A Christian Theocracy?
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 27

Thread: A Christian Theocracy?

  1. #1
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default A Christian Theocracy?

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...morality_.html

    Is the United States sliding toward theocracy? That’s what Republican presidential candidates have told us for more than a year. Radical Islam, they’ve argued, is on the verge of taking over our country through Sharia law. But this weekend, at an Iowa forum sparsely covered by the press, the candidates made clear that they don’t mind theocracy—in fact, they’d like to impose it—as long as it’s Christian.

    You can find video of Saturday’s “Thanksgiving Family Forum” on the Web sites of two organizations that sponsored it: CitizenLink and the Family Leader. Here are highlights of the candidates’ remarks.

    1. Religious Americans must fight back against nonbelievers. To quote Herman Cain:
    What we are seeing is a wider gap between people of faith and people of nonfaith. … Those of us that are people of faith and strong faith have allowed the nonfaith element to intimidate us into not fighting back. I believe we’ve been too passive. We have maybe pushed back, but as people of faith, we have not fought back.

    2. The religious values we must fight for are Judeo-Christian. Rick Perry warned:
    Somebody’s values are going to decide what the Congress votes on or what the president of the United States is going to deal with. And the question is: Whose values? And let me tell you, it needs to be our values—values and virtues that this country was based upon in Judeo-Christian founding fathers.

    3. Our laws and our national identity are Judeo-Christian. Michele Bachmann explained:
    American exceptionalism is grounded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is really based upon the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments were the foundation for our law. That’s what Blackstone said—the English jurist—and our founders looked to Blackstone for the foundation of our law. That’s our law.

    4. No religion but Christianity will suffice. Perry declared, “In every person’s heart, in every person’s soul, there is a hole that can only be filled by the Lord Jesus Christ.”

    5. God created our government. Bachmann told the audience:
    I have a biblical worldview. And I think, going back to the Declaration of Independence, the fact that it’s God who created us—if He created us, He created government. And the government is on His shoulders, as the book of Isaiah says.

    6. U.S. law should follow God’s law. As Rick Santorum put it:
    Unlike Islam, where the higher law and the civil law are the same, in our case, we have civil laws. But our civil laws have to comport with the higher law. … As long as abortion is legal—at least according to the Supreme Court—legal in this country, we will never have rest, because that law does not comport with God’s law.

    7. Anything that’s immoral by religious standards should be outlawed. Santorum again:
    God gave us rights, but He also gave us laws upon which to exercise those rights, and that’s what you ought to do. And, by the way, the law should comport—the laws of this country should comport with that moral vision. Why? Because the law is a teacher. If something is illegal in this country because it is immoral and it is wrong and it is harmful to society, saying that it is illegal and putting a law in place teaches. It’s not just—laws cannot be neutral. There is no neutral, Ron. There is only moral and immoral. And the law has to reflect what is right and good and just for our society.

    8. The federal government should impose this morality on the states
    . Santorum once more:
    The idea that the only things that the states are prevented from doing are only things specifically established in the Constitution is wrong. Our country is based on a moral enterprise. Gay marriage is wrong. As Abraham Lincoln said, the states do not have the right to do wrong. … As a president, I will get involved, because the states do not have the right to undermine the basic, fundamental values that hold this country together.

    9. Congress should erase the judiciary’s power to review moral laws. Newt Gingrich suggested:
    I am intrigued with something which Robby George at Princeton has come up with, which is an interpretation of the 14th Amendment, in which it says that Congress shall define personhood. That’s very clearly in the 14th Amendment. And part of what I would like to explore is whether or not you could get the Congress to pass a law which simply says: Personhood begins at conception. And therefore—and you could, in the same law, block the court and just say, ‘This will not be subject to review,’ which we have precedent for. You would therefore not have to have a constitutional amendment, because the Congress would have exercised its authority under the 14th Amendment to define life, and to therefore undo all of Roe vs. Wade, for the entire country, in one legislative action.
    Gingrich said the same strategy could secure the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and protects the right of states to disregard same-sex marriages performed in other states. In his words, “You could repass DOMA and make it not appealable to the court, period.”

    10. Courts that get in the way should be abolished
    . Gingrich again:
    The simplest first step which I would take is to propose—and I hope this will be a significant part of the campaign next year—I have proposed to abolish the court of Judge Biery in San Antonio, who on June 1 issued an order that said, not only could students not pray at their graduation, they couldn’t use the word benediction, the could not say the word prayer, they could not say the word God, they could not ask people to stand for a moment of silence, they couldn’t use the word invocation, and if he broke any of those, he would put their superintendent in jail. I regard that as such a ruthless anti-American statement that he should not be on the court, and I would move to literally abolish his court, so that he could go back to private practice, as a signal to the courts.

