Now that Ive cooled off....

[Ryan H.]

A theocracy? Are you ****ing joking?

Ask that question when the country is under Shar'ia law, where women get stoned to death for adultry, where thieves get their hands cut off for stealing.

The simple fact that our leader happens to be a Christian means nothing, as every single president we've ever had was an admitted Christian. So, if we're now a theocracy because of the religious beliefs of our president, we have been since the 1700s.

I honestly can't believe you thought that was a legitimate question.

[svosen]

It's a legitamet question if you don't know what "theocracy" means. People have been throwing the term around loosely lately, so it's natural for people to wonder.

There's no need to bash somebody for trying to enlighten themselves. Personally, I'm glad KCAA asked rather than just assuming it was true.

Is America now a theocracy?

In that, I mean is religion and religous issues now what people care about most?

The question he's really asking here is whether or not people are becoming more spiritually oriented (which they are), not whether or not we are a theocracy. At least that's how I read it. He used the term "theocracy" in the question, but based on his qualification, that's not really what he wanted to know. Like I said, people are throwing the word around without really knowing what it means.

[Ryan H.]

Originally posted by Voice
1. By definition it isn't a theocracy, but by that definition the only difference is that our government isn't directly run by religious leaders.

2. However, our leader did use morality and religion to catch the ear of all the religious followers in the nation, and they voted for him because they view him as a godly man, someone who shares their morals, which stem from the bible and it's teachings.

3. So in the sense that we have a President who is strong in his religious beliefs.....and is wanting to ammend the constitution to adhere to those beliefs, and force those beliefs on a part of our population who doesn't share those beliefs, we're coming close to having a theocracy.

4. On the other hand, you have people like me, who don't follow a certain religion....I believe in god, and I know right from wrong. Religion doesn't make you moral automatically, that's been proven time and time again within the catholic church.

5. Not being religious also doesn't automatically make you an immoral person.

6. As far as The goings on of America's past and all that concerning the founding fathers.....Maybe I wasn't clear enough in seperating my ideas back there. I meant The founding fathers had slaves. Singular thought.

7. Then I meant that the other people, and possibly the founding fathers as well, but not certainly.....tortured slaves....raped women...stole land.....massacred Native Americans....and if anyone tries to contest these FACTS....then it should be known that you are trying to re-write history. Keep in mind that all these men believed themselves to be very moral people....they were men of the bible.

8. We didn't discover America, WE TOOK IT. Plain and simple.

9. And as far as trying to tell me that "yeah, they had slaves...but they didn't torture them or anything...." that's bullshit right there, don't even TRY to tell me that slavery isnt torture.....they treated them like animals....when they didn't do what they were supposed to do...they were whipped, beat, and sometimes killed.

10. Any person who had slaves, tortured them...PERIOD.

1. What in the blue hell are you talking about?

2. Bush did not capture the ear of all religious people in this country. Not even close. While he probably had a larger percentage of the religious vote, I can cite both anecdotal evidence and historical precedent that directly refutes that claim. Many, many religious people voted for John Kerry.

3. You still don't understand the definition of a theocracy, and you can say "we're becoming a theocracy" all you want, but mindless repetition of the same groundless litany does nothing but waste our time.

To assert that the desire to pass a federal ammendment banning gay marriage likens us to a theocracy is absurd, especially when you look at theocracies all over the world, and the difference between their laws and freedoms and ours.

The day someone forces you to pray to God on a daily basis, or jails you for eating shellfish, working on a Sunday, or eating fish on Friday, you'll have a point.

4. I don't think anyone asserts that religion automatically makes you moral. I don't recall anyone asserting that being religious makes you moral, or that not being religious makes you a hedonistic, amoral *******. So, I'm confused why this was brought up.

5. See number 4.

6. No, you implied that the same religious people who founded our country raped indian women. You made a bunch of bullshit generalizations about Americans of the late 1700s and early 1800s, and quite ignorant, hateful ones at that. Don't shit on my face and tell me it's ambrosia, son.

