A_Whippersnapper
11-man fan
Theocracy does not implicitly equate to Islam and Sharia law. Tibet was a (quite passive) theocracy based in Buddhism; the Empire of Japan was a theocratic monarchy (the Emperor was viewed as divine); the divine right of kings in Europe and the Holy Roman Empire were based in theocratic principles. Whenever religious tenets, as religious tenets, become law, there are the roots of theocracy.SimplyPut":utzqbjpb said:
The First Amendment to our Constitution states (in part, pertinent to this discussion), “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This is commonly termed “freedom of religion” though in recent times, it has also become “freedom from religion”, which was never an original intent. The intent was not to establish a “Christian Nation”, but to ensure that the rights of each man to be free to practice, or not practice, any faith he chooses, whether it is popular with his neighbours or not. In much of Europe, if one was not Catholic, that life was forfeit; in England, the King was not only Head of State, but head of the Church of England, and one’s life and property were retained at the whim of the King (Magna Carta safeguards, notwithstanding).
So long as your impassioned religious beliefs are not forced upon your neighbour by threat of violence or imprisonment, and so long as you do nothing to hinder your neighbour’s practice (or lack thereof) of his beliefs, there is “freedom of religion”. When you wish to use the force of government to compel action or inaction, based on what your rabbi/pastor/preacher/priest tells you is in “God’s word” or is “God’s will”, religious freedom is threatened and theocracy looms.
As some comedian said decades ago, “As long as there are math tests, there will be prayer in school.” My own kids are grown and not in public school, but I never wanted them compelled (through teacher intimidation or peer pressure) to pray. In fact, I still view the long-winded prayers at public events hypocritical and self-aggrandising. (If you want the basis for that opinion, look at Matthew 6:6). That said, I do not want them banned, as that would be (i.m.o.) a violation of the “free exercise thereof” portion of the First Amendment; I simply think it is in poor taste, at a football game, for example, and would much prefer a “moment of silence” to some preacher who loves the sound of his own voice.
The Pledge of Allegiance? It was written in 1892, and did not include the words “under God” , even though it was written by a Baptist minister, Francis Bellamy (who was, incidentally, involved in the Christian Socialist movement of the early 20th Century). The phrase “under God” was added in the midst of the ‘Red Scare’ to differentiate “us” from the “godless communists”.
If one truly wants freedom of religion, then it must be freedom of all religions, not just the one that is dominant in a region. OBK, you believe abortion is “pure and simple murder” because that is what your faith, the tenets of your church, your pastor/preacher/priest has taught you. I respect that point of view, I am even in some agreement with it. What about someone whose faith is different from yours? Someone who doesn’t believe life begins at conception, who believes life doesn’t begin until the first breath is drawn. Do you have the legitimate right to force your religious views on that person? You can try to persuade, but you can’t use the force of government to compel. That simply isn’t philosophically consistent.Old Bearkat":utzqbjpb said:
My position is simple, I do not advocate a government with the power to use force to require a woman to (in your words) “murder” her child at any point in the development of that child, nor do I support a government which would use force to require she remain pregnant. It is quite simply not the government’s place to use force in either case. It is “free will” and only the person who makes the decision will pay the cost of that decision (and answer to her creator, if that is her faith).
Marriage is “an institution designed specifically to provide a stable home for raising children”? That is hardly historically accurate. It was a means of ownership, of wealth accumilation, of establishing rights of succession, of family alliance... it was many things historically. Based on that statement (an institution designed specifically to provide a stable home for raising children), does that mean a marriage in which there are no children, whether by choice or because of infertility, is invalid or less of a marriage?
Honestly, I fail to see how two people, who wish to commit to one another, and want legal protections for that committed relationship, affect me in any way. It would not deminish my relationship with my wife (if I currently had one) in any way, and could in no way threaten that relationship.
The only issue I have with the concept of ‘same sex marriage’ is the word “marriage”. I am linguistically a little old fashioned in that respect, I suppose, and see no real reason for commandeering and redefinition the word when the legal recourse of some other “civil union” or “domestic union”, with the same legal recognition, rights and responsibilities would serve as well. I just loathe ‘political correctness’ and see this phrase as just that. The GLBT community could disarm mass portions of opposition to the real goal of legal recognition and protections, if that word, “marriage”, were removed from the debate. Make up a word, people do that all the time, and use that, rather than the word “marriage”. Call it ‘galebitriage’, legally define it as desired, and much of the opposition (and all of my negligible reservations) are gone.
While you are factually correct about the early roots of the Democratic party and crony capitalism, my intent was to indicate the PERCEPTION held by the dumb masses that the GOP is the party of (to paraphrase the OWS group) “those evil, disgusting, polluting, racist, homophobic, exploitive rich people and corporations.” Strangely enough, the Community Organiser-in-Chief is beginning to (albeit unintentionally and out of his own ineptitude) shed the light on the crony capitalism in the Democrat Party today.Old Bearkat":utzqbjpb said:
No, sorry... The United States Constitution was based on the philosophies of Montesquieu and Locke, to a lesser degree, Rousseau, upon the writings of Hobbes, Coke and Blackstone, and on the natural rights of man, whether that man believes in the same deity as you or whether he has one less or 100 more deities.CowboyP":utzqbjpb said:
