Why Theocratic Nationalism Imbues GOP Debates: A Look at American Values

Pew Survey gives us a clue: Because many Americans put their Christianity ahead of their national identity
LGF • Views: 27,772

Perhaps we have become so numb to the political circus by now that we don’t notice the extreme, but the Saturday November 19th GOP Presidential candidate Thanksgiving Family Forum (not really a “debate”) in Iowa was more about religious identity than anything to do with Presidential responsibilities or the practice of governance. Indeed, one can’t think of any other Western nation where such a gathering of supposedly serious candidates in a major party (a party which has controlled the Presidency more often than not in the past 40 years), running for the top executive position, would have been so religion-centered, or if such an event occurred wouldn’t be seen as a real oddity.

Conceivably in the Islamic world’s few democracies one might expect such a mixture of religion and politics, but in the West?

Just a few examples of the inherently theocratic worldview held by these candidates (Here’s a link to the entire video from Nov. 19th):

Youtube Video

Firstly Rick Santorum - he mentions Shari’ah disparagingly (and thus plays on the anti-Islam bigotry in much of the American right) but he then launches into discussions about basing our American laws on the Bible. Truth is Santorum does want Shari’ah - he just doesn’t want the Arabic word or certain Islamic idiosyncrasies; he’d rather have his English words (“Judeo-Christian Values”) and Christian idiosyncrasies.

Ron Paul, not to be outdone, pulls out a lesson from the Old Testament and lauds the values of patriarchy (yes, really) compared to what he fears America has become today. Watch the above video starting at 2:20. It’s a question about a “Marriage Amendment” (to the US Constitution) and whether Paul would support such. He says he would prefer that these issues be handled by the states but then goes on to state (2:21) a personal desire regarding the subject matter (apparently marriage and homosexuality) - that it dealt with by the church, and gives a sermonette from Israel’s ancient tales of what happened before the establishment of a King (in the time of Samuel), as he raises the fear of UN takeover of marriage (yes, Really.) And at 2:23 Ron Paul expressly lauds the ancient Israelite patriarchal system of society, as something that is better than what we have now.

Yes, really.

None of the other candidates objected to Paul’s sermonette or preference for patriarchy, probably because they don’t see anything wrong with it.

Ron Paul, running for the most senior elected position in a government set up to choose leaders via democracy, wishes for a Patriarchy.

That’s what we’re dealing with here, in this GOP field.

How did we come to this?

Just two days before that GOP gathering the Pew Global Trust released results of an ongoing (multi-year) survey of several nations’ self-identity: The American-Western European Values Gap. In this survey several questions were asked this spring in many countries, and this report details some results from 5 different Western nations, including the US.

Of the various results obtained, perhaps this one is the most telling:

© Pew Global

And the Pew analysis:

American Christians are more likely than their Western European counterparts to think of themselves first in terms of their religion rather than their nationality; 46% of Christians in the U.S. see themselves primarily as Christians and the same number consider themselves Americans first. In contrast, majorities of Christians in France (90%), Germany (70%), Britain (63%) and Spain (53%) identify primarily with their nationality rather than their religion.

In Britain, France and Germany, more Christians now see themselves in terms of their nationality than did so five years ago, when national identification was already widespread in these countries. […]

Among Christians in the U.S., white evangelicals are especially inclined to identify first with their faith; 70% in this group see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans, while 22% say they are primarily American. Among other American Christians, more identify with their nationality (55%) than with their religion (38%).

This is very important and explains what we saw at the Thanksgiving Family Forum. The GOP candidates we saw are all vying for those white evangelicals who see themselves first as Christians rather than as Americans.

The Pew survey has many other (mostly expected) results, and I propose they all pretty much follow from the above characteristic of Americans, or from one of the following:

© Pew Global

and

© Pew Global

The importance of religion in American life cannot be over-emphasized in understanding American politics and especially the GOP.

The reason the GOP candidates on Saturday talked so much about God is because, besides being highly religious themselves (or at least their public persona are such,) they know that their constituents are also. In America, if you want to talk about morality to the public you have to include “God”. That is why President Obama does “God Bless America” at the end of his speeches.

Suggest reading the entire Pew PDF on the survey for other insights. There is much to be mined in there, and much of it relates to the political struggles we see playing out daily in our media, such as use of force abroad, and the role of the UN. There are some demographic breakdowns of the US responses, and tables of the 5 nations’ results for the questions over a 9 year period.

As Pew has been conducting this survey for some years now there are some trends being evaluated. Note that over time the US is slowly becoming less religious, and while the GOP candidates’ emphasis on religion is still similar to many Americans’ the trend is against this religious worldview. It is however a slow change, very slow, and I wonder if some future event could reverse the dawdling trend towards modernity in America?

