Democracy is a concept of government whereby the general population consents to abide by rules of society set in place by elected representatives. In a democracy, everyone is supposed to have a chance to speak their mind on any given issue through their vote or through direct petition to the government. In a democracy, government is entrusted with enforcing the laws and protecting individual freedoms. In a democracy, everyone can follow whatever religion they want to follow. Democracies thrive upon individuality, innovative thinking, integrity, and cooperation. Above all, democracies are flexible, allowing room for change with calm transitions. Democracy is the recognition that all people are equal at birth, and that all people have the right to find happiness in their own way, so long as they do no harm to another.
Theocracy is a concept of government where adherence to a specific religious belief is compulsory. The rules of society are taken from a holy book or relayed through religious leaders as interpretations of scriptures or updates from the god. In a theocracy, challenging the government is akin to challenging the god and is often met with harsh retribution. In a theocracy, individuals are expected to follow the laws of the church, with individual freedoms having less importance than acquiescence to the will of the god, and by extension, the government. In a theocracy, religious intolerance reaches its peak, because religious homogeny removes threats to the government’s power, especially when the religious leaders run the government. Theocracies thrive off of conformity, faith (or at least the appearance of it), fear, and exclusion. Theocracies are inflexible and accept change only through explosive confrontation. Theocracy aims to keep earthly power in the hands of the few and exploiting the lives of the many, while using religion as both a pacifier and an object of control.
Given the choice, which would you prefer?
For most Americans, the answer should be pretty obvious. The United States was founded as a democracy from the very beginning. Our Constitution clearly establishes a democratic form of government with provisions relating to the election of government representatives by the citizens. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to religious law. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a reference to a god, save for the common usage of the word “lord” in the signatory paragraph when referring to the year it was signed. The Constitution mentions the word religion one time, but not in an attempt to infuse it with government. In fact, it is just the opposite. The very first sentence in the Bill of Rights reads:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
What exactly this means is that the government itself is prohibited from embracing and impressing any specific religion upon the citizenry, and government is enjoined from prohibiting any specific religious beliefs from being practiced, at least so far as those beliefs do not include ritualistic murder, rape, theft, or other antisocial activities. Government cannot promote one religion over another through legislation or appropriation. Even if every person in the country followed a single faith, laws based on religious dogma, especially those that restrict individual freedom, are not allowed under the Constitution.
It’s all there in black and white (or maybe brown and yellow due to age), so why does there seem to be a push within certain segments of society to align our government with a specific religion, namely Christianity. Claims of America being founded upon Christian principals are hard to prove, though endless debates have raged on about the subject, usually referencing various writings of the original politicians. Regardless of the personal faiths of the founding fathers, the fact that they specifically declined to advance one religion over another is evidence that they believed that government and religion would be best left apart. In their wisdom, they sensed that promotion of a certain religion above others would immediately negate the promise of freedom for anyone not believing of the state approved god, and instead would amount to the eventual creation of a theocracy and destruction of democracy. They must have felt that the governance of man, while he lived on this earth, should be directed by other men, and be flexible enough to accommodate the changing tides of history. Further, since the cost of government must be borne by all citizens, government belonged to all citizens, and must be accessible to all citizens, regardless of their spiritual beliefs. Religion, and all its trappings, belongs not in the public realm so much as to the individual. Faith, of whatever flavor, makes us who we are but it does not permit us to make others think like we do.
We talk about theocracies as if it could never happen here, but under certain conditions, it could. With public apathy at high levels, and a high number of American’s professing to be of the Christian faith, a slow but steady reversal of laws could erode the freedoms granted us by our social contracts. Our shortened attention spans and sound bite mentality make it easy for minority fringe politicians to inject bits of legislation here and there that set the stage for religious interference. At the very least, America could become a hybrid democratic theocracy where our political leaders seek guidance from religious leaders whose adherence to organized religious dogma always seeks to divide humanity instead of connecting it together. Religion is an individual salvation, but government rules our day-to-day lives and is supposed to be based on the rule of man’s law. We need to keep it that way.
This entry was posted on Sunday, August 7th, 2005 at 7:48 am and is filed under Common Sense, Life, Religion, society.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 7th, 2005 at 10:01 am
you keep me coming back…keep it up.