    Biery’s order was an overreach. In fact, it was overturned two days later by an appeals court. But he’s only the first target of the anti-judicial purge. The next words after Gingrich’s threat came from Santorum, who said: “I agree with a lot of what has just been said here. I would go farther—one step farther, Newt. I would abolish the entire Ninth Circuit.”
    11. The purge of judges should be based on public opinion. Gingrich once more:
    Part of the purpose of singling out Judge Biery and eliminating his job is to communicate the standard that the two elected branches have the power and the authority to educate the judiciary when it deviates too far from the American people. And I think you would probably take that approach.

    12. Freedom means obeying morality. Santorum concluded, “Our founders understood liberty is not what you want to do, but what you ought to do. That’s what liberty really is about.”

    There was one voice of dissent among the candidates. Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, argued that people should be allowed to make bad decisions, that freedom of choice in religious matters should extend to atheists, and that powers not reserved to the federal government should be left to the states. But in a field of candidates bent on legislating Christian morality and purging uncooperative judges, Paul stood alone. Protecting America is too important to let the Constitution get in the way.
    Agree with everything they said, or no? Also, do you think this strategy helps these candidates, or hurts them?
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  2. #2
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    14,461

    Default

    I think that they are all plumb crazy, to tell you the truth. And I grew up in a deeply Christian home. This is NOT what politics should be.

    Sadly I think that this must resonate with a large percentage of the population, or they would not be saying these things. I say sadly because this is one of the main reasons I left the Republican party this year.

  3. #3
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alissa_Sal View Post
    Agree with everything they said, or no? Also, do you think this strategy helps these candidates, or hurts them?
    Pretty much agree with none of it as it pertains to government. I think it must help the candidates or they would be less vocal about such beliefs. It's unfortunate, even if right wing conservative viewpoints are the new majority (not really sure this is the case though), that such viewpoints would need to be forced on the entire country. It's getting back to the religious tyranny and bigotry that the colonists were fleeing from in the first place.

  4. #4
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khaki View Post
    Pretty much agree with none of it as it pertains to government. I think it must help the candidates or they would be less vocal about such beliefs. It's unfortunate, even if right wing conservative viewpoints are the new majority (not really sure this is the case though), that such viewpoints would need to be forced on the entire country. It's getting back to the religious tyranny and bigotry that the colonists were fleeing from in the first place.
    Agree. The bolded is what really freaks me out. If they were just some fringe nut jobs without a following, I would roll my eyes and move on. But the idea that these things actually seem to resonate with a large population of the people is really scary to me. Especially the part about getting rid of the courts that disagree with them, making laws that can't ever be repealed, et cetera. That is pure crazy talk.
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  5. #5
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,518

    Default

    I believe in the religious freedom of all people. That means Christian, Atheist, Muslim, or whatever. The problem comes in when one person's rights steps on anothers. What if my right to carry a Bible offends an Atheist? Should my right to carry a Bible be taken away? I think many Christians desire to vote in a Christian position is out of fear that their right to worship how they see fit will be taken away. That because the Bible speaks out about homosexuality, that the Bible will be considered a hate book and outlawed. It is normal to want to vote in someone who believes as you do so your interests will be represented.

    That said, I very much believe in the balance of power. The courts are there for a reason.

    "There was one voice of dissent among the candidates. Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, argued that people should be allowed to make bad decisions, that freedom of choice in religious matters should extend to atheists, and that powers not reserved to the federal government should be left to the states. But in a field of candidates bent on legislating Christian morality and purging uncooperative judges.."

    I do agree with Ron Paul. Religious freedom should extend to everyone. I want to worship how I see fit, and I want you to worship (or not worship) as you see fit. I just do not want there to be laws that hinder my worship because it offends someone else.

    ~Bonita~

  6. #6
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,859

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I believe in the religious freedom of all people. That means Christian, Atheist, Muslim, or whatever. The problem comes in when one person's rights steps on anothers. What if my right to carry a Bible offends an Atheist? Should my right to carry a Bible be taken away? I think many Christians desire to vote in a Christian position is out of fear that their right to worship how they see fit will be taken away. That because the Bible speaks out about homosexuality, that the Bible will be considered a hate book and outlawed. It is normal to want to vote in someone who believes as you do so your interests will be represented.

    That said, I very much believe in the balance of power. The courts are there for a reason.

