germany will be faced with a hopeless election. Either vote for extreme parties on the right or left. Otherwise you have the choice of maintaining the current government which is stupdendously incompetent or vote for a party campaining on xenophobia and patriotism... And this is playing out in various degrees all over Europe...and then they say the US sucks? The world appears to be engulfed in a wave of mass stupidity.

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)

True - but it was rejected wasn't it ? As it was reported here in the UK the big drive for this came from the Catholic countries (as a result of a major push by the Vatican) and it was rejected by the protestant/secularly inclined countries. I'm totally confused. The EU doesn't have a president. The EU Commission has a president but he's Jose Manuel Barroso (and he's just taken over from Romano Prodi). Oh hang on - you mean the rotating EU Presidency don't you - which the Netherlands holds until the end of this year. I've never come across the head of state of the country holding the presidency being called the EU President before.I must admit I've never heard of this united belief system stuff before, which surprises me given how hostile to the EU large portions of the British media are (this is the sort of thing the Sun newspaper would just love to run a story on but AFAIK hasn't). I've tried Googling but haven't found anything. Can you provide a link to a story or something on this (in English !) ?Austria doesn't take over the presidency for a year after Holland relinquishes it (Luxemborg and the UK have it next year), so progress isn't going to be a headlong rush.The main reason I don't think this will ever see the sight of day is that the real power in the EU isn't the Commission or the rotating presidency, it's the Council of Ministers - i.e. the national governments. I just don't see them passing it - I would guess at least the UK and Scandanavian countries will not agree to it.

---

Confused ? You will be...

quote:

---

The main reason I don't think this will ever see the sight of day is that the real power in the EU isn't the Commission or the rotating presidency, it's the Council of Ministers - i.e. the national governments. I just don't see them passing it - I would guess at least the UK and Scandanavian countries will not agree to it.

---

I would not be so sure. It depends on the horse trading that goes on behind the scenes. The French will bargain anything away to keep the CAP level payments high (specifically to a few of their richer farmers). Scandanavia might kick up a little but they could also get bought off. I mean look at the new legislation for cross boarder mergers...the Germans managed to destroy it in principle by forcing any company that takes over a German company to adopt the mitbestimmung rules i.e. workers make up 50 percent of the board. They must have traded something for that. So if all it takes to get something they want by saying ok..only Xian values for Europe..I think it would sail through. It all depends on who has what to trade and what they want to trade.

Yes, I think it is a real danger, and I think if it happens it will not happen in a "bloody coup", but slowly and gradually.In fact, I think that we have been moving that way ever since Reagan made a lot of political hay from courting the extremeist Christian right.

I would have thought the French and the Germans were most likely to refuse - they having legal church/state seperation and all whereas as we (the UK) have legal church/state union (for example, our head of state is also the head of the Church of England).