https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

I've worked with a lot of people from India. The younger ones who are more my age tend to view the partition of India into a Muslim Pakistan and Hindu India as an unfortunate mistake of history.


Now America is on the brink of another major social upheaval if not outright civil war.

The last time it was slavery.

This time it's religion.

And religious fights are very, very nasty.

As ex-Mormons you have lived within a theocratic America. You know what that's like.

Civil discourse is no longer possible. Facts are no longer facts. Bigotry and intolerance are justified as love.
Science and reason have been displaced by superstition and conspiracy.

I don't want to live in Jesusland.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2017 03:48AM by anybody.

AKA "Dumbfuckistan"

"I don't want to live in Jesusland."

The USA as a whole hasn't changed as far as its religious background and traditions. The USA began as predominantly Christian colonies, and the vast majority of Americans are still Christians of one stripe or another. What has changed is that modern liberals have moved further to the radical left than they were 50-100 years ago, and they've become more vocal.

The original colonies were only Christian in the social sense insomuch as they were founded by people from Europe. The majority of the population were Anglican with a few Catholics in Maryland and Puritans in New England and various other dissenting groups.

After America became an independent nation, things changed very quickly. That's how the world got stuck with Mormonism.


Today's "Christofascism" is totally unlike anything that has proceeded it. It is a political movement and NOT a religious one. Religion is just a badge to indicate tribal membership. They don't argue about transubstantiation or the true nature of Christ or the Trinity. It needs enemies to define itself.

Instead, they rail against the social and technological changes of the twentieth century -- equality of the races, equality of the sexes, acceptance of LGBT people, medical abortion and contraception and so on. They want to live in a theocracy where critical thinking isn't necessary -- just like Mormonism.

If you want to live in mythical 1950's WASP era (which existed only in movies and on television) you can if you want. I don't want to live in a theocracy.

America was absolutely not founded as a Christian nation, and the Constitution purposely left out any mention of a specific religion. The founding fathers were primarily atheists or into mysticism.

The religious right has developed within the last 50 years or so. There were never such cries for theocracy before.

"The founding fathers were primarily atheists or into mysticism."

I thought they were primarily Deists. Do you have a link showing they were atheists? I would love to show it to my history teacher nephew.



https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

randyj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What has changed is that
> modern liberals have moved further to the radical
> left than they were 50-100 years ago, and they've
> become more vocal.

And by "modern liberals...moved further to the radical left" what you mean is that decent people are no longer willing to put up with bigotry, bias, and discrimination using religion as an excuse.

randyj, you're a great person and very smart...which is why I really wonder why in the world you want to sound like Ezra Taft Benson during the civil rights movement....?

What has changed in the last 50 years is the erosion of white, male privilege, accelerated by a much larger population and egalitarian interpretation of civil rights law. It's very hard to be forced to fight other people for things that previously were set aside for one. Not many people voluntarily give up monopoly. Being forced to give it up generates resentment and grievance and backlash.

Fundamentalist Christianity is a bastion of white, male privilege. The religious opposition to gay marriage isn't about Jesus' supposed hatred of gays. It's about the a dominant segment of society's losing their power to make government define marriage for society as a whole in the way this power-center wants it defined. Similarly, this center resents being denied authority over women's sexuality. Mormonism was generated out of the Burned-over-district's superstition, which, itself, was a backlash against the Enlightenment. We're seeing another irrational, regressive backlash now.

Well said, MCR.

Yeah.... Can we please get rid of the political threads? They are starting to dominate the board, starting to become increasingly divisive, and I don't think the experiment is working..

It's too easy for me to eviscerate someone like poopstone for saying dumbass bullshit about women being money grubbing whores or transgender people not being entitled to NOT be assaulted or killed.

It's becoming a distraction. Religion in Mormonism is an explosive enough issue as it is.

Thank you I agree

Toronto vs Trump...

Toronto is the most multicultural city on planet earth, and the safest city of its size in N America. We don't tolerate multiculturalism, we accept it, embrace it, celebrate it, and are proud of it. People live here from every part of the planet, every language, skin colour, religion... Toronto has only 1.3 murders per 200,000 people. The GTA has approx 6 million people. Toronto has 200 distinct ethnic origins residents.

Actually we don't notice it because it is what it is, we are Canadians. So I'm going to speak on behalf of most Ontarians by saying that we see Trump as an absolute racist. His racist actions and rants are foreign to us. We just don't get it. They even show hockey games here in Punjabi.

