Separation of Church and State

I wouldn't say all because I don't know about all of them back through all time.Certainly any government where the {chief\king\emporer\etc} was also considered god incarnate and thus {his\her\their} will was inviolate would qualify, including the french kings before their revolution eh?But yes, I would say the far greater proportion of governments have been to varying degrees theocracies. So?Does this make the definition of theocracy invalid? Does this make having a theocracy any better? Does this change the argument at all?Let's assume that all before the American Revolution and the subsequent Constitution were to some degree theocratic.Does that alter in any way the fact that the US Constitution was specifically set up to avoid the imposition of religious law into the secular operation of government?Enjoy.This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*18*2005 03:23 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It makes the definition of theocracy not very useful. For instance, your definition is virtually indistinquishable from nearly every kingdom on earth, if not every kingdom and democracies too, until the USA.I think there is a problem defining theocracy in such a matter and shows a politicization of the term. When I was in school, it was not defined that way, and certainly some of the definitions presented here do not define it that way. The first definition is rule by the clergy, priests, mullahs or whatever.It seems to me you are choosing, and maybe others as well, to pervert the useful meaning of the term because it is so loaded a term and use it to apply to any sort of religious involvement by the state, and imo, that's a misuse of the word, and not a very useful term.I think, for example, religious oppression and theocracy should not be considered synonumous because religious oppression can occur with any form of government, but theocracy, at least what I was taught in high school and college, relates to the form of government, not the behaviour of government.In fact, I believe you could potentially have a theocracy without any religious oppression at all, though unlikely. For example, you could have a group of religious elders that believe in religious liberty run a nation or city or community, and thus have a theocracy but no oppression. I don't think it's wise to mix things in that manner, at least not for anything more than a voluntary association, because I think it leads to corruption of both religion and the state.But you could still have a theocracy without any religious rules at all.Theocracy relates to form, not behaviour. That's the definition I was taught, and imo, is far more useful than just claiming every government that has any religious rules is a theocracy. If you run with your definition, I don't know of one government prior to the 1800s that was not a theocracy, and so I think you've taken a good, and useful term and bastardized it to fit today's political debate.

Religious law maybe, but not religious values and principles. I think you frequently fail to make that distinction. The Constitution bans the government from making religious laws. It does not ban religion and religious people from influencing and making civil laws and even basing those laws on religious values and beliefs.There is thus no sense that government should be "secular" in the sense of being devoid of religious influences.This message has been edited by randman, 12-18-2005 03:36 PM

only if those laws have a secular basis. if the laws are purely religious, or even if they have a particular religious bias then they are still proscribed by the constitution: that way lies theocracy.and once again "secular" doesn't mean "devoid" it means neutral of religious influences.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

quote:

---

Faith, it's hopeless. Just being a Christian is enough to disqualify a man and endanger our great secular state and drive it to theocracy.

---

Unless the Christian is Clinton or Carter perhaps.

quote:

---

Didn't you get the memo?

---

Guess not.

No, it does not make the definition useless at all. Just because you were taught something does not necessarily make it true. I have seen you use this argument before. It did not hold water then and does not now, it never will.The definition of the word, as recorded by multiple dictionaries, does not agree with your position. Go look it up. The definition of theocracy does not require that clergy be members of the government.BTW: To be accurate, the dictionary does not define words, it reports the definition.

A theocracy is (that definition we started with from dictionary.com): That is defining the behavior pretty specifically, don't you think?Apply that definition to most of the governments in history and tell me what your conclusion is.The degree of the religious influence does not change or alter the fact of it being there.{abe} your "type" of government is defined by its behavior.{/abe}This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*18*2005 07:19 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Ok I got to ask. Do you feel Carter and Clinton were not christian enough?

I have been on a jury, and it isn't as you described it. The judge was well aware the jury could not be expected to be knowledgable in the fine points of the law. As a consequence, the judge was explicit about how to interpret the particular laws on which the case was based.The judge was also clear that the jury members may appeal to their experience in life, as attempt to reach a verdict. Presumably some of the jury members could be quite religious, and the experience in life of those members could have a religious component.Presumably the safeguard is that the jury should represent a cross section of the community. If a jury member brings up God's law, another jury member could challenge the relevance of that.

------------------------------- The United State Was Founded As A Heathen Nation That Disowned God -----------------------------The evil men who led the satanic movement to have the motto IN GOD WE TRUST impressed on the United State’s coins despised the noble men who established our system of government. They considered men like James Madison to be heathens who disowned God. They were successful largely because of the increase in Counterfeit Christian sentiment that existed during and after the Civil War.A Rev. M.R. Watkinson, who was part of a larger campaign waged by a coalition of eleven Counterfeit Christian denominations, disenchanted with the exemption of religion from the cognizance of government and hoping to make some changes, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Samuel P. Chase in 1861. Secretary Chase was an advocate of government authority over religion and received other appeals from Counterfeit Christians throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. Rev. Watkinson’s letter dated November 13, 1861 read: The United States was deprived of any right to claim it was a genuine Christian Nation when the American people did not take up the terrible swift sword and extirpate the wicked government stooges who passed the 1860's bill that authorized the government to declare the people’s trust in God on the nation’s coins. The people might just as well have sworn allegiance to the Devil and worshiped in the Temple of Satan.FVF

I used to read conspiracy books such as what you are reading. (What ARE you reading, anyway?) Freddy, assuming that you believe this stuff...what do you propose be done about it?This message has been edited by Phat, 04-22-2006 09:08 PM

Well, a quick google uncovers a movement that is attempting to counter the original movement that got the motto changed.You can check it out here:Page not found - American Atheistslfen

I think that crossing out the motto is a bit overzealous!

I propose that we restore our heritage and put the Goddess of Liberty and the motto of the founders back on the nation's coins; and make it a criminal offense for any government official to trespass on the jurisidiction of the Almighty.Fred

And which Almighty would that be? The One True Lord of Lords, King of Kings Odin the Allfather or some imposter?

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor