Posted by:
Tall Man, Short Hair
(
)
Date: February 20, 2017 09:17PM
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.