    "There was one voice of dissent among the candidates. Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas, argued that people should be allowed to make bad decisions, that freedom of choice in religious matters should extend to atheists, and that powers not reserved to the federal government should be left to the states. But in a field of candidates bent on legislating Christian morality and purging uncooperative judges.."

    I do agree with Ron Paul. Religious freedom should extend to everyone. I want to worship how I see fit, and I want you to worship (or not worship) as you see fit. I just do not want there to be laws that hinder my worship because it offends someone else.
    To the bolded, can you provide information on the movement to outlaw the bible as a hate book? Honestly asking. I hadn't heard of this before. I do understand wanting to vote in a representative that is in line with one's belief system, but the republican candidates in general (at this point) seem convinced that the only way to protect their belief system is to take away the rights of others (for example by denying the right to a civil union and the benefits it entails to all citizens).

  7. #7
    Posting Addict
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    7,257

    Default

    3. Our laws and our national identity are Judeo-Christian. Michele Bachmann explained:
    American exceptionalism is grounded on the Judeo-Christian ethic, which is really based upon the 10 Commandments. The 10 Commandments were the foundation for our law. That’s what Blackstone said—the English jurist—and our founders looked to Blackstone for the foundation of our law. That’s our law.
    This is ridiculous!
    The Ten Commandments

    1 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. (Other “gods” can include possessions, power or prominence.)
    2 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
    3 Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
    4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
    5 Honour thy father and thy mother.
    6 Thou shalt not kill.
    7 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
    8 Thou shalt not steal.
    9 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
    10 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his a.ss , nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.
    Only 3 are actually laws.

    However, don't most societies on earth - Christian or not - have similar laws? Are the most murders, thefts, and cases of perjury committed by non-Christians? In fact, there should be no Christians in prison; only atheists because they lack the moral code of religion.

    Oh, and how many of the politicians caught in sex scandals were Christian? Not really following that pesky 7th amendment, eh.

  8. #8
    Community Host Alissa_Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Debating Away on the Debate Board!
    Posts
    11,771

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlyssaEimers View Post
    I believe in the religious freedom of all people. That means Christian, Atheist, Muslim, or whatever. The problem comes in when one person's rights steps on anothers. What if my right to carry a Bible offends an Atheist? Should my right to carry a Bible be taken away? I think many Christians desire to vote in a Christian position is out of fear that their right to worship how they see fit will be taken away. That because the Bible speaks out about homosexuality, that the Bible will be considered a hate book and outlawed. It is normal to want to vote in someone who believes as you do so your interests will be represented.
    Here is the thing - I can't speak for all non-Christians of course, but for myself and the other non-Christians I know, no one is looking to take away Christian's rights to religious freedom. If someone asked me today to sign a petition to make the Bible illegal, not only would I not sign it, I would think they were a total nut job bigot. The only thing that most non-Christians want is to have the freedom to be a non-Christian. So like, with gay marriage, I fully 100% support Christians' right to not enter into gay marriages, not "host" gay marriages in their churches, et cetera. I just also think that if a gay couple chooses not to follow that Christian belief system and want to get married, they should be able to. No one should force you to behave in a way that goes against your belief system, and no one should force me to follow your belief system either. We should both have the freedom to choose for ourselves. Does that make sense?
    -Alissa, mom to Tristan (5) and Reid (the baby!)

    Got an opinion? We've got a board! Come join us for some lively debate on the Face Off! Debate Arena board.

  9. #9
    Prolific Poster bunnyfufu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Rocky Mountains
    Posts
    1,716

    Default

    I think it's a really extreme viewpoint that caters to fear. I don't find it surprising. And I don't agree with it.

    I do think it is sincere, in that I think that they are intelligent men and women and they are pursuing what they believe to be right. They believe it's their true duty.

    What is un-American about it is the 100% unwavering sureness of the superiority of their beliefs. It's the same problem I have with Muslim extremist theocracy. Of course I think it's healthy for a person to live their lives as they truly believe is right, I try to everyday. But here's the rub. This country is originally made up of people who were religious minorities. . . see the irony? It's messed up.

  10. #10
    Community Host
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    13,518

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Khaki View Post
    To the bolded, can you provide information on the movement to outlaw the bible as a hate book? Honestly asking. I hadn't heard of this before. I do understand wanting to vote in a representative that is in line with one's belief system, but the republican candidates in general (at this point) seem convinced that the only way to protect their belief system is to take away the rights of others (for example by denying the right to a civil union and the benefits it entails to all citizens).
    I did a quick Google search of "laws about the Bible being a hate crime" and 4,690,000 responses came up. I am sure some of them are out there, but it is a genuine concern.

    ~Bonita~

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
v -->

About Us | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Sitemap | Terms & Conditions