August 7th, 2005 at 2:26 pm
http://the-hip.blogspot.com/2005/08/democratic-theocracy.html is where I put my thought on this matter.
I still believe in Democratic Theocracy.
August 7th, 2005 at 5:24 pm
Great points Ken. I believe the ideals of Democracy are worth hanging on to, tooth and nail. Religion is it’s own subject, and the gov’t doesn’t belong in the same discussion. Too bad Washington doesn’t see it that way! Seems to me you should be sharing this oration with students… they need more debatable thought. Don’t cha think?
August 7th, 2005 at 8:13 pm
You had better do a little more research!
The USA is not a democracy!
The form of government we have is a Republic, a Deomcratic Republic…There is a huge difference between a democracy and a republic…look it up!
After nearly 230 years we have not become a theocracy, even though most of our founding fathers were Christians.
The federal government has not established any religion, nor doesn’t it want too..however the Constitution says nothing about forbidding any Christian influence..that is not the establishing of a national religion..though the states clearly were allowed to establish a state religion..
August 7th, 2005 at 8:16 pm
theocracy doesn’t quite do it for me… i’ve had to coin my own term – theoligarchy – to capture the gruesome combo of fundie christian ideology and the greed of the super-rich…
August 7th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
I comment here, off topic, because I could not locate another means of contact and felt my message worthy of the effort…
There has to be a general respect for the concept of liberty before there can be the realization of the fact. We do not yet respect the right of the individual when placed against that of the collective. If we try to bypass this, we are placing the horse before the carriage and we will, undoubtedly fail.
Politically, the initiative to empower the people through the vote is useless unless the voter is respected as the foundation. This must, by definition begin at the individual. After that benchmark, the road is free of obstacles. But even before we begin, we must also be sure the individual is secure in their rights to express themselves against attack from collectives who would silence them.
It all begins with one. Before it can go anywhere, the individual must be free.
I submit to you that because of a general trend to disregard the individual in favor of the collective… better known in these times as ‘political correctness’, we are eroding the foundation of all freedom.
We must be able to endure the casual discomfort of disagreement in order for any freedom to be able to grow. This being said, I refer you to this story via my own blog…
http://sincityq.com/blog/?p=78
Thanks for your time.
-Redoubt
August 8th, 2005 at 2:33 am
You need to take about 50 steps back, dude. Christians have every right to be heard. Considering that a majority of the citizens in the US are Christians, it stands to reason that they are going to have an influence. That is the way the founding fathers intended it to be. The first amendment states that the government cannot make a law restricting or endorsing religion. That is all. To really clarify this, I will use a source that most liberals and atheists use to build this idea of separation of church and state, Thomas Jefferson. This idea was actually borrowed from a Baptist preacher. Jefferson used it when speaking to the Danbury Bapists in Connecticut to gain their favor. This wall of separation was a one way wall, where the government could not do it, but the citizens were encouraged.
You may not be a Christian, so I will just lay it out for you. There was a day when I very outwardly expressed to the world that was an atheist. I talked about how ignorant people were that believed in false things, etc. This was when I was a very immature person. I was 16, and I thought I knew everything. Regardless of whatever belief I have today, that was wrong. I was a complete ass. I am certainly a Christian now, but I am not going to force you into anything… I will not even try. I will never convince you to be a Christian, and you will never convince me to not be one. If you choose to become a Christian, it will be your choice, as it was mine. However, I have granted respect to whatever belief you have… you could do the same to everyone else who does not think the way you do, since your ilk screams about that so often. Have an open mind… even with those who do not share your point of view. Stop being a hypocrit. We are not a theocracy, by any means. I do not want that. Christians do not want that. No one wants that. We just want our voices heard. So, stop acting like people are trying to cram it down your throat. We have rights too. Rights are granted only to liberal atheists who scream for people’s rights but fail to actually recognize them, at the end of the day.
I do not know you. You may be a Christian. You may be a conservative. Just have an open mind. I can only assume based on the content of your writings. If you want people to co-exist, then maybe you should foster such an environment… because you aren’t, from what I read of your works.
August 8th, 2005 at 2:38 am
Ken,
I usually agree with a few of your arguements, but rarely agree with your conclusions. Today I agree with not only most of your agruements, but also the conclusion.