7. Yes, some people did some very horrible things. However, these horrible things happen under any social system, be it secular or religious, socialist or capitalist.

If you'd like to talk about bad people doing bad things in the name of religion, and effectively enforcing a theocracy upon their people, you should bring up the Inquisition or the Crusades, though even then religion was little more than an excuse to murder people who didn't agree with your worldview; therefore, religion isn't the problem, the people who corrupt it are.

8. Please don't tell me you think "Native Americans" are actually native, or innocent. We took American land just as indians tried to take it from each other. They warred with each other, they even created regional alliances to more effectively terminate other indians who didn't believe in the same gods and whatnot.

They're also not native, as basic anthropology demonstrates that they migrated from Asia. "Native Americans" are no more native than we are. If they're natives, so were our forefathers.

The self-apologist "Americans persecuted the Native American" shit gets old after awhile. We fought the indians for THE land, not THEIR land, not OUR land. We won, and not because we were evil and devious and dishonorable, but because we had better technology, greater numbers, and better organization.

Far too many liberals want to re-write history to portray all indians as innocent victims of brutal western imperialism. Indians were just like westerners, in that some were good, some were bad, and neither side of the war was 'righteous'.

9. Once again, you're attempting to demonize every person who had a slave as an evil, vicious, violent man, and you're implying that all white men who had black people working for them held those black people as slaves. This particular brand of ignorance really pisses me off.

I suppose you think the Civil War was about slavery, don't you?

10. And so, what? Anyone who had slaves was an evil person? Our founding fathers are evil, vile men? If so, why do you proclaim to want to uphold the constitution they created?

Slavery was way ****ing wrong, and horrible, and at the time a universal concept, one embraced by black men themselves. Remember, we didn't go to Africa, conquer the continent, and steal all the people. Colonialists BOUGHT slaves from BLACK slavetraders, and thus 'black' people share just as much blame for slavery as 'white' people.

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Dmitry M. (Lazer)


OMG, are you seriously that ignorant. Give up on it Kerry lost fair and square.

Thats not what i was implying. I dont' care that Kerry lost. I was implying i care that Bush won. But, as i said, im over it.


Now to my legitimate topic.

It isn't rediculous. The Church was to be seperated from the State. It was, for a while, but is back to being fused. That, my friends, is a bad thing.

It might not be one by definition, but it is damn near close. The Catholic Church has too much influence, as do many religions (just the Catholic one takes the heaviest stand).

Svosen - thanks. That is another way of looking at it. However, I do know what theocracy means.

I don't however, mean that the freaking pope runs the country through the president by any means.

I think that we will remain republican (president) until:

a) They **** up big time.
b) Democrats wake up and realize they can't win with a pro-choice, gay marriage stand.

Just for the record, my father is a lawyer and is on a panel with federal judges that talk about issues on weekly basis. They came to the conclusion it was a theocracy (not the LITERAL definition) but pretty ****ing close. Religon seems to be playing a BIG ass role. That, like voice said, is a bad thing.

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by KCAA


Thats not what i was implying. I dont' care that Kerry lost. I was implying i care that Bush won. But, as i said, im over it.


Now to my legitimate topic.

It isn't rediculous. The Church was to be seperated from the State. It was, for a while, but is back to being fused. That, my friends, is a bad thing.

It might not be one by definition, but it is damn near close. The Catholic Church has too much influence, as do many religions (just the Catholic one takes the heaviest stand).

Svosen - thanks. That is another way of looking at it. However, I do know what theocracy means.

I don't however, mean that the freaking pope runs the country through the president by any means.

I think that we will remain republican (president) until:

a) They **** up big time.
b) Democrats wake up and realize they can't win with a pro-choice, gay marriage stand.

Just for the record, my father is a lawyer and is on a panel with federal judges that talk about issues on weekly basis. They came to the conclusion it was a theocracy (not the LITERAL definition) but pretty ****ing close. Religon seems to be playing a BIG ass role. That, like voice said, is a bad thing.

