crazyfingers

Explain why we already have a theocracy please. And please provide detail and examples.

Charles Darwin

Actually, I have no proposition. You are asking how best to run a nation -- that's a difficult question, and beyond me at the moment. It does seem rather plain to me, however, that we should be honest about the underlying presuppositions in our law. Why the claim of religious neutrality? Do you see that the name "separation of church and state" is self contradictory (for reasons already stated)?

Charles Darwin

Well in this thread it seems we've been using the word "theocracy" to mean a state whose laws are religiously informed. Yes, I suspect it is impossible to avoid, though of course there are myriad varieties, some which may strike us as being less so than others. But to someone else they may be seem to even more so.

No, I don't want to live in Iran, but let me ask you a question. What if it was openly admitted in the US that CSS is not religiously neutral, but in fact entails religious claims? I suspect you might agree that this could have profound consequences, and those consequences are in fact the reason why the myth of religious neutrality is so jealously guarded.

lisarea

Please cite any US law that is worded as such. Is there a law that states, for example, "We will not necessarily prohibit you from boiling a calf in its mother's milk"? Or do you take great offense that there is no US law prohibiting boiling calves in their mothers' milk?

I assure you there is no US law compelling you to boil a calf in its mother's milk.

There are a few US laws that do prohibit certain religious dictates, as someone else mentioned. For example, human sacrifices and the like. However, how does the fact that the state does not enforce a given religion (necessarily to the exclusion of others) amount to any kind of a positive religious endorsement?

I am not a Christian. Should the ten commandments be codified as law of the land, making it illegal for me to have another god before Jehovah, or to take your god's name in vain? Should I be legally prohibited from coveting my neighbor's ass?

Let's make this example just a mite more current. The religious claim is that God says slavery is Okey-dokey. US law says it is not.

I would like to hear you explain to the slave that the law is divinely inspired and in no way is merely ignoring the basic human rights that dictate that his very existence is not a commodity to be bought and sold.

How is the fact that everyone is not required by law to abide by Christian dogma considered stepping on anyone's toes?

What religious belief, precisely, does CSS establish? That Jehovah is not the default boss of us? Allah? Our Buddha nature? Krishna? Zeus? The tooth fairy?

Amaranth

Ahh, but the E.A.C. would never let that ruse fall! Why, if people knew that we had set up the 1st Amendment to ignore specific religions instead of the often held idea that it ignores all religions equally, the consequences would bring the whole thing crashing down.

*shew* Glad no one else has figured that one out.

Charles Darwin

Good point. Simply put, I was responding to the general claim that CSS worked out pretty well. My point is that such a judgement is highly subjective. If you believe that God has no place in public, then yes, the CSS has worked pretty well. If you are on the other side of the sword, things may look differently.

Toto

A theocracy is a state with an official established religion, where the church wields political power. It is not impossible to avoid.

CSS is neutral as regards to claims of belief and conscience. No agency of the government can tell you what to believe or think.

The government is not neutral as to claims of religious practices, but respects those practices when there is no compelling reason not to.

Do you see the difference here?

You are free to believe that God would like the US to pass a law enforcing the observance of the Sabbath. But you can't have your neighbor arrested for mowing the lawn on Saturday.

Are you with me here?

Toto

Things have worked out well in the sense that people in this country can live together comfortably, religion florishes, but atheists are not subject to religious laws. We have not had religious warfare in this country similar to that in Northern Ireland, Yugoslavia, etc.

Besides, you can hardly say that there is no God in public here. There are churches all over the place.

ruby-soho

Well, now we get to the crux of the matter. It appears Mr. Darwin (nice irony there) seems to think that CSS means God has no place in public. Too bad it doesn't imply any such thing. What we have here is a classic straw man argument *sighs*

D

lisarea

I think a lot of Christians in the US have this impression that it is in their better interests to have the US government endorse religion.

I respectfully disagree. Let's say that the US government did decide to endorse religion. It's a pretty safe bet that the religion they'd pick would be some brand of Christianity. But which one? How fine a point would you have the government put on it? Protestant? Baptist? Pentecostal? Hey, how about Santeria? That's a nice melting pot type of religion.

Then, even assuming that they do end up picking your specific denomination, do you honestly believe that the influence goes only one way--that the church would only influence the government, and not the other way around? That the state would not have some hand in the sort of things endorsed and taught within the state-endorsed church?