However, my disagreement is with the premise that our government is not based on Christian principles. There are many similarities. Too many for there to only be a coincidence. I’ll just bring up one (albeit, one we never hear of) in the interest of time. The framework of our Judicial Branch is spelled out in the book of Exodus as written by Moses. He includes the example of everything from the Supreme court, the levels of the appeals courts, and all the waydown to district courts.
It’s a good read. If you take the time, it could change your life.
God Bless America
August 8th, 2005 at 3:41 am
While I do not agree that we should make America a whole-sale Christian country, I do have to take exception to some of your arguments. Fact is, yes indeed the Constitution was based on Christian ideals. Read other works and commentary by Thomas Jefferson and you will see more clearly his thinking. What that single quote in the Constitution actually signifies is that the people should be free to worship in their own manner and that government shall not institute a religion of their own choosing. This is not to say that the principles of a religion cannot become part of the law – they are already there. Think about it – the 10 commandments. Pretty much every one of those are enacted in law, are they not?
This is the major problem with everyone using that separation of church from state clause – they don’t really understand what the Constitution REALLY says about it – which is very little, other than the state cannot force a church down your throat, nor can it prevent you from having your own church. (unless you live in Waco).
August 8th, 2005 at 6:37 am
I agree with BobJ, the word religion and state should not be said in the same sentance. Except, the Civil Rights admedment. Not one person should be discriminated. I would like to ask a question… Is it bad to be called a liberal? I keep being called that and have no idea what it actually means, do any of you?
August 8th, 2005 at 8:41 am
After a long search, I could find someone who shares similar thoughts… trying to change the world, trying to change the way we live and see others.
I believe that life is the most precious in this world, life in any form, and above all, human life. We must respect it.
August 8th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
Hey Ken,
Another great post, and one that we certainly like to talk about. It’s nice to see that you got comments from the usual suspects on this one. It just goes to show the level of polarization we have on this subject, but also the timidity it comes to when discussing the concept of God, religion and Government.
Personally I don’t think this country will ever be a full-blown theocracy since that would ruffle too many feathers. I don’t think they will ever be able to legally say it is regardless, so they will just do what they are doing now, which is maintain the illusion of democracy while elements secretly funded and controlled by elements of the government agitate and disseminate. It’s all done within the confines of the government and the media – so there is no appearence of theocratic intent.
I’m not actually sure we even have a democracy either since the current people in office do not exactly represent the bulk of the populace, including the Christians that the Conservatives duped into voting for them.
I think what we have is more like a Republic as well – with the frothy millions representing the mob.
However, I think that we are drifitng dangerously close to something else, not theocracy, but fascism.
I wrote about it in my Adios Democracy post on The Rudicus Report:
http://rudicusreport.blogspot.com/2005/03/adios-democracy.html
I’m glad you have this site – as someone reminded me over the weekend – it is our duty to be out there asking the questions, even if it is only to get people to think for a few minutes about what they believe. Keep it up!
August 8th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
As a secular nation, we must not allow our laws to be dictated to us by one groups interpretation of the Bible. As a code of ethics it has immense wealth, but we cannot begin legislating based solely on the Bible. We should be using rational thought and arguments backed up by evidence and common sense in creating the laws of the land, and if that coincides with Biblical teachings, or the teaching of other religions scriptures, all well and good. What we MUST not do though is to say that this law or that law must be enacted because the scriptures tells us that it should be, in my opinion, that is an easy way out when people can think of no other arguments to substantiate their positions.
I have to agree with Brad, the US was founded as a Republic, but sadly is today becoming more and more like a true democracy (in the srtictest sense of the word), as states slowly have their power usurped by the Federal government. To quote Thomas Jefferson, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
To those of you who believe that our Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian law. Yes, the founding fathers did use the morality proscribed by those laws, which we call the Ten Commandments, when framing the constituition but one has to remember that Judeo-Christian law has its foundations in Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, written at least 500 years before Moses revelation on the Mount. And yes I know the story of how God gave Moses the Ten Commandments, but if you do some research and compare the Code of Laws with the Ten Commandments, you will see that they are too similar for a connection between the two to be ignored or explained away as coincedence.