It seems to me you are one of those who would never vote Republican. Let's not forget that our country is a Republic and not a Democracy.

Just because Bush got elected does not mean our country is coming down to Theocracy. You are being completely ignorant with your thought. If people vote because of there religious/moral beliefs that does not make our country a theocracy. So what you are indirectly saying or atleast the way i'm seeing it is that people should never vote for there religious beliefs.

If i'm wrong please correct!

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Dmitry M. (Lazer)


It seems to me you are one of those who would never vote Republican. Let's not forget that our country is a Republic and not a Democracy.

Just because Bush got elected does not mean our country is coming down to Theocracy. You are being completely ignorant with your thought. If people vote because of there religious/moral beliefs that does not make our country a theocracy. So what you are indirectly saying or atleast the way i'm seeing it is that people should never vote for there religious beliefs.

If i'm wrong please correct!

First of all, if it was anyone BUT bush this year, i would have voted for them (assuming i could have voted (1 year off)) I don't vote via party, I vote on the Candidate. Kerry wasn't a good candidate, but Bush, IMO was worse.

I also didn't say that just because Bush got elected means we're in a theocracy. Although, it does make it a bit more obvious, in a sense. [ There's just no way a president could serve 4 years with an economy like it was/is, the unemploment rise because of outsourcing, which he supports, and the war., and be reelected. Look back at history. His father for one. It came down to moral votes. Thats what im getting at.

Voters should put aside their religious beliefs. They need to vote on the issues, not listen to the effing Church tell them what todo because God will strike them down if they don't, or they'll go to hell. Correct me if im wrong, but if you were running for president you wouldn't want the church saying that to against you now would you?

Im not ignorant.

[Ryan H.]

Without being too much of an *******, if your father came to the conclusion that we live in a theocracy, or anything close to it, he's not a very good lawyer.

At all.

I really get tired of the separation of church and state argument, because most liberals who argue about it don't understand the concept of what it means, where it comes from, and what it was designed to do.

First off, the words 'separation of church and state' DO NOT APPEAR in the constitution. They came from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, explaining why he felt certain aspects of the constitution were important. That so few people actually know that, and yet continue to cite 'separation of church and state' as if it's rule number one in the constitution, amazes me.

And if we're going to apply sentiments expressed via letters, let's not forget George Washington's sentiments that all law and order comes from God, and thus any moral society must take its law from Him. Now, does Washington's statement validate the introduction of church into government? No, it doesn't.

And neither does Jefferson's statement.

On top of that, religion is not and has not played nearly the role liberal pundits are claiming. The expression that moral values were more important that democrats anticipated does not mean that religion in government is rampant; in fact I could conclusively demonstrate otherwise. All their suprise means is that democrats haven't the foggiest ****ing clue what matters to people in the red states.

But, since we have this claim about Catholicism and Christianity encroaching on government, let's take a look at some of the surrounding events concerning religion in government.

In Los Angelos, the county was forced to remove the symbol of the cross from the county seal, as it was deemed to violate 'separation of church and state', even though Los Angelos was started as a catholic mission and would not exist today without the religious roots that created it.

In Alabama, a judge lost his bench after refusing to remove the ten commandments from the courthouse.

The city of Las Cruces, New Mexico was sued in an attempt to force a name change, as Las Cruces means 'the cross' in Spanish.

The theory of creationism has been all but eliminated in public schools in favor of teachings that favor evolutionary theory exclusively, even though there is ample evidence backing up creationist theory independent of religious belief.

I could go on like this for days, but I am getting ready to leave for the weekend in just a little while, so I'll get to the point.

No leaders of the religious community hold governmental office. There are no priests or reverends in the senate, and there is no legislation that has been passed in accordance with biblical law. Therefore, the assertion that we live in a theocracy is asinine to say the least, and is, in reality, ****ing stupid.

Just because some legislation happens to be in accordance with religious beliefs held by a large portion of the population does not mean that we live in a theocracy. If such were the case, no law could be passed if it agreed in principle with any faith of any sort, which would effectively translate into persecution of church by government.