Immigrants are increasingly fleeing the States coming to Canada in the snow on foot with children. Farmers are seeing them and having them in to warm up and have a meal. One man lost his fingers to frist bite. Schools here have cancelled field trips to DC because our students are multicultural and they fear border issues.

We've embraced lots of refugees.

We just don't get Trump. His ideology is a deal breaker. You can't just agree to disagree.

6 Iron stated--- "So I'm going to speak on behalf of most Ontarians by saying that we see Trump as an absolute racist. His racist actions and rants are foreign to us. We just don't get it."
_________________________________________________________

Glad to hear illegal and possibly legal immigrants are taking Trump and his promises (to the American people) seriously!

My hat off to Canada! You want immigrants by all means you can have them because 'America' voted against 'rampant/uncontrolled' immigration that Hillary was promoting. Given the average cost to deport a person in the US is $12,500 I am very grateful 'Canada' is so 'non-racist (your term) and will take these criminal immigrants off our hands. Based on the last article I read, about 500 people crossed over from the US last month. Thank you Canada to the tune of over $6 million!!!!!!

Immigration to the Northern Land of Promise can only get higher as the weather warms up!

It's interesting to me why 'you' seem to think Trump is racist when the American people and system voted for these 'racist' (your term) type programs. Also, Obama set a record for deportations (3k per week?).

It will be interesting to see what happens with this over time.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2017 03:44PM by amazed.

And America is a strong, productive and vibrant nation because of immigration.

Diversity is strength.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2017 10:52PM by anybody.

If 'diversity is strength' lets let Canada become stronger to help more in NATO and continental US defense.

So it is this 'diversity' you mentioned is the reason that Canada is not a 'superpower', with a large Army, Navy, Air Force, nuclear weapons, space program, etc. helping to free the world of terrorists and tyrants?

There are plenty of unskilled 'immigrants' south of the border and across the world that would love to come to such a great Nation as Canada and make it more 'diverse'.

I am all for that!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/19/2017 11:15PM by amazed.

amazed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If 'diversity is strength' lets let Canada become
> stronger to help more in NATO and continental US
> defense.

They already help a great deal.

> So it is this 'diversity' you mentioned is the
> reason that Canada is not a 'superpower', with a
> large Army, Navy, Air Force, nuclear weapons,
> space program, etc. helping to free the world of
> terrorists and tyrants?

If you ditch the entirely subjective notion of "great" being equal to "biggest military," you might be able to see some of the "greatness" of Canada. Peaceful, accepting, extremely low levels of violence, economically vibrant, big contributor to world peace and opponent of terrorists and tyrants, and an example to the world. But apparently, instead of learning from their example, you'd rather denigrate them because they don't spend as much as the US does on making bombs. Does "might make right" in your mind?

Not all of us define 'greatness' according to military aggression.

I didn't mention any of that. You did.

I didn't mention anything about political parties or the military.

I do hope you had basic history at school.

You do know that America is an artificial, made up country of immigrants from all over the world, don't you? Some came yesterday, some came today, and more will come tomorrow.

The only NATIVE Americans are descendants of people who arrived fifteen thousand years ago and got first dibs on the place. Everybody else are relatively new arrivals.

America has had waves of xenophobia before. First the Sephardic Jews, then Irish and the Germans, then the Italians and Central Europeans, then the Chinese, then Greeks and Sicilians...

Your "Jesusland" map is nothing more than bigotry, and your continual drumbeat of "theocracy" is just a whine wrapped in a term you know is completely inaccurate.

We get it. The election didn't go the way you wanted. If something shy of 100,000 votes had gone your direction instead of the other, we'd have an entirely different group of leaders settling in. And I imagine you'd never give a second thought to decrying a virtually unchanged landscape with "Jesusland."

Were you absent during the teaching of US History? Don't you recall that _after_ the formation of our country every state had its own state religion and many had attendance requirements? Do you not know that New Hampshire continued to have a state-supported religion until 1877? And you think our atmosphere today is theocratic? The only difference I can see between you and the 6 year old girl shrieking about monsters under her bed is that you're probably a bit taller.

Buck up Sparky. There's another election coming down the road, and you're more than welcome to see if you can change things. Until then, why not just be an American working to make this a better place with a bit less whining about your entirely imaginary theocracy?