August 8th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.-
George Washington
August 8th, 2005 at 10:40 pm
(responses)
Anthony- I’ll do my best. Thanks for the kind word.
Eko- Thanks for the in-depth post (visit Eko’s blog to read his thoughts.) I wonder though, if as a follower of Islam, you would be so keen on a democratic theocracy if the dominant religion used as the model were Christianity, Judaism, or Hinduism. Since, in your description, the theocratic state must respect differing faiths so long as they followed the theocratic law of the land. The contradiction should be apparent here, simply due to the multitude of faiths and interpretations. Thanks again for a thoughtful response.
BonJ- Good to hear from you again! If you know of any students who want to read, please send them the link. Common Sense isn’t just for adults!
Brad- the dictionary definitions are as follows:
Republic- political organization with a single head of state and a body of officials who are elected by a body of citizens.
Democracy- government by the people, either directly or through elected representatives; legislation often by majority rule while being attentive to social equality and individual freedom.
As students we are taught we live in a democracy. Our elected officials espouse the wonder of democracy and even go to greeat lengths to spread democracy to other people. Our elections ring true to the definition of democracy much more so than that of the republic. While the confederation of states may resemble a type of republic, our day to day poiltics should not, at least as we are taught and led to believe.
However, the definition of republic, like that of ancient Rome, is actually closer to the way things seem now. A group of elected officials who are elected by a small majority to rule over the masses (see big business. special interest and union financial donations)but accountable mostly to the small majority run around making the decisions and polarizing the public. This system much easier lends itself to theocratic take-over than does a democracy.
And while a democracy isn’t perfect, it promotes freedom and equality and gives all a chance to air their thoughts without harm of recourse, provided they break no laws in so doing. Simple majority rule though is a kind of tyranny in itself, and perhaps a higher threshhold is needed to make our democracy more true.
As for the government not wanting religion but not prohibiting any specific religious influence, I think this is just an argument to sneak in through the back door what the front door was locked to prevent. Religion and government should not mix in any kind of legal, political, or practical way whenever the outcome is the dispensing of public money or enactment of public legislation. Of course the people IN government will have their own faiths and beliefs, but if they can’t put aside their dogma for the freedom and equality of the nation then perhaps they should go into a different line of work.
Many thanks for the thoughts.
Prof- Theoligarchy…nice, it kind of rolls off the tongue. And I think you’ve explained it quite nicely. I don’t think that a majority of folks want this to happen, but acquiesence to the bitter divisiveness of the parties coupled with the use of religion as a political tool makes it a distinct possibility to be aware of. Thanks for the new word!
Redoubt- Your comments make a lot of sense, but I think it is as important to balance the rights of the many with the rights of the one. It is a careful balancing act to be sure, but important if the rights of the individual are to be preserved. (A paradox? Not really, as an unsecure society will restrict the rights of individuals, amounting to a net loss for both.)
It is true that we need to have a more secure, equality based voting system that is consistent. I will have some thoughts on that topic too.
Individuals must be free, we agree, but they must also use their freedom responsibly. Freedom does not give license to wreak havoc at will, nor does it permit wanton disregard for one’s fellow human being.
Political correctness is an insidious evil to be sure, that obfuscates the truth in favor of the feel good or misleading approach. In one of my first essays on this blog, I completely denounce PC for what it is…BS.
Thanks for the great off topic comment!
Conservative- Never did I say that Christians have no right to be heard. In fact, though I mention Christianity specifically (precisely because they constitute a majority, although a fractures, non-aligned majority) this essay could just as easily have used Islam or Sikkhism as its model.
The founders never intended for Christianity to be the prime influence of law in this country. Many of these men were deists, that is, they did believe in a concept of god or a creator, but not necessarily that of the Christian religion, and certainly not in lock step with any particular brand of Christianity.
The first amendment attempts to keep government out of religion more out of recognition that religion should not be used for political power or coersion. To assume they wanted citizens to inject religion into the national political discourse is a stretch. They simply wanted to ensure that it was legal for you to be a Christian and your neighbor to be a Jew without any ambiguity.
