Should the religous really want a theocracy?

[FramerDave]

Note to moderators: This could probably fit into a few different sub-fora; please feel free to move if necessary.

In all of the discussion over the seperation of church and state, involving so many issues such as creationism vs. real science, abortion, environmental protection, the death penalty, and so on, I think those advocating putting God and Jesus back into government are missing one important point. That point would be the role of government in religion.

We're always debating keeping religion out of government, but what about keeping government out of the church? Suppose we were to end up with a theocracy in the United States, with Intelligent Design taught in schools, every day in school beginning with a prayer, abortions outlawed throughout the land, and no marriage or rights for gays. Then wouldn't there be a need to government regulation of the church? After all if we do decide that we are indeed One Nation Under God, then we have to decide which god. With so many flavors of Christianity, which one wins?

If we decide that the Baptist Church is the One True Church of the United States and we ban all dancing, alcohol sales and football on Sunday, abortion, etc. then I'm sure Baptists across the nation would rejoice. But what of all the other demoninations? Would the Mormons still be happy when DC comes in and tells them that they can no longer teach about the angel Moroni since it would not conform with federal law? What of all the Catholics who would no longer be allowed to take communion, since federal law now deems it heresy?

Why do the people who keep pushing to put God back into government not realize that the Constitution also keeps the government out of church? It works both ways.

[DOC]

"...Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

[Leumas]

"...Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."


"God is a comic playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh" - Voltaire
"Forgive, O Lord, my little jokes on Thee, and I'll forgive Thy great big joke on me." – Robert Frost
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." – Charles Darwin
"The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear." – Heinrich Himmler
"Augustine's philosophy of guilt was brilliant. Before Augustine, a decent, moral person could live and exemplary life, never commit a crime, never hurt anyone, marry and raise a fine family, and at the end of life, be in the good graces of Yahweh for eternity. But Augustine ended that; merely being good and moral isn't enough. You had to accept Christianity or face grave consequences." - Craig A. James
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection of his own." - Thomas Jefferson
"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins

[FramerDave]

DOC, do you have original thought to add to the discussion, or do you plan to just throw out quotes? As you can see from Leumas, everything one can quote can be refuted by an equal and opposite quote.

"The devil can quote Scripture for his purpose!"

William Shakespeare

See how that works?

[Twiler]

I think that religious groups have learnt to pretend that the others don't exist.

[Mudcat]

The irony here being is that if the us ever became a theocracy what would follow would be one of the biggest blood baths in world history. So yeah, not something that would be at all desirable.

[Leumas]

I think that religious groups have learnt to pretend that the others don't exist.

The irony here being is that if the us ever became a theocracy what would follow would be one of the biggest blood baths in world history. So yeah, not something that would be at all desirable.



I think it is a matter of priorities..... gang up even with people you hate to get rid of a more pressing enemy then when that is done you have time to weed out the "friends" you do not need any longer...maybe even by exploiting other "friends".

The one that knows how to exploit the most survives in the end.....it is what happened in Ancient Rome.

This book explains how it has already been done once before very successfully:
Jesus Wars: How Four Patriarchs, Three Queens, and Two Emperors Decided What Christians Would Believe for the Next 1,500 years (http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Wars-Patriarchs-Emperors-Christians/dp/0061768936/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320358311&sr=1-1)

[Humes fork]

It's sort of like the prisoners' dilemma. If it's their religion and their particular version of it, it's good. Otherwise, not so good.

[DOC]

deleted

[DOC]

The irony here being is that if the us ever became a theocracy what would follow would be one of the biggest blood baths in world history. So yeah, not something that would be at all desirable.

I've heard it said that more people have died under Communism in the 20th Century during peace time than have been killed in all the wars in the history of the human race:

1900-2000: A century of genocides
by Piero Scaruffi

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

So I would better like my chances of surviving a theocracy than surviving under an atheistic Communist state.

[nvidiot]

My goodness...

False dichotomy DOC. How on earth do you think it's a choice of theocratic dictatorship or communist dictatorship?

There's a little thing called secular democracy.

[Brian-M]

Suppose we were to end up with a theocracy in the United States, [...] wouldn't there be a need to government regulation of the church?

This question makes no sense. If the US were a theocracy, then by definition God (or his representative) would be the head of state, and presumably the church would be acting as the government on his behalf (for example, the Vatican is a theocracy that works exactly this way). Are you saying that the church would need to regulate itself? :confused:

ETA:

Or maybe you're confusing religious democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_democracy) with theocracy? These are two very different things.

[nvidiot]

I think most of us when we hear "theocracy" think of "church in charge of government".

[Brian-M]

I think most of us when we hear "theocracy" think of "church in charge of government".