The only difference I can see between you and the 6 year old girl shrieking about monsters under her bed is that the 6 year old is smarter.

Dave the Atheist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only difference I can see between you and the
> 6 year old girl shrieking about monsters under her
> bed is that the 6 year old is smarter.

Yes Dave, you're right. There are monsters under your bed.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I live in a red state with only 6 electoral votes so my vote wouldn't have made a difference one way or another.

and ears that hear and a mind that thinks and what used to be the extremist fringe of the religious right is now everyday occurrence.

I didn't write the book or create the map. This isn't about the election or a candidate or who won or who lost.

It's about reality, perception, culture and society and long term trends.

Remember the "Kansas biology teacher jokes?"

Religion used to be optional -- even in "Jesusland." Not any more.

In America, so-called "conservatism" and racism and evangelical Christianity are now all one and the same.

Bizarre, irrational legislation like the 1890s Indiana "π Bill" (that would have made π exactly equal to three because of the description of the bronze cauldron in Solomon's Temple in the Bible) used to be ridiculous and rare. Now it isn't.

Taliban style anti-science, anti-LBGT, pro-Christian laws are now commonplace in "Jeususland." In many small towns and rural areas there is no separation between evangelical Christianity and the state -- just like Utah and Mormonism.

Lines are being drawn now. Very sharp lines. The same kind of lines that were last seen in 1930s Germany and in Eastern Europe in the late 1940s.


"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled "made in Germany"; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will, of course, be called "Americanism" -- Halford E. Luccock

http://issuepedia.org/1938-09-12_Disguised_Fascism_Seen_as_Menace



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2017 09:50AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lines are being drawn now. Very sharp lines.

You're certainly proving this true. There are the adults who understand reality and are capable of living freely within it.

And then there's you.

If evangelical Christians were a persecuted minority I would argue for tolerance for them -- even though I don't share their beliefs.

We are now at state where reality and facts are no longer universal. That's new.

Suppression of scientific truth is something out of the Middle Ages but we are confronted with this in the here and now of the twenty-first century.

You can have differences about how to interpret facts and what to do about things but you can't deny reality.

I'm willing to talk. I'm willing to listen. I'm willing to compromise. But I can't have a rational discussion with people who are only interested in a one-way conversation...and they claim they are speaking for God.

Exactly. We cannot make laws that exclude and outright deny science. That's not 'religious freedom.' That's the Dark Ages.

Then how would you describe Christian Dominionism if not as a theocratic movement?

Loyalexmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Then how would you describe Christian Dominionism
> if not as a theocratic movement?


Can you name any reasonable person who actually believes there is a credible path for this movement to work? Is there a major political party that is considering adopting this as part of their platform? You realize it would require a convention of the states to repeal Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, right?

It's far more likely there really are monsters under your bed than any fringe religious group could muster a convention of the states to overturn our democracy. People who actually believe these groups represent a threat to our democracy are only slightly less absurd than those who endorse the actual groups.

But what it does provide is great traction for those who have a real disdain for Christians and Christianity. Nothing seems quite as sweet as finding a fringe group you can use to tar the larger group with.

It's also very telling that these discussions typically center around Christians, but usually give a pass to Muslims. Where are virtually all current theocracies found? In majority-Muslim countries. What group of immigrants consistently has a portion who believe Sharia Law should replace constitutional law? The Muslims. But who is he Boogie Man in this discussion? The Christians.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2017 06:34PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

>You realize it would require a convention of the states to repeal Article VI, Clause 3 of the Constitution, right?


Here you are simply plain wrong. The US Constitution has **NEVER** been amended by a convention of the states. Every amendment has occurred via the following process:

1.Proposed amendment passes both houses of congress by a two thirds vote in each house (290 votes in the house, 67 votes in the Senate).
2. Proposed amendment is then ratified by a majority vote in the legislatures of three quarters of the states (37 states).

While it could be amended by a convention of the states, it does not require such a convention.

[|] Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >You realize it would require a convention of the
> states to repeal Article VI, Clause 3 of the
> Constitution, right?
>
>
> Here you are simply plain wrong. The US
> Constitution has **NEVER** been amended by a
> convention of the states. Every amendment has
> occurred via the following process:
>
> 1.Proposed amendment passes both houses of
> congress by a two thirds vote in each house (290
> votes in the house, 67 votes in the Senate).
> 2. Proposed amendment is then ratified by a
> majority vote in the legislatures of three
> quarters of the states (37 states).
>
> While it could be amended by a convention of the
> states, it does not require such a convention.