I know all about Christianity and its different permutations, having been raised around it and having studied in for some time. Whether I subscribe to its teachings or not is irrelevant. I fully respect religious beliefs of all flavors provided that the central religious dogma does not promote violence or hatred. What I can’t abide is injection of strictly religious ideals into public law, public money used to further religious ideology, and the blurring the line between politics, education, and religion. In this country the offending religion is usually Christianity. If I lived in Iran, I would rail about the Islamic theocracy, except of course, I’d be hauled off to jail, tortured or killed for heresy. Ahhh, the beauty of theocracy.
Of course you have rights. We all do. That’s just the point. But your or my religious faith is not sufficient to abridge the rights of others who do not believe as we do.
Finally, maybe you should reread some of my essays with an open mind, that is more open to non-conservative, non-fundamental points of view. Thanks for the opposing point of view.
Hurricane Bob- Nice to hear from you, and hooray for a meeting of the minds. (Mostly, at least.)
Keep in mind that there are many similarities between the Christian doctrine regarding proper behavior and that of many other faiths. In that sense, nearly all religions are similar, so maybe it’s less of a coincidence and more a reflection of the evolution of behavior and religion in humanity.
If our institutions resemble those proscribed into some religious text or another, perhaps it is in recognition to the justness and common sense approach as much or more than because of theological value. We take many of our institutions from the Romans and Greeks too, who were polytheists when they developed them.
I’ve read many biblical passages in my years, and know the generalities of many of the parables. They are a good read, but are they the unadulterated divine word and hand of god? Not so sure…
Glad to have you back.
Wopanese- As I’ve answered the “Constitution based on Christianity” question a couple of time already, I’ll not rehash that one. Please refer to previouse responses.
But let’s look over those 10 Commandments you say all are represented in law:
1) I am the Lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. (MORE A STATEMENT AND CERTAINLY NOT A LAW)
2) Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. (AGAIN, NOT CODIFIED INTO LAW-THERE IS NO NATIONAL LEGAL GOD)
3) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain. (ANOTHER NO SHOW IN THE ANNALS OF LAW IN AMERICA)
4) R
emember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (MAYBE ONCE A LAW BUT CERTAINLY NOT TODAY. THIS IS A BIG SHOPPING DAY FOR RETAILERS YOU KNOW)
5) Honor thy father and thy mother.
(NOT A NATIONAL OR STATE LAW)
6) Thou shalt not murder. (DING!DING!DING! WE’VE FINALLY FOUND ONE.)
7) Thou shalt not commit adultery.
(NO LONGER A CRIME IN MOST PLACES, EXCEPT FOR THE MILITARY)
8) Thou shalt not steal. (OKAY, NOW WE’RE ROLLING. WE’VE FOUND 2!)
9) Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.
(LIBEL AND SLANDER ARE ILLEGAL IF PROVEN, BUT LYING CLEARLY IS NOT, UNLESS UNDER OATH. SO THIS ONE DOESN’T QUITE MAKE IT EITHER)
10) Thou shalt not covet anything that belongs to thy neighbor. (ARE YOU KIDDING? WHERE WOULD AMERICAN BUSINESS AND CAPITALISM BE WITHOUT COVETOUS BEHAVIOR?)
The Constitution says all it needs to say, and yes it is just a small part of the whole thing. That’s simply because religion does not belong in politics or national law and that was accomplished in just a few words.
Hope to hear from you again sometime.
Eddy- Again, most Judeo-Christian ideology relating to laws were co-opted from previous religions or cultures because they made sense and promoted a more peaceful existence. And while our history IS rife with religious events, not all of them are worth bragging about. The three main monotheistic religions have created more strife and bloodshed than any other human institution I can think of, perhaps with the exception of individual tyrants like Stalin who had no religious flavor to his killings.
Religion needs to be protected from government so as to keep its true purpose, promotion of peace and love, unperverted by those who will use it for power. But the same is true of the reverse.
Angel- You do mean BonJ, right?
Labels are just another way for people to divide themselves. If you want to be called a liberal, ther’s nothing wrong with that. If you want to be called a conservative, there’s nothing wrong with that. If you want no label, that’s fine too. People will give you one of their own anyhow. I try to ignore labels and work within the bounds of Common Sense whenever possible. Thanks for dropping by.
Jerry- Here, here my friend. Welcome aboard.
Rudicus- I for one have grown tired of both the timidity and the self-righteousness of fundamental religious thought.