Hmm, I have a hard time imagining a government that's completely subservient to a non-government organization and still deserves the title of "government". Sounds more like a civil service under control of a religious governing body to me.

[Bram Kaandorp]

I've heard it said that more people have died under Communism in the 20th Century during peace time than have been killed in all the wars in the history of the human race:

1900-2000: A century of genocides
by Piero Scaruffi

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

So I would better like my chances of surviving a theocracy than surviving under an atheistic Communist state.

I think the main word to define the difference is "technology".

The "secular" dictators had more efficient technology on their hands to complete their goals that was the case for religious leaders of old.

Nowadays, technology is even more advanced, so I'd think any theocratic power with a vengeance would leap at the chance to use it.

[nvidiot]

Hmm, I have a hard time imagining a government that's completely subservient to a non-government organization and still deserves the title of "government". Sounds more like a civil service under control of a religious governing body to me.

You provided an example earlier. The Vatican.

[catsmate1]

I've heard it said that more people have died under Communism in the 20th Century during peace time than have been killed in all the wars in the history of the human race:

1900-2000: A century of genocides
by Piero Scaruffi

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

So I would better like my chances of surviving a theocracy than surviving under an atheistic Communist state.

And as usual you're either too uninterested in actual facts or just lying.
World War II 40-72,000,000
An Lushan Rebellion 33-36,000,000
Mongol Conquests 30-60,000,000
Qing dynasty conquest 25,000,000
Taiping Rebellion 20-60,000,000
World War I ~15,000,000 65,000,000 if Spanish flu is included.

[FramerDave]

This question makes no sense. If the US were a theocracy, then by definition God (or his representative) would be the head of state, and presumably the church would be acting as the government on his behalf (for example, the Vatican is a theocracy that works exactly this way). Are you saying that the church would need to regulate itself? :confused:

ETA:

Or maybe you're confusing religious democracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_democracy) with theocracy? These are two very different things.

Well ok, may be I was being a bit loose with the word "theocracy" and using the vernacular rather than the dictionary definition. To clarify I was referring to the type of government that Pat Robertson, Rick Perry, et al would like to have. A government in which their brand of religion would be the guiding principle in all matters.

Liberal use of the death penalty (eye for an eye), abolition of abortion, persecution (maybe prosecution) of gays, teaching of ID in schools, and so on.

So back to my point, and maybe DOC would like to address this: would the religious be ok with government regulation of their chruches?

[I Ratant]

It's because there's no -one true faith- that a majority can support that keeps our society secure from the excesses of religious hate.
There are a lot of Christians, but their beliefs differ enough to prevent them from adhering to a common cause.
And many of them aren't violent, as violent as we see in existing theocracies today.
Shermer has an Op. Ed. piece in today's LA Times, titled "What's God got to do with it".
.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-shermer-god-20111104,0,877363.story

[Craig4]

"...Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..."

As I've explained to you before, you need to read more of Washington's quotes about religion. There is a very wide chasm between what he said in public and in private. He had some very biting comments to make about the state and religion as in keep them apart and the religion bit away from him. Washington did not favor a church involved in the state nor a state involved in the church.

[Peterson]

As I've explained to you before, you need to read more of Washington's quotes about religion. There is a very wide chasm between what he said in public and in private. He had some very biting comments to make about the state and religion as in keep them apart and the religion bit away from him. Washington did not favor a church involved in the state nor a state involved in the church.

I've read very little but the little I did read lead me to believe that he wasn't very religious (if at all).

I don't understand why people would want religion and government mixed together. What does anybody have to gain personally by it?

[Naive1000]

I've heard it said that more people have died under Communism in the 20th Century during peace time than have been killed in all the wars in the history of the human race ...[snip]... So I would better like my chances of surviving a theocracy than surviving under an atheistic Communist state.

Worth a look so you can reassess your information: Were they really atheists? (http://freethoughtnation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=334:were-stalin-hitler-and-pol-pot-atheists&catid=39:atheism-agnosticism)

[Mudcat]

I've heard it said that more people have died under Communism in the 20th Century during peace time than have been killed in all the wars in the history of the human race From whom did you hear from and what are their sources?

*snip cheery picking*
So I would better like my chances of surviving a theocracy than surviving under an atheistic Communist state.
That's just the thing DOC, you are saying that your faith is the 'one true faith' but someone else would have different ideas about that, in which case they would offer you choice: "Change your beliefs to mine or die."

What? You thought Theocracies were were different? If the US was to become one everything would neccessarilly have to change, the work place, the law, the education system, the arts the sciences, technology, entire medical fields, research and design, everything. And they would not be positive or desirable changes even for you.

[Wowbagger]

It's sort of like the prisoners' dilemma. If it's their religion and their particular version of it, it's good. Otherwise, not so good.

