Shea- Better late than never man! And nice way to put things into a kind of perspective.

Thanks for chipping in.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

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.

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.