Jump to bottom

364 comments
1 dragonfire1981  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 6:12:17am

At the church I attend it has been preached to us that our duty and beliefs as Christians trump any other societal obligations because the bible teaches Christians they are "in the world, but not of the world.". Another time we were told our only true citizenship is to Heaven.

These teachings are quite common among evangelicals and probably explain some of the poll results.

2 The Left  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 7:24:50am

Excellent post-- recommended because I think it should be on the front page, as well as being featured.

3 calochortus  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 8:33:21am

It does explain why so many people worry about Muslims not being loyal Americans. Projection.

4 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 9:55:35am

re: #3 calochortus

It does explain why so many people worry about Muslims not being loyal Americans. Projection.

It's also why they have to insist the US was founded as a Christian nation; so they don't have to confront the fact that they're anti-American.

5 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 9:56:41am

Brilliant. Thank you.

6 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:01:45am

Speaking of polls, I still marvel at the one SFZ cited which referenced Democrats being more against a Mormon holding office than Republicans being against that.

Socon issues seem to be divisive by default.

7 AK-47%  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:02:51am

re: #1 dragonfire1981

To a lot of the religious right, the two are closely linked: they believe that our "exceptional" status arises from the fact that our laws reflect (thier view of) God's will on Earth.

They fear that by allowing things that do not correspond to (thier view of) God's will, like gay marriage or abortion, we will fall from grace with God and it will herald our downfall as a nation.

8 William Barnett-Lewis  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:07:12am

Hey, If this goes on ...

Nehemiah Scudder 2012!

9 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:08:47am

re: #1 dragonfire1981

At the church I attend it has been preached to us that our duty and beliefs as Christians trump any other societal obligations because the bible teaches Christians they are "in the world, but not of the world.". Another time we were told our only true citizenship is to Heaven.

These teachings are quite common among evangelicals and probably explain some of the poll results.

You still attend?

10 HappyWarrior  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:09:26am

A few observations
1.) A overwhelming majority of American think we should use force to maintain order in the world but over 50% of Americans (and French too) believe countries should deal with their own problems.

2.) The US is hte only country with a majority polled to strongly agree "Our people is not perfect but our culture is superior to others. And France for all the French's reputations as snobs rejects that which interested me.

3.) On a related note, the vast gap between college grads and those with no college agreeing and disagreeing is interesting too.

4.) I also find it funny that we're the most religious country yet we reject the notion overwhelmingly that success is determined by forces outside our countrol though that statement has secular implications too.

5.) Surprised to see Spain as the most tolerant towards homosexuality.

6.) Oh goes without saying, I am surprised about the high amount of Americans who say they're a Christian over their nationality. Kind of puts water on that whole secularism means you don't love your country nonsense since secular France is the one that overwhelmingly said they felt their nationality over their religion of choice.
Great read. I wish they would have polled a country like the Czech Republic or Poland though since this is Western centric.

11 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:11:10am

re: #1 dragonfire1981

At the church I attend it has been preached to us that our duty and beliefs as Christians trump any other societal obligations because the bible teaches Christians they are "in the world, but not of the world.". Another time we were told our only true citizenship is to Heaven.

These teachings are quite common among evangelicals and probably explain some of the poll results.

Shades of John F Kennedy's having to pledge that he wasn't more committed to the Pope than he was to the USA. Should every candidate for POTUS make a statement of faith similar to what was required of JFK, Obama, and now Romney?

Perhaps.

12 darthstar  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:13:00am

Damn...I knew I should have opened my "Uncle Sam's 10 Commandments Patriotic Eagle Burqa and Baseball Memorabilia Emporium" sooner. Who will shroud our women?

13 albusteve  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:23:10am

this drum beating is exceptionally worrysome

14 Dewd  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:24:34am

Yeah, why don't you ask the women who live in majority Muslim countries how that shari'ah law is working out for them. To imply that it is the same as Judeo/Christian is not only willfully ignorant so as to be thought tolerant but is just sad.

15 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:27:50am

Muslims think the law should follow their holy book and that's evil. Christians like Santorum just want the law to follow their holy book, so that's perfectly reasonable and good.

16 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:27:58am

re: #14 Dewd

What is 'judeo' about Judeo-Christian?

17 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:29:46am

re: #14 Dewd

Yeah, why don't you ask the women who live in majority Muslim countries how that shari'ah law is working out for them. To imply that it is the same as Judeo/Christian is not only willfully ignorant so as to be thought tolerant but is just sad.

It's not the same now. But just give it time.

It's a matter of quantity, not quality.

18 sagehen  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:30:11am

re: #16 Obdicut

What is 'judeo' about Judeo-Christian?

The spelling.

19 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:30:35am

re: #13 albusteve

this drum beating is exceptionally worrysome

Agreed.