From what I understand, even if it's their particular version of a religion, it wouldn't be good for them. Not in the long run.

Oh, sure every follower will throw a victory party, that will last a little while. Then, the lack of productivity of the state will eventually hit them, general well-being will suffer (however you define that word), and they will find themselves much, much worse off.

Perhaps this wouldn't be too terrible, if all the other states in the world were also theocracies: None would have a distinct competitive advantage in that element. But, this new theocratic state would likely not live in a vacuum. Any more-secular states would eat their lunch!

So I would better like my chances of surviving a theocracy than surviving under an atheistic Communist state.
How about a non-religious, non-communist, Democratic Repubic state?

How about a state run by well-informed leaders ("religious" or otherwise), instead of delusional maniacs?

[FramerDave]

How about a non-religious, non-communist, Democratic Repubic state?

How about a state run by well-informed leaders ("religious" or otherwise), instead of delusional maniacs?

When you find one please let me know.

[Wowbagger]

When you find one please let me know.
No country is perfect. But, most modern world governments strive to achieve these ideals.

[Toontown]

Which "religious"? Whose "theocracy"?

The founders asked and answered that question a long time ago. I think they pretty much came to the glaringly obvious conclusion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

[AlBell]

Re thread title: NO.

Who is attempting such?

[AvalonXQ]

I am not interested in a theocracy, and have never met a Christian who indicated support for such. The Christians with whom I have spoken with on matter of government strongly believe that the place of the Church is not in government.

However, it is wrong to conflate support for creationism in public schools, laws against abortion, or support for the death penalty with support for a theocracy. At least some of the Christians above support all three of these things, and all of them that I can think of support at least one of them (myself included). Believing that certain moral principles should be mirrored in our community laws and practices is not the same as believing that the government should explicitly follow a certain religion.

[westprog]

Which "religious"? Whose "theocracy"?

The founders asked and answered that question a long time ago. I think they pretty much came to the glaringly obvious conclusion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Re thread title: NO.

Who is attempting such?

There's something of a US bias in the above responses. It's certainly true that very few people in the Western world or the Christian world would want a theocracy - but they certainly exist in Islam. Iran is a genuine theocracy, AFAIAA, and other countries, such as Saudi Arabia, have very strong theocratic elements.

In theory, the Vatican is a theocracy, but that's really just an administrative fiction. Most people who work in the Vatican go home to Italy for their tea.

[Craig4]

I've read very little but the little I did read lead me to believe that he wasn't very religious (if at all).

I don't understand why people would want religion and government mixed together. What does anybody have to gain personally by it?

His private letters about adding chaplains to the Continental Army look nothing like his public pronouncements on the topic. He did not take Communion and several close friends did not think him a Christian (Governor Morris of Virginia being one). I think anyone who thinks they know Washington's true religious views is probably deluding themselves.

[Last of the Fraggles]

I've heard it said that more people have died under Communism in the 20th Century during peace time than have been killed in all the wars in the history of the human race:

1900-2000: A century of genocides
by Piero Scaruffi

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

So I would better like my chances of surviving a theocracy than surviving under an atheistic Communist state.

Every year approximately 15 million CHILDREN die of hunger in the world. The vast majority of these die in countries which are majority religious.

Annually about 1.5 million Africans die of AIDS. Africa does not have atheistic Communist states

If we're going to play the statistics game then the Crusades accounted for a % of the global population comparable to anything Mao managed.

[Craig4]

I've heard it said that more people have died under Communism in the 20th Century during peace time than have been killed in all the wars in the history of the human race:

1900-2000: A century of genocides
by Piero Scaruffi

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

So I would better like my chances of surviving a theocracy than surviving under an atheistic Communist state.
Why no mention of Catholic Hitler?

[HansMustermann]

I think what some people fail to consider is: "a theocracy of what denomination?"

More to the point, even in the USA a major reason the protestants didn't want a theocracy was the elephant in the room. Err... in the world. Catholicism. Can you imagine them being happy if they had to listen to the Catholic version of the mass, profess belief in the Catholic doctrines, and pay lip service to Mary?

Well, ok, maybe Catholics aren't a majority, but protestantism ain't just one sect. So which of them? The question isn't as trivial and unimportant as it may sound.

Theocracies tend to get really fussy about exactly which details of the dogma are The Right Version. We've had inquisitions and people burned at the stake over, well, let's just say the theological equivalent of buttered side up or buttered side down. Even stuff like whether Mary was still a virgin AFTER giving birth or not, actually got people burned at the stake. Her virginity was in fact one of the central issues that got Giordano Bruno burned at the stake, to give a historical example. (Heliocentrism was a lot less important to the Pope than some people realize. You could get house-arrest for heliocentrism. Pissing on the fanboys' obsession with Mary's hymen, though, now that got you on top of a pile of burning wood in no time.)