Right you are. I stand corrected.

But it's 38 states for 3/4. (caught my typo while pointing out yours!)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2017 10:47PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Correction accepted - unless we can strip Utah of statehood ;-)

Oh yes... and it would also require the same process of amending the Constitution to allow sharia law to be imposed. Do you think that such a proposal would receive even a simple majority vote in either house of Congress much less 2/3rds?

Ted Cruz, a former presidential candidate and heavily supported by the Tea Party, is a Christian Dominionist. Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Mike Huckabee.

Deflecting to Muslims doesn't do much, as we don't have multiple leaders here already advocating for Muslim nationalism as we do Christian nationalism, and we don't have Muslim congressmen and senators advocating for legislation to be based on the Koran. I'm concerned about what's happening HERE. People focus on Christianity here because that's affecting us. Muslims in other countries likely focus on Islam. Israel focuses on Judaism. India focuses on Hinduism and Buddhism. Seriously? Come on.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2017 07:32PM by Loyalexmo.

You're two for two tonight.

(As an extreme liberal) I find it strange that liberals go after christians and defend muslims. Very strange. Ashton Kutcher was thumping his chest and talking about how muslims were welcome in America and "we love you." But he's strangely silent about the horror and oppression of Islam.

Why aren't my fellow liberals speaking out against the crimes of Islam - Islamic governments oppressing their citizens?

I saw Ashton thumping his chest why doesn't he run for president if its his America, see if he could do any better than the older celebrity.

They do. I've only seen them speak out against blatant discrimination which also tends to be racist.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We get it. The election didn't go the way you
> wanted.

I guess you didn't bother to look at the map, or read about it.
It was created after the 2004 election. It's not a reaction to this most recent one. Oops.

> Were you absent during the teaching of US History?
> Don't you recall that _after_ the formation of our
> country every state had its own state religion...

I think you were absent, seeing as how that's a false statement.
Here, instead, are facts:

The Province of Pennsylvania was founded by Quakers, but the colony never had an established church.
West Jersey, also founded by Quakers, prohibited any establishment of religion from its founding.
Delaware Colony never had an established "state" religion.
The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, founded by religious dissenters, is widely regarded as the first polity to grant religious freedom to all its citizens.

Here are the colonies that *did* at one time have a "state religion," and the date of "disestablishment:"

Colony Denomination Disestablished
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England 1789
Maryland Cath./C.O.England 1701/1776
Massachusetts Congregational 1780 (in 1833 state funding suspended)
New Brunswick Church of England
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
Newfoundland Church of England
North Carolina Church of England 1776
Nova Scotia Church of England 1850
Prince Edward Church of England
South Carolina Church of England 1790
Canada West Church of England 1854
West Florida Church of England
East Florida Church of England
Virginia Church of England 1786
West Indies Church of England 1868

> many had attendance requirements? Do you not know
> that New Hampshire continued to have a
> state-supported religion until 1877?

1790, actually. Though New Hampshire *did* require until 1877 that members of the state legislature be "members of the protestant religion," but that encompassed many denominations, and that requirement was tossed out in 1877 and didn't have anything to do with citizens of the state.
Oops again.

> And you think
> our atmosphere today is theocratic? The only
> difference I can see between you and the 6 year
> old girl shrieking about monsters under her bed is
> that you're probably a bit taller.

Can't resist the personal attacks, huh? Even though your statements are demonstrably false. Sad.

> Buck up Sparky. There's another election coming
> down the road, and you're more than welcome to see
> if you can change things. Until then, why not just
> be an American working to make this a better place
> with a bit less whining about your entirely
> imaginary theocracy?

For many of us, insuring we don't become a theocracy *IS* working to make this a better place. You're free to not agree, of course, but then again we don't have to agree with you, either.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2017 03:22PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Yep. Wanted to say exactly that (that the statements about every state having a 'state religion' were untrue unless you bend the truth to its furthest possible extent to exclude any sort of nuance)...but didn't want to get into all that. Thanks for doing it.

& yeah, the folks shouting for freedom and 'let's focus on the important stuff' don't realize that to many this IS the important stuff. Doesn't have to be to you. I don't much care about lowering taxes for the rich. Some do. But tell them not to care about that, and YIKES.

