Now that Ive cooled off....

[KCAA]

on Bush's win (not kerry's defeat). I wanted to propose a legitimate question.

Is America now a theocracy?

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

It is in my conclusion that the economy, domesitic issues etc, have now been minimalized and things like family values, moral choices, etc have taken over the American voter.

Yes? No?

[accord 4 me]

our country was founded with religion playing a large role.

why does everyone think its so bad tho? i mean..morality=good. so why does everyone have beef?

[Voice]

Because my views of morality and your views of morality, and everyone's in the nation, are all different.

Religion+Government=bad idea.

blah blah blah the founding fathers started this country with a strong religious belief....yadda yadda yadda.....

They also had slaves, raped slaves....tortured slaves....massacred Native Americans.....raped Native American women....killed children....

Very godly people....yessir.

They also forced their religion on the Native American people....

It's funny how they fled england because of religious persecution, yet as soon as they got here, they tried to do the exact same thing.

I wouldn't say it's a Theocracy exactly, but it's pretty damn close.....

[_Jeb_]

They had slaves, yes. But who of the founding fathers did those other horrible things? I sure can't think of any. I'll be shocked if you can name 3.

[lue]

Just because a country has a religious government, doesn't automatically make the people under that rule believe the same thing. It may have an influence in what they do; but things like rape or murder will happen no matter who's running your country.

[svosen]

Originally posted by Voice
I wouldn't say it's a Theocracy exactly, but it's pretty damn close.....

I don't mean to be antagonistic, but that is a very ignorant thing to say.

I know you're big on having your opinions and not feeling like you need to justify them to anyone (and that's fine, I guess), but this is not a matter of opinion.

America is not a theocracy, nor is it "pretty damn close."

~~~~~~~~~
theocracy

\The*oc"ra*cy\, n. [Gr. ?; ? God + ? to be strong, to rule, fr. ? strength: cf. F. th['e]ocratie. See Theism, and cf. Democracy.] 1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.

2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom
~~~~~~~~~

KCAA: it would appear that the American public has somewhat of a greater awareness of "moral issues" lately, but Voice is partially right. The problem with "morals" voters is that they have to get those morals from someplace. Unfortunately, many of them "look inside themselves" or rely on what is "commonly understood as moral."

Few people are actually willing to acknowledge the real source of morality. Not that I can blame them. After all, if we as a society are taught that we crawled up out of the primordial sludge via a cozmically unprobable chain of coincidental events, then we are left to assume that all life is random and ultimately meaningless. What is morality, and why is it relevant if I came from nothing and will ultimately return to nothing?

More people are starting to realize that this rubish which has been pushed on us in the last couple of centuries is exactly that - rubish. I attribute the seeming increase in "moral," "spiritual," and "religious" things to the fact that people are searching for the truth; they are realizing that they have not been given the truth. People are becoming aware that issues such as the economy are really quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Personally, I'm excited about what may turn out to be a spiritual reawakening in America, if not overly optimistic of the probable outcome. Like Accord 4me, I too wonder why some people get so worked up about the idea of our country becoming more spiritually aware.

[Dmitry M. (Lazer)]

Originally posted by KCAA
on Bush's win (not kerry's defeat). I wanted to propose a legitimate question.

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

I don't like many people winning chairs in government inclduing one being Hillary Clinton for Senator of NY and Bloomberg for Mayor of NYC, but they both won fair and square and i got over it.

As for theocracy, i don't think so. Yes Bush probably won because of religious and moral beliefs but to go as far and say this country is coming close to theocracy is ridiculous.

[Voice]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

[Gabriel013]

What you have to remember is that most of the laws of the country (yours AND mine) are based on morals of the few individuals that created them way back when. I am pretty certain that these people would have been religious. Probably Christians.

Laws against stealing and murder are all based on morality but it is generally agreed by all that these laws are a good thing.

When it comes to the more borderline issues such as abortion is when people take up the "who's to say it's right or wrong?" arguement.

If we are slowly working our way towards the same sex marriage issue again then I'll post my 2 cents now.

Traditional marriage is a Christian act ie to be married under the eyes of God etc.. and as it is against said religion for same sex relationships it is right that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry as this is state law forcing changes to established religions.

However, hetero and homosexuals should both be allowed to sign binding contracts to each other which allow both relationship types to have equal rights.

[svosen]

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.

You do realize that makes absolutely no sense, right? That's like saying that by definition a banana isn't a fruit, but by definition it's a pulpy, edible seed bearing vessel from a banana tree.
~~~~~

Gabe: Marriage between men and women has historical roots in all of humanity; it's not a Christian phenomenon.

That being said, as a Christian, I believe that it was God's original intention for men to marry women (one of each per marriage). That's why cultures around the globe have had marriage between men and women throughout history.

Voice: your statement that, "Any person who had slaves, tortured them...PERIOD." is seemiingly based on emotion, not reality. There were people who purchased slaves and allowed them to work for their freedom. The slaves were already in the country; these people merely allowed them a method of obtaining freedom. Doesn't sound like torture to me. Sounds like a fair exchange of goods for services to me.

Granted, there were numerous abuses to numerous slaves (none of which were justified). But I guarantee you that none were performed in the name of God.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again (because some people apparently can't seem to grasp this basic concept): just because a person labels themselves a "Christian" does not make it so. A Christian is someone who is actively seeking to attain the attitude and love for others that Christ displayed for the eventual glorification of God (which is done by seeking to have a relationship with the living God, not by "having religion"). Clearly, anyone who harms others on purpose can not be a real Christian.

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.

First off: belief in God doesn't make you a follower of God. The Bible tells us that even the deamons believe in God, and they tremble. I'm always curious about people who say they aren't Christians but believe in 'god.' What god, exactly, do you believe in, and how to you substantiate your belief in his existance?

Secondly: I couldn't agree with you more - "religion" doesn't make you moral. The concepts of morality come from the things that influence us, the things that mold our character. Original morality comes from God alone. Our society was based on that morality, and even though we are slipping away from it, a residual remains. That's where your morality comes from. You say you "know right from wrong," but you don't qualify.

It's easy to know not to kill somebody, but there are a plethera of actions that are either right or wrong. There has to be an absolute answer to the question of right or wrong for each action; relativism is a crock. If what is "right" to you results in the harm of others, how can it possibly be universally right? It can't. Clearly, "right and wrong" must be absolutes, and they must have a defined origin. If that origin is not a common creator, then what is it? If there is not one common source for the definition of right and wrong, how can there be an absolute answer to the question of right or wrong? The answer is: there can't be.