I think it would be very difficult for the US to become a full blown theocracy too, but leanings in that direction are somewhat troubling, and not simply because they come from the Christian religion, but because they are religious in nature, period.
I’ve read the post you refer to, and yes, fascism is another troubling trend, one that combines elements of theocracy and business hegemony in the worst ways and encapsulates the public in a homogenous nightmare.
Thanks for the compliment. And come back again!
Nigel- You make a lot of good points, and I think I’ve already addressed them all in one way or another by now.
And I agree that too often, people fall back on supposed religious dogma (often just heresay interpretations of a famous preacher) as defense of their positions without giving thins much more thought. It’s too bad, but it is the society we have created. Can we change? I think we can.
Thanks for adding to the conversation.
Anonymous- George was a Deist, not a Christian. There is a difference. Thanks for the quote.
August 8th, 2005 at 11:26 pm
The challenge becomes when the men and women who run the government (e.g. comprise its ranks for a government indeed made up of individuals)trend toward extremist viewpoints stemming from a religiosity. Their decisions are steeped, nay, completed based on some religious creed. Then, indeed, whether you want one or not, you have government run as a theocracy.
Just because our theocratic orientation doesn’t have its women draped in burkas and alienated from voting doesn’t mean that it is a good thing. What is more troubling is when decisions are based, completely, solely and only on faith rather than facts or scientific evidence. There in lies the rub.
W’s recent commentary on “Intelligent” design is a prime example. Here we have a man who is at the head of the government who confesses to not read and is not an expert on pedagogy or anything other than his own personal experience says what he did. It’s downright divisive and not an inclusive sentiment what so ever.
August 8th, 2005 at 11:44 pm
Even though I disagree with you on some issues so far that I’ve read in your blog, you’re well-spoken and not afraid to speak your mind, I like that. You my friend, are a perfect example of a responsible citizen taking full advantage of your first amendment rights.
As to our form of government we are a representative democracy, that is we elect representatives to act in our interests. They do not vote according to our wishes but we give them the authority to exercise the citizens initiative.
As to the religion issue, I come from a mixed religious background -Christian and Jewish and haven’t yet chosen either side as my own faith.
The Constitution prohibits the establishment of a national religion but it protects the freedom of all people to practice their chosen religion.
The problem in America these days is that special interest groups and the anti-Christian groups have taken the Constitution’s prohibition of a national religion to mean there can be NO religion.
This country is made up of many different cultures and religions and there should be as much right for a Christian to practice his/her religion as there is for an atheist not to practice.
Religion has its place in society, the values and morals taught by the different faiths are an important part of keeping law and order. Occasionally you have radicals in every faith, but the FREE expression of a person’s religion should absolutely be protected.
You cannot expect a person NOT to utilize their religious values and morals in their jobs and everyday lives. Those we elect to represent us have an obligation to uphold the COnstitution, it is their sworn duty.
If the morals and values of our representatives encourage the protection of our freedom and liberty, I am all for it. But ANYTIME religious ideals prohibit us from enjoying freedom and liberty, then it is time to fight.
August 9th, 2005 at 12:27 am
Wow, Ken; you’ve sure ruffled a few feathers with this post. The comments were, for the most part, fantastic also; regardless of the points of view being expressed.
It seems that none of us want a theocracy, from either side of the aisle. Well, one guy says he wants a democratic theocracy, but we’re still batting about 1 out of 20. With numbers like that, I sincerely hope, and doubt that a complete theocracy, or even something dangerously close to it will ever grow strong roots here in the USA.
I had a conservative friend who brought up a good point on this subject. He pointed out how hard it would be for somebody to rally all the various, NUMEROUS versions of Christians together to take over the US Government. It’s hard enough to get us all to agree on what Jesus REALLY said, or what Jesus would REALLY do.
Great post (as usual). Blog ON, friend!
August 9th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
“Again, most Judeo-Christian ideology relating to laws were co-opted from previous religions or cultures because they made sense and promoted a more peaceful existence.” There iscertainly more than one way of interpreting the similarities among religions…
August 10th, 2005 at 4:41 am
Hey Ken, what have you done to Talking Tina? And why should anyone care about ebay anyway?
August 10th, 2005 at 5:17 pm
Great Blog.