These are the most important and most critical issues facing America in decades. Freedom, democracy, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and civil discourse are at stake.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------


>
> For many of us, insuring we don't become a
> theocracy *IS* working to make this a better
> place. You're free to not agree, of course, but
> then again we don't have to agree with you,
> either.

Are we defining "theocracy" as found in the dictionary?

noun, plural theocracies.
- a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
- a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
- a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.


If this is not your definition, please provide your alternate definition and reason for departure from the actual definition. Feel free to admit you're using it as a form of demagoguery with no basis in actual reality whatsoever.

And please detail the following:

1. Apart from the Vatican, please list all current and past Christian theocracies.

2. Please provide a roadmap how we go from our current representative democracy to a theocracy.

3. Do you see any substantive difference between people of faith seeking an agenda within a representative democracy and a theocracy as described above?

4. Is there any major political movement afoot that is seeking to end our democracy and replace it with a theocracy? Or is this one of those movements that is so well hidden nobody knows about it and there's absolutely no evidence it exists?

5. Is a tin foil hat required to embrace the fear of our pending descent into a theocracy, or do all you folks just wear them as a fashion statement?

Christian Dominionism.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are we defining "theocracy" as found in the
> dictionary?

Yes, we are.

> If this is not your definition, please provide
> your alternate definition and reason for departure
> from the actual definition. Feel free to admit
> you're using it as a form of demagoguery with no
> basis in actual reality whatsoever.

I am doing no such thing. A great many "christian" theologians and politicians in this country have clearly stated their desire for the US to be a christian theocracy. The threat is real, despite your dishonest efforts to proclaim anyone pointing out that threat as using "demagoguery."

> And please detail the following:
> 1. Apart from the Vatican, please list all current
> and past Christian theocracies.

You're kidding, right?
There isn't enough room here to list even the ones from just the past 500 years. Listing all of them would take ten forums. Are you really that ignorant of history?

> 2. Please provide a roadmap how we go from our
> current representative democracy to a theocracy.

By elected leaders using their religion as an excuse to not follow the existing laws of their country (and citizens doing the same and supporting them). Like what happened in Iran.

> 3. Do you see any substantive difference between
> people of faith seeking an agenda within a
> representative democracy and a theocracy as
> described above?

Depends on the "agenda." Here's one "agenda" that seeks to establish a christian theocracy:

“Here’s a test of what is a true religious freedom: a freedom that’s based on orthodox religious viewpoints." (Tony Perkins, Family Research Council)

There are plenty more. Some of the ones you've promoted qualify.

> 4. Is there any major political movement afoot
> that is seeking to end our democracy and replace
> it with a theocracy? Or is this one of those
> movements that is so well hidden nobody knows
> about it and there's absolutely no evidence it
> exists?

Depends what you mean by "major" -- that's subjective. Me, I don't care if they're "major" or not, I want to put a stop to all of them before they can gain a foothold.

> 5. Is a tin foil hat required to embrace the fear
> of our pending descent into a theocracy, or do all
> you folks just wear them as a fashion statement?

There you go with the insults again -- your ad-hominems grow very, very tiresome. Why can't you just discuss an issue without resorting to them? It's below you.

"A Public Policy Polling (PPP) national survey conducted between February 20th and February 22nd of Republican voters, found that an astonishing 57 percent of Republicans want to dismantle the Constitution, and establish Christianity as the official national religion. Only 30 percent oppose making Christianity the national religion."

“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good… Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.” Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana 8/16/93

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ." From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant

Stop pretending there aren't people trying to establish a christian theocracy in the US. You're either being dishonest or demonstrating woeful ignorance.

Oh, and next time, try making an argument, rather than simply demanding that I explain your moving-goalpost side-excursions. They were all straw-men, set up to distract from actual statements and the actual issue at hand.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2017 06:30PM by ificouldhietokolob.

"57 percent of Republicans want to dismantle the Constitution"

So when the constitution hangs by a thread, it won't be the lefty commies causing it, as the church has warned for these many years, but instead by ETB's own fellow travelers. Oh the irony.

<smh>

GOP = God's Own Party
Hezbollah = Party of God

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Are we defining "theocracy" as found in the
> > dictionary?
>
> Yes, we are.
>
> I am doing no such thing. A great many
> "christian" theologians and politicians in this
> country have clearly stated their desire for the
> US to be a christian theocracy. The threat is
> real, despite your dishonest efforts to proclaim
> anyone pointing out that threat as using
> "demagoguery."
>



Will you pick just a few of this "great many" who have clearly stated (using the actual definition of a theocracy) their desire for the US to be a theocracy? You can skip those who want a shared morality or a state religion, and just cite those who have expressed a desire for our nation to place God as the supreme leader, His laws as our nation's laws, all administered by a priest class of government leaders.