I'd like to remind everyone that the concept of 'separation of church and state' is meant not only to protect the government from the church, but to protect the church from the government. Advocating the abolition of any religious influence in the country in the name of separation is incredibly hypocritical. I mean hell, the supreme court is decorated with religious symbols, and meetings in congress begin with a prayer.

And yet so many liberals claim outrage over the presence of 'one nation under God' in the pledge of allegiance.... sigh

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Ryan H.



8. Please don't tell me you think "Native Americans" are actually native, or innocent. We took American land just as indians tried to take it from each other. They warred with each other, they even created regional alliances to more effectively terminate other indians who didn't believe in the same gods and whatnot.

They're also not native, as basic anthropology demonstrates that they migrated from Asia. "Native Americans" are no more native than we are. If they're natives, so were our forefathers.

The self-apologist "Americans persecuted the Native American" shit gets old after awhile. We fought the indians for THE land, not THEIR land, not OUR land. We won, and not because we were evil and devious and dishonorable, but because we had better technology, greater numbers, and better organization.

Far too many liberals want to re-write history to portray all indians as innocent victims of brutal western imperialism. Indians were just like westerners, in that some were good, some were bad, and neither side of the war was 'righteous'.

9. Once again, you're attempting to demonize every person who had a slave as an evil, vicious, violent man, and you're implying that all white men who had black people working for them held those black people as slaves. This particular brand of ignorance really pisses me off.

I suppose you think the Civil War was about slavery, don't you?

10. And so, what? Anyone who had slaves was an evil person? Our founding fathers are evil, vile men? If so, why do you proclaim to want to uphold the constitution they created?

Slavery was way ****ing wrong, and horrible, and at the time a universal concept, one embraced by black men themselves. Remember, we didn't go to Africa, conquer the continent, and steal all the people. Colonialists BOUGHT slaves from BLACK slavetraders, and thus 'black' people share just as much blame for slavery as 'white' people.

You've got some points. Some are just absurd. Ignorant like you like to say. Native Americans warring against eachother for land. That has NO ground what so ever. Yes, we took the land from them. No way around it. Native might not be the right word as you mentioned.

However, they WERE here first. Argue with that and wow, you will be ignorant.

Yes, the civil war WAS about slavery. I do know what your getting at and I agree partially. I also think we could agree that the Civil War was about slavery but more about keeping the union intact. It was about BOTH.

That's the first ive heard about BLACK slave traders. Im curious about that...any links?

[KCAA]

Originally posted by Ryan H.
Without being too much of an *******, if your father came to the conclusion that we live in a theocracy, or anything close to it, he's not a very good lawyer.

At all.

I really get tired of the separation of church and state argument, because most liberals who argue about it don't understand the concept of what it means, where it comes from, and what it was designed to do.

First off, the words 'separation of church and state' DO NOT APPEAR in the constitution. They came from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, explaining why he felt certain aspects of the constitution were important. That so few people actually know that, and yet continue to cite 'separation of church and state' as if it's rule number one in the constitution, amazes me.

And if we're going to apply sentiments expressed via letters, let's not forget George Washington's sentiments that all law and order comes from God, and thus any moral society must take its law from Him. Now, does Washington's statement validate the introduction of church into government? No, it doesn't.

And neither does Jefferson's statement.

On top of that, religion is not and has not played nearly the role liberal pundits are claiming. The expression that moral values were more important that democrats anticipated does not mean that religion in government is rampant; in fact I could conclusively demonstrate otherwise. All their suprise means is that democrats haven't the foggiest ****ing clue what matters to people in the red states.

But, since we have this claim about Catholicism and Christianity encroaching on government, let's take a look at some of the surrounding events concerning religion in government.

In Los Angelos, the county was forced to remove the symbol of the cross from the county seal, as it was deemed to violate 'separation of church and state', even though Los Angelos was started as a catholic mission and would not exist today without the religious roots that created it.

