is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

reichstag fire, enabling act ----> 911, patriot act.any questions?

denomination means dick all in terms of government activities. i was raised presbyterian. but i was raised pca. if frist is pcusa then she supports rule of the church over it's members. the pcusa church holds the authority, by contract, to tell it's members what they can invest in, what they can do, who they can marry... and more. that is why the pca church split off in the 70s. if she's a pcusa member, i'd say it's quite possible that she's a danger to our government. but. being a fundie has nothing to do with denomination really either. fundies have this inherent need to push their beliefs on others... they can come from anywhere. i've even met lutheran fundies.

hitler was elected. hitler came to power legally. the reichstag passed the enabling act with the consent of the people. they wanted a leader.i think the difference is that most people have issues with the patriot act...

haha you said asshatery <3

oh well whatever. i didn't see a first name lol. anyways. by "contract" i mean by becoming a member you consent to a social contract the understanding being that you sumbit to church rule. they take this to mean that if you have, say, helped fund a business or something that they don't like, they can censure you for not ending this financial relationship. they can say that your son should not marry some certain girl. they don't pre-select, they simply say ... no, not that one. it's a theocratic entity. for example. the church members in their respective congregations do not own their own church property, the central presbyteriat does. when the pca broke off, those congregations lost their churches and had to find new facilities.i'm not talking about church funding ministries or whatever. i'm talking about peoples' affairs separate from the church.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 05-11-2005 03:45 PM

social contract. as in, not written and signed. it's an oral agreement to understood rules. nothing wrong with it, i just disagree with the particular rules and find it symptomatic of something i feel is dangerous to this country.
having a church be able to nitpick over the lives of their members (while contractually legal) is dangerous if the person applies the same mentality to his public policy. the government has no right ruling over who i can marry, to whom i can give my money, snd what i can do with my body. a person whose personal associations demonstrate a tendancy to commandeering the lives of others has no place in my government.

i don't think you value your freedom of association and privacy as much as i do.