Could the US become a theocracy ?

Since I started using this board I've wondered what would be the consequences if ID or YECism ever actually makes it into the American education system, since it would mean the separation of Church and State had been overthrown. After Bush was re-elected I began to wonder if we could actually see an attempt to break down the constitutional separation of Church and State - or rather an attempt with a realistic chance of succeeding.In Message 145 I mentioned the possibility of the US becoming a fundamentalist (literalist ?) Christian theocracy. I was a little surprised when Coragyps and jar both replied and expressed what seemed to be very genuine concern that it could really happen.The reason for my surprise was that I thought it was very difficult to get the Constitution changed, which would mean that the opponents of such a change would be able to defeat it easily (and so those of you who live over there would be confident it would never happen). I then remembered a PBS series which was shown over here recently about the history of Prohibition in the US - specifically how it was established as a result of a long but determined campaign by a relatively small (initially) but very determined Christian movement. That's when the room suddenly went chilly... So what would it take to establish a Christian theocracy in the US ? Here is my shot (which may be way off target) :

• Congress passes an appropriate amendment (this
  requires two thirds of both Houses)
• Three quarters of the States ratify it
• The Supreme Court doesn't declare it unconstitutional
  (can it even do this ?)

The 'appropriate amendment' is a modification of the First Amendment to strike out "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and reword the rest appropriately. I guess you would have to have another amendment to establish some form of Christianity as the state religion.Ultimately the accuracy of these steps doesn't matter. The issue I'd like to talk about is does anybody think it could happen. Essentially it seems to me all you need is a concerted campaign to elect appropriate numbers of Senators and Representatives and State legislators and it could be done. You might also need the Supreme Court to have been 'stacked' with Fundamentalist friendly Justices by a previous or current President. From a few thousand miles away there seems little doubt that there are groups in the US who would want to achieve this and who have the resouces and electoral savvy to give it a damn good shot - so could it happen and if so how likely is it ?

---

Confused ? You will be...

quote:

---

The issue I'd like to talk about is does anybody think it could happen. Essentially it seems to me all you need is a concerted campaign to elect appropriate numbers of Senators and Representatives and State legislators and it could be done.

---

Perhaps as a chilling example of how bad things can get is that Hitler was democratically elected. If you undermine the process of representative government substantially over time and stack committees, the courts, the legislation with like minded individuals, you could relatively quickly end up with a theocracy and/or dictatorship. It has happened before and there is absolutely no compelling reason that I see to think the US is immune. Democracy requires an active electorate willing to defend its rights all the time. Anything less is at the risk of those seeking power for an elite few.

The main organization that opposes the A.C.L.U. and champions the Christian concerns is here: Error: 404
Apparantly, equal access is the over riding concern for them. They simply want religious literature,symbols, and links to be given equal access availability in public places. It is not fair for the Dalai Lama to have the right to speak at a college under the guise of cultural enrichment and yet ban the christians from having equal access to do the same and having church/state block them. In answer to your questions and concerns on a theocracy, NO it won't happen but neither will the religious people be silenced by a bunch of relativistic agnostics and atheists either. Equal access will prevail.

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)

quote:

---

Equal access will prevail.

---

Oh really...so when under the proposed "faith based initiative" rules a religious group can simultaneously recieve tax money yet discriminate against, not serve, etc. those who do not accept their religious views, equal access will prevail? More like state sponsored religious discrimination i.e. theocracy is already banging at America's door. Of course the warm welcome will be over as soon as the different christian groups start discriminating against each other.

Well I haven't lived there for over ten years You describe a very plausible - and extremely disturbing - scenario for establishing a theocracy. It all sounds so depressingly simple.

---

Confused ? You will be...

quote:

---

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.

---

You are right and I should have worded what I said more carefully. Of course a dictator could be democratically elected if the majority of the population is stupid enough to want it. If the majority of Americans hate freedom of religion, freedom of ideas, freedom of association, etc. and want the constitution shredded, this can also happen democratically..and then democracy will cease. And those craving power will push that way as hard as they can..which is what we are seeing.
The media portrays the so called divide in America as a bad thing with constant calls for the country to unify. I see no reason for this. If anything, those who do not want to succumb to a religion, greed, and power driven theocracy in the US should continue to resist and maintain a polarized country.

Contrary to the opinions of the fundie-nuts, the ACLU has consistently supported the rights of Christians to practice within the law. The ACLU, in just one example, went to court to get a ban on Christians praying on a public park lifted.

---

"The LORD works in satirical ways"

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)

Hello, holmes. In answer to your questions, I refer you to this case which is on its way to the Supreme Court:
Error: 404 ACLJ is more than just Pat Robertsons attack dogs. Jay Secolow is a highly respected lawyer, one of the top 45 in the U.S. in matters relating to constitutional rights. I am glad that Secolow and ACLJ combat the people who do not understand what church/state seperation really is. Clearly, the battle lines are drawn. Religous speakers will have equal access in education and in public events.

In this case, Theocratic means setting up absolute standards based on majority public values. One side is relativistic. They would have it legal for pornography to be openly sold and displayed soas your kids can see it. The other side wants absolute moral values. Theocratic?
Perhaps. If democratic means the rule of the people, than at least SOME of the people want to legislate morality. Others see this as a threat. I see both sides of the issue, holmes. I am not a strict conservative. I also see the need for some absolute authority to restrict things that can destroy a country. Things such as legalized gambling. Oh, we have rights? Rights to allow greedy profiteers to destroy the moral fiber of a society by using freedom to hawk their trash to the people? If that is what you want---unrestricted freedom--you will have a morally bankrupt society. I say that some conservative judges are needed. Some standards must be upheld. The standard of unrestricted freedom brings with it the right of unrestricted expressions that nobody with a conscience wants their kids to see. 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.

Is that old shyster Robertson still around ? I'd have thought he'd have retired to enjoy his ill-gotten gains years ago. I remember watching him back in the '80s and '90s and sitting there mesmerised thinking "does anybody actually fall for this nonsense ?". Later I found out how big he was, so the answer was obviously "yes".

---

Confused ? You will be...