So which denomination do you want leading that Theocracy? Baptist? WHICH Baptist sub-sect? But ok, let's say it's fun if you're a Baptist, But what if you're a Lutheran? Episcopalian? Methodist? It's easy to ignore the differences when they're not shoved in your face, but in a theocracy, they tend to get shoved in your face. And people burned each other at the stake for far less, when one sect was in a position to tell people what to believe. After all, if you don't have a nasty stick to back that request with, nobody has to obey, and it's kinda missing the "cracy" part.

[MattusMaximus]

I've heard it said that more people have died under Communism in the 20th Century during peace time than have been killed in all the wars in the history of the human race:

1900-2000: A century of genocides
by Piero Scaruffi

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's famine)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html

So I would better like my chances of surviving a theocracy than surviving under an atheistic Communist state.

Really? So when will you be moving to Saudi Arabia?

[MattusMaximus]

I think what some people fail to consider is: "a theocracy of what denomination?"

More to the point, even in the USA a major reason the protestants didn't want a theocracy was the elephant in the room. Err... in the world. Catholicism. Can you imagine them being happy if they had to listen to the Catholic version of the mass, profess belief in the Catholic doctrines, and pay lip service to Mary?

Well, ok, maybe Catholics aren't a majority, but protestantism ain't just one sect. So which of them? The question isn't as trivial and unimportant as it may sound.

Theocracies tend to get really fussy about exactly which details of the dogma are The Right Version. We've had inquisitions and people burned at the stake over, well, let's just say the theological equivalent of buttered side up or buttered side down. Even stuff like whether Mary was still a virgin AFTER giving birth or not, actually got people burned at the stake. Her virginity was in fact one of the central issues that got Giordano Bruno burned at the stake, to give a historical example. (Heliocentrism was a lot less important to the Pope than some people realize. You could get house-arrest for heliocentrism. Pissing on the fanboys' obsession with Mary's hymen, though, now that got you on top of a pile of burning wood in no time.)

So which denomination do you want leading that Theocracy? Baptist? WHICH Baptist sub-sect? But ok, let's say it's fun if you're a Baptist, But what if you're a Lutheran? Episcopalian? Methodist? It's easy to ignore the differences when they're not shoved in your face, but in a theocracy, they tend to get shoved in your face. And people burned each other at the stake for far less, when one sect was in a position to tell people what to believe. After all, if you don't have a nasty stick to back that request with, nobody has to obey, and it's kinda missing the "cracy" part.

This is precisely why theocracy will never work in the United States... even looking at just Christianity, we are way too diverse religiously.

Let me give a contemporary example: the massive failure of the recent "Personhood Amendment" in Mississippi. Mississippi is a very religiously conservative state, but despite that the amendment (which would have defined a newly fertilized egg as a "person") failed. That's because when you get right down to the details, even a lot of conservative Christians really don't want the government (and, by extension, a "different" church) poking into those places.

Here's another one: Terri Schiavo. Remember how that one caused a lot of blowback, even in conservative Christian circles?

[Gazpacho]

.
"What a scandal it is to the Christian name to see church discipline executed in a court-house, before the judges of the police to see censures given at the whipping-post, and excommunications at the gallows."

"It has often been observed by the friends of religion established by human laws, that no state can long continue without it; that religion will perish, and nothing but infidelity and atheism prevail. Are these things facts? Did not the Christian religion prevail during the first three centuries, in a more glorious manner than ever it has since, not only without the aid of law, but in opposition to all the laws of haughty monarchs? And did not religion receive a deadly wound by being fostered in the arms of civil power and regulated by law?"

"Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bands of marriage between church and state; their embraces, therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering intrigue. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice."

[Gazpacho]

It's bitterly ironic to find Baptists today in the vanguard of establishing religion within the state, when you look at the history of the denomination.

[Craig B]

"...Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle..." On the other hand, we have Art 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli(T)he government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion .. And has the practice of affirmation, as a conscientious alternative to religious oaths in courts of law, really destroyed "the security for property, for reputation, for life"? That fear has proven most ill-founded.

[Leumas]

It's bitterly ironic to find Baptists today in the vanguard of establishing religion within the state, when you look at the history of the denomination.



DAH....What is history?

I think this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFt9F6gk7go&feature=autoplay&list=ULxWtwTfRt2Lk&lf=mfu_in_order&playnext=2) says it best

UFt9F6gk7go&feature=autoplay&list=ULxWtwTfRt2Lk&lf=mfu_in_order&playnext=2

[Gazpacho]

I don't get it.

[slingblade]

DOC, I suggest you find a Handmaid and listen to the Tale she tells.