> > And please detail the following:
> > 1. Apart from the Vatican, please list all
> current
> > and past Christian theocracies.
>
> You're kidding, right?
> There isn't enough room here to list even the ones
> from just the past 500 years. Listing all of them
> would take ten forums. Are you really that
> ignorant of history?

Sadly, we have just this one forum, and you weren't able to come up with even one as an example?

Let's assume I'm really that ignorant. How about just list the top 5 actual Christian theocracies (God is ruler, His laws are the nation's laws, priests are leaders) for the last 100 years?


>
> > 2. Please provide a roadmap how we go from our
> > current representative democracy to a theocracy.
>
>
> By elected leaders using their religion as an
> excuse to not follow the existing laws of their
> country (and citizens doing the same and
> supporting them). Like what happened in Iran.
>

You're veering a bit into that ground of demagoguery that seemed to so upset you earlier. You're claiming here that we're just a few disobedient politicians away from a theocracy that places God as our civil leader, replaces our constitution with ecclesiastical laws, and has priests as national leaders?

Really?

The problem with your citation of Iran is that the religion there is Islam which actually sees theocracy as the natural extension of its existence. That's seldom been a part of Christianity.

And the elephant in the room remains our current Constitution. Exactly how do we overturn our prohibition against a religious test for elected leaders if we're going to enact this theocracy? A convention of states is a massive undertaking and would require 38 states and their legislatures to sign on. Hundreds of millions of citizens would have a representative say in this. Is that really where your fear lies?



> > 3. Do you see any substantive difference
> between
> > people of faith seeking an agenda within a
> > representative democracy and a theocracy as
> > described above?
>
> Depends on the "agenda." Here's one "agenda" that
> seeks to establish a christian theocracy:
>

So, you're saying you are unable to distinguish between the two options?


> “Here’s a test of what is a true religious
> freedom: a freedom that’s based on orthodox
> religious viewpoints." (Tony Perkins, Family
> Research Council)
>
> There are plenty more. Some of the ones you've
> promoted qualify.
>
> > 4. Is there any major political movement afoot
> > that is seeking to end our democracy and
> replace
> > it with a theocracy? Or is this one of those
> > movements that is so well hidden nobody knows
> > about it and there's absolutely no evidence it
> > exists?
>
> Depends what you mean by "major" -- that's
> subjective. Me, I don't care if they're "major"
> or not, I want to put a stop to all of them before
> they can gain a foothold.

Well, your position would seem a bit more tenable if you could identify any actual political movements that have appeared on a ballot anywhere while seeking to establish a theocracy.

Lacking that, you're back in the demagoguery zone: "I'm deeply concerned that something that has never happened and has no evidence of happening may actually happen."

>
> > 5. Is a tin foil hat required to embrace the
> fear
> > of our pending descent into a theocracy, or do
> all
> > you folks just wear them as a fashion
> statement?
>
> There you go with the insults again -- your
> ad-hominems grow very, very tiresome. Why can't
> you just discuss an issue without resorting to
> them? It's below you.

Really? Your answer to my roadmap question is startling. You overlook the clear constitutional roadblocks that would require a convention of the states and hundreds of millions of willing participants for this to happen. Lacking that, you're entertaining some sort of violent revolt in the name of God. I could see that sort of action coming from Islam (since we have actual examples of that).

Ironically, "Onward Christian Soldiers" was a hymn played when Churchill and FDR were formulating a plan for a post war world which placed self-government and self-determination as its hallmarks. No discussions of theocracy were heard.


>
> "A Public Policy Polling (PPP) national survey
> conducted between February 20th and February 22nd
> of Republican voters, found that an astonishing 57
> percent of Republicans want to dismantle the
> Constitution, and establish Christianity as the
> official national religion. Only 30 percent oppose
> making Christianity the national religion."
>

Seriously? Google PPP and herding. You'll see why they are unapologetically a resource to liberal causes. Want a poll to say something specifically to meet your needs? Call PPP. And even if it's true, you're veering off topic. A theocracy requires more than naming a national religion. Religions have intertwined with governments virtually forever, but a theocracy has to declare God (not a religion) as its head, its law giver, and His priests as the governors. Naming a national religion is not seeking a theocracy.