20 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:31:19am

re: #14 Dewd

Yeah, why don't you ask the women who live in majority Muslim countries how that shari'ah law is working out for them. To imply that it is the same as Judeo/Christian is not only willfully ignorant so as to be thought tolerant but is just sad.

Look up 'Dominionism'.

21 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:32:17am

re: #20 Varek Raith

And 'QuiverFull.'

22 sagehen  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:33:10am

re: #14 Dewd

Yeah, why don't you ask the women who live in majority Muslim countries how that shari'ah law is working out for them. To imply that it is the same as Judeo/Christian is not only willfully ignorant so as to be thought tolerant but is just sad.

Throughout history, Jews have found living under Muslim law to be far less objectionable than living under Christian law.

The majority-Christian countries that eventually became places we could live without constant fear (or could be allowed to live there at all)... it was only because those nations secularized to a large degree.

23 sagehen  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:35:00am

re: #19 000G

Agreed.

Mayor Bloomberg's deep, sacred bond with the First Amendment will be tested today at 2 p.m. when Occupy Wall Street's drummers will begin a 24-hour "JAM SESSION" outside his townhouse mansion on East 79th Street. A release proclaims, "Tie-dye, didgeridoo, hackeysack welcome! No shirt, no shoes, no problem! And if you don't have talent, don't worry: FREE DRUM LESSONS offered!

24 Dewd  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:35:07am

Is there anyone who seriously thinks there is any moral equivalence between the Judeo/Christian values and Anglo/Saxon law that have been passed down to form our modern legal system and Shari'ah Law.

25 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:36:06am

re: #24 Dewd

Is there anyone who seriously thinks there is any moral equivalence between the Judeo/Christian values and Anglo/Saxon law that have been passed down to form our modern legal system and Shari'ah Law.

Fundamentalist Judeo-Christian values are indistinguishable from fundamentalist Islamic values.

26 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:36:31am

"asked of Christians only" and only in comparison to 4 Western European countries. Whats the point? nationalism is Stronger in those 4 countries than here? We're more comfortable with expressing our freedom of worship? Why leave off Italy or Turkey or Poland?

27 Lidane  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:36:40am

re: #14 Dewd

1. "Judeo-Christian" is a bogus term. It has no meaning, and exists solely as a cover for bigots who want to wrap their hatred in a supposedly inclusive flag.

2. What's the difference between full-blown Sharia law and the fundamentalist Christian whackjobs in this country who would set women back a few centuries?

28 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:37:45am

re: #26 Gepetto

It's not just a comparative measure. People thinking of themselves as Christians first matters in and of itself.

29 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:37:45am

Here's some ambition:

The implementation of Biblical Law is central to the mission of building the Kingdom of God on earth. The way to get to Biblical Law is through politics. Therefore, God's law as manifested in the Bible should govern. References to the Ten Commandments are more than symbolic. It reflects a belief that the Bible, not the Constitution, represents the final legal authority.

Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton described the goals:

Our goal is world dominion under Christ's lordship, a world "take over" if you will. (Paradise Restored, p. 214)

[Link: www.theocracywatch.org...]

30 HappyWarrior  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:39:23am

I don't think they're the same but I reserve my right to cringe when I hear a candidate say the bible should be part of the law. That worries me more than any Shariah law in this country because there's a large and willing audience who wants to ehar that.

31 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:40:45am

re: #26 Gepetto

While it's not a bad question in general, neither Turkey nor Poland are in Western Europe.

32 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:40:56am

re: #24 Dewd

Is there anyone who seriously thinks there is any moral equivalence between the Judeo/Christian values and Anglo/Saxon law that have been passed down to form our modern legal system and Shari'ah Law.

Maybe you're unaware of the little homosexual elimination experiment they're running in Uganda.

33 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:40:56am

re: #15 jaunte

Muslims think the law should follow their holy book and that's evil. Christians like Santorum just want the law to follow their holy book, so that's perfectly reasonable and good.

what do you think of laws following any holy book?

34 SpaceJesus  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:40:58am

America should not be allowed to call itself "Western."

35 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:41:49am

re: #31 Sergey Romanov

While it's not a bad question in general, neither Turkey nor Poland are in Western Europe.

Ireland would be a good one to compare.

36 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:41:55am

re: #33 Gepetto

It's a very broad question.

37 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:42:07am

re: #33 Gepetto

what do you think of laws following any holy book?

There shouldn't be ones, unless they are secular laws (with secular aims) just coinciding with holy books.

38 Lidane  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:43:26am

re: #33 Gepetto

what do you think of laws following any holy book?

Horrible idea. Laws should be secular, and therefore applicable across the board.

39 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:47:04am

re: #37 Sergey Romanov

There shouldn't be ones, unless they are secular laws (with secular aims) just coinciding with holy books.

Agreed, which is what makes me facepalm when I see the third poll showing that more people believe you need