It’s good to see that there is actual discourse and not just mudslinging. I’m of the belief that everyone’s opinion is equally valid, and if we could teach the majority this fact then I think we would have less divisiveness in this great nation of ours.
August 11th, 2005 at 3:10 am
There is a oft-repeated lie here, one that I would like to see put to rest forever.
The link below will take you straight to the words of the Founders themselves. And you will see that the Founders were Deists, but they were NOT Christians-some of them were deeply suspicious of Christianity.
http://dim.com/~randl/founders.htm
August 11th, 2005 at 6:13 am
(responses)
Windspike- Glad to have you chime in here. I agree that our current crop of politicians seem to be legislating from the pulpit, creating a de facto infant theocracy of sorts, or at least trying to.
And there was a time not so long ago when this country kept women out of politics as well as many others. Was this due to religion? In part, yes. Eurocentric, Christian attitudes used to preclude giving status to any non-white land owning male. But this too has changed, albeit slowly. And a steady rise in scientific knowledge has had the religious scrambling for decades to assert a divine hand in all things.
If you need a god to get through life, that’s fine. Just don’t expect everyone else to need as you do.
As for W…such nonsense, such poorly contrived attempts at division, don’t even deserve our attention, except of course the usual ridicule.
Jessica- First of all, thanks very much. We must all learn to use our minds more, and then our votes.
As for the politicians…unfortunately, they seem most often to act in their own interests as well as ignoring the desires of the general population. Shame on them for violating the trust placed in them and their offices.
Religion? What else have you looked into? I think that the “NO Religion groups” are just a backlash at all these years of religious infusion into the political realm. No one is saying (or at least, I am not saying) that Christians shouldn’t practice their religion. More power to them. But their religion should not dominate our reasons for legislation. Nor should any other religion. And while I fully understand that religious values tend to be a core element of a persons actions, anyone who uses religion as a dividing tool or for other pwoer grab means is hardly devout in my book. I believe that it is possbile to be both an honest legislator with religious faith without disproportionally mingling the two. Those parts of a faith that transcend a specific belief (like prohibitions on theft and murder) do belong in ouw lawbooks, but to proclaim them as dogmatic property of a single faith is presumptious at best.
Great comments by the way.
GTL- When it comes to religion, politics, or money feathers will always get ruffled. But a mature bird can debate with ruffled feathers and then put them back in their proper place. That is what I encourage here, as you well know.
I don’t think a theocracy is imminent at all, but a subtle and slow attempt to infuse legislation with religious idealogy is readily apparent these days and so it has me a bit worried.
And you bring up a great point…a theocracy is tough with so many factions out there. Still, they have more in common than apart if they really looked things over, and a reunification of the various sects isn’t unlikely in the future, especially if it could mean political and social domination. (not a conspiracy theorist here, just conjecturing…)
Blogging On and On…
Eddy- Sure are. Here’s another…All “gods” are really just a force of nature, and thus all correct. Or maybe, all “gods” are simply personalities of the same “god” and reflect the people who worship him (her-it).
Yes, several ways to see the silliness of all the different theological interpretations.
Anonymous #1- I’ve done nothing with Talking Tina. And I don’t care about eBay. Some strange reason you’re asking?
Anonymous- Discourse IS possible when adults with reasonable minds come to the table to talk, connect, and find solutions to shared issues. I think MOST opinions are valid. I have a few problems with pedophilic opinions though, and a few other sociapathic points of view.
Thanks for coming by, and next time feel free to leave a name.
Jolly- I tried to make an allusion to this. Thanks for the web link. People can also click on the Deism link in my blogroll for further reading on the matter. In fact, you may be the one who linked me up with that site some time back.
As always, glad to have you drop by.
August 12th, 2005 at 4:50 am
Oh man, I’m the last one to the party again!
Anyway, I am wholeheartedly opposed to the theocracy that fundamentalist christians, aided by the republican party, are trying to force upon us. I will do my best to oppose it.
And, to those right-wingers who always say, “we don’t want a theocracy,” dig this: a vote for the republicans is a vote for fundamentalist christian theocracy.
August 12th, 2005 at 7:15 am
(response)
Shea- Better late than never man! And nice way to put things into a kind of perspective.
Thanks for chipping in.