In Alabama, a judge lost his bench after refusing to remove the ten commandments from the courthouse.

The city of Las Cruces, New Mexico was sued in an attempt to force a name change, as Las Cruces means 'the cross' in Spanish.

The theory of creationism has been all but eliminated in public schools in favor of teachings that favor evolutionary theory exclusively, even though there is ample evidence backing up creationist theory independent of religious belief.

I could go on like this for days, but I am getting ready to leave for the weekend in just a little while, so I'll get to the point.

No leaders of the religious community hold governmental office. There are no priests or reverends in the senate, and there is no legislation that has been passed in accordance with biblical law. Therefore, the assertion that we live in a theocracy is asinine to say the least, and is, in reality, ****ing stupid.

Just because some legislation happens to be in accordance with religious beliefs held by a large portion of the population does not mean that we live in a theocracy. If such were the case, no law could be passed if it agreed in principle with any faith of any sort, which would effectively translate into persecution of church by government.

I'd like to remind everyone that the concept of 'separation of church and state' is meant not only to protect the government from the church, but to protect the church from the government. Advocating the abolition of any religious influence in the country in the name of separation is incredibly hypocritical. I mean hell, the supreme court is decorated with religious symbols, and meetings in congress begin with a prayer.

And yet so many liberals claim outrage over the presence of 'one nation under God' in the pledge of allegiance.... sigh

First it wasn't just my father. Plus youd be calling abunch of federal judges stupid too. (Not that you care)

I will say though(without being an *******), you are VERY narrowminded. I know i can be at times, but you are VERY narrowminded.

Nice work on the Congress sessions prayers etc. I now will ask my rep why they do that.

That also could be a tribute to the American people losing sight of what should be done in the government.

Abortion. Its wrong, yes. Should it be legsilated against because of our belief? No. Why? Because everyone doesn't have the same beliefs.

Same secenario.

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by KCAA



First of all, if it was anyone BUT bush this year, i would have voted for them (assuming i could have voted (1 year off)) I don't vote via party, I vote on the Candidate. Kerry wasn't a good candidate, but Bush, IMO was worse.

I also didn't say that just because Bush got elected means we're in a theocracy. Although, it does make it a bit more obvious, in a sense. [ There's just no way a president could serve 4 years with an economy like it was/is, the unemploment rise because of outsourcing, which he supports, and the war., and be reelected. Look back at history. His father for one. It came down to moral votes. Thats what im getting at.

Voters should put aside their religious beliefs. They need to vote on the issues, not listen to the effing Church tell them what todo because God will strike them down if they don't, or they'll go to hell. Correct me if im wrong, but if you were running for president you wouldn't want the church saying that to against you now would you?

Im not ignorant.

OMG, again you are implying it. Church has no control, it's the people's decisions, if they want to follow Church then they can do that.

Listen i'm Jewesh and i believe in my religion pretty strongly, which i a while back did not believe in as much. But because of what i believe is right i will elect that person. If i believe because of MY MORALS & BELIEFS that Bush's policies towards things are better, even though it is not necessarly good, that does not make me a theocrat or this country a theocracy.

Ok now lets bring up a subject in WHAT IF terms. Most wars other then the Civil War and the Vietnam war seem to turn out at the end to the better for the country. Lets say economically it was politically correct to go to war (again this is a what if), would you vote against the person for war or for the person for war? Now before you answer, let us say that you are a strong believer of Anti-War, even when it makes sense to go to war, you would still vote for the political party that is against war.

This is what i'm trying to get at.

By you saying i should take off all of my beliefs while voting and vote politically violates my opinion. And that is why this country is not a theocracy. And no way will be one.

I don't even see how this country can even be called a theocracy. A Theocracy is not what the people are in the country but a government run by Religious authority. See what you are implying is that our country is becoming a theocracy as if it is a bad thing. Well yes if it came directly into the government yes i woudl agree with you, but because people vote for there beliefs it does not make us a theocracy.