> “I want you to just let a wave of intolerance
> wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred
> wash over you. Yes, hate is good… Our goal is a
> Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are
> called on by God to conquer this country. We
> don’t want equal time. We don’t want
> pluralism.” Randall Terry, founder of Operation
> Rescue, in The News-Sentinel, Fort Wayne, Indiana
> 8/16/93

Okay, a 24 year old quote from a pro life activist. This is the face of launching a theocracy? And you're offended when I point out your inescapable demagoguery here? Can we cull the Internet for an offensive quote from an atheist to extrapolate the coming purge you all are intending?



>
> "Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a
> commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the
> land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil
> structures, just as in every other aspect of life
> and godliness. But it is dominion we are after.
> Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not
> just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not
> just equal time. It is dominion we are after.
> World conquest. That's what Christ has
> commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the
> world with the power of the Gospel. And we must
> never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian
> politics has as its primary intent the conquest of
> the land -- of men, families, institutions,
> bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the
> Kingdom of Christ." From The Changing of the
> Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by
> George Grant


Ditto above. I stick with my assessment elsewhere. The only people who rival the absurdity of these folks are those who think they represent any credible path to an actual theocracy. Can't you track down just a couple of national politicians who have openly espoused a theocratic goal to bolster your claim?



>
> Stop pretending there aren't people trying to
> establish a christian theocracy in the US. You're
> either being dishonest or demonstrating woeful
> ignorance.
>

No, it's you that's wrong here. Wanting a state religion is not a theocracy. Even having a monarch as head of that church is not a theocracy. A theocracy, using the actual definition you agreed to, must first and foremost name God as the civil supreme leader of the country.

You seem to confuse the difference between expressing an opinion and actually trying to implement something. I continue to challenge you to cite a single political party, office holder, or political leader who has openly expressed a plan (or even a desire) to establish God as the supreme civil leader of our country, His laws in place of our constitution, and priests as those who govern.

Honestly this theocracy you fear seems to only exist among the monsters hiding under your bed.



> Oh, and next time, try making an argument, rather
> than simply demanding that I explain your
> moving-goalpost side-excursions. They were all
> straw-men, set up to distract from actual
> statements and the actual issue at hand.

I did that, and you've quite accurately described your interaction since then. Your position here has proven your desire to demagogue this issue. People of faith in positions of power are a threat to you, but not our democracy. They threaten policies and positions you must like, but they do nothing to undermine our secular government. We are not now, nor ever have been in danger of this:

- a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
- a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
- a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

You can't appreciate a tin-hat comment? Come on, man. Don't you get a good laugh when Benson is ripping on a subject - and making fun?

But, theocracy? Yes, we have Jesus freaks & Melania reciting the Lord's prayer. But, Obama also spouted the company line and regularly talked about God. I was no more convinced that Obama believed a word he said about Christ than I think Trump believes any of it.

We are seeing the liberal tea party rear its head. They look just as silly as the fools who were dressing up like the founding fathers eight years ago, wigs and all, talking about the national debt. Now, they're supporting a guy who wants a trillion dollar stimulus.

It's overblown. And, I think, the left is losing credibility by an extreme overreaction to Trump, just like the right did with the tea party.

Many, MANY conservative politicians want to create and have created legislation based on their idea that the Bible is the literal word of God. Many have expressed their idea that the U.S. should be a "Christian nation." Fundamentalist numbers here are growing every year. I'm not sure why you want to pretend that isn't a theocratic move.

Loyalexmo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many, MANY conservative politicians want to create
> and have created legislation based on their idea
> that the Bible is the literal word of God. Many
> have expressed their idea that the U.S. should be
> a "Christian nation." Fundamentalist numbers here
> are growing every year. I'm not sure why you want
> to pretend that isn't a theocratic move.


1. Please name some of these politicians
2. Please cite the specific legislation they created that is "based on their idea that the Bible is the literal word of God."

If you don't follow politics or legislation, don't know how many Americans believe the Bible is the literal word of God, and aren't bright enough to do your own very basic research I can't help you. You are positioning yourself as the teacher in possession of the truth and those who disagree as students who need to cite evidence when you cite zero for your many opinion based claims. Not an exercise in critical thinking or an intellectually productive dialogue.

Loyalexmo not logged in Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you don't follow politics or legislation, don't
> know how many Americans believe the Bible is the
> literal word of God, and aren't bright enough to
> do your own very basic research I can't help you.
> You are positioning yourself as the teacher in
> possession of the truth and those who disagree as
> students who need to cite evidence when you cite
> zero for your many opinion based claims. Not an
> exercise in critical thinking or an intellectually
> productive dialogue.

My apologies. I didn't realize you were making one of those claims where "only stupid people don't know all this stuff is true."

Have you no pity for we who dwell in the vapid wasteland of ignorance? Won't you please throw us a morsel from your lofty throne and share just one or two instances demonstrating your claim to be true?

I agree. There is no theocracy. There are the religious folks - like Franklin Graham - who would love to make the rules.

But the vast-majority of Americans could give a shit about religion. We're working, paying the bills and having some fun.

Anyone wringing their hands of (Trump) and religion is wasting their energy, imo.

Since 42% of Americans believe in creationism I've got to disagree.

I think you mean Zombieland or soon to be Zombieland

When did politic threads get unbanned like two days ago or something I feel like I've been reading a ton since I got foot surgery and they've all been making me mad so I say we ban politics again it achieves nothing both here and in the real world.

badassadam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When did politic threads get unbanned like two
> days ago or something...

No, considerably longer ago than that.

> I feel like I've been
> reading a ton since I got foot surgery and they've
> all been making me mad so I say we ban politics
> again...

You could not read the threads that make you mad. Rather than insist they be banned because they make you mad. Seem reasonable?

It's a few vocal loudmouths who won't let problems work themselves out in natural human ways. Screaming smart mouths tend to keep hard feelings agitated. They want to be the spokespeople of what others say and think and the kettle boils over, again and again.

Better to save such venom for real and serious problems with real unsubtle outcomes, then hit guilty parties with consequences. If someone reads in a problem which might happen a hundred miles down a slippery slope, they're doing more harm than good.

I would move back to the armpit of California from whence I came and live in a boxcar to be able to be part of the United States of Canada. Sure wouldn't want to stay in Jesusland of the South.

I"m really tired of people overreacting. Most everyone in the U.S. is exactly the same as they have always been. Only a handful of people at the top/in the public eye have changed. Society hasn't changed even though the so-called leaders are trying to change some laws around. If you don't think those laws should be changed, then fight. Start a petition, run for office, support a candidate, volunteer at a charity, give money ... whatever. Everyone needs to stop weeping and wailing and making sweeping, inaccurate judgments and get to work if they want to regain the America they feel they lost. Good people still outnumber the bad ones, no matter what the media says, and they don't need to lie down and get run over but stand up for what's right.

And I hate to tell you this but Canada doesn't want us. They've said so repeatedly. I don't blame them - I wouldn't want the Americans who run away from their problems rather than solving them clogging up my nation either.

Urban and educated America is younger(under 35), progressive, secular, multi-cultural, multi-racial, urbane, environmentally conscious, technologically oriented, indifferent or accepting of LGBT people, and forward looking.


Rural and ex-urban America is older (45+), religious, white, conservative, mono-cultural, anti-Muslim, anti-LGBT, anti-feminist, anti-science, regressive, and looks towards the past.

This is an over simplification but illustrates the vast gulf that now divides America.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/20/2017 10:04PM by anybody.

How do you know we don't fight? Personally I'm involved in a lot of local activism.

Wuhoh don't come my way I am not ready for a fight no sir

Amen

RE: TMSH wrote: [challenge to demonstrate the following]

>>>>"to establish God as the supreme civil leader of our country, His laws in place of our constitution, and priests as those who govern."

>>>>"- a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
- a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
- a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government."

______________


That's the crux of the argument, and the (your) strawman god used by politicians:


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/trump-vp-pick-mike-pence-evangelicals-225623


They don't need to "amend the Constitution," or use the restrictive criteria you claim to be the only valid means of establishing a theocracy. They try to bring it in the back door of State law. Theocracy does not need to claim an actual god as the "supreme ruler;" it needs living humans who claim to be acting in the Supreme Ruler's behalf.

To deny that there has been theocracies is ignorance; to claim that there was an actual supreme (supernatural) being actually occupying the castle of those theocracies is even greater ignorance. Any such claim, TMSH, are the underlying claims of those seeking to use the power of a god to establish law, not the claims of those opposing such governance.

It's the same, tired, "don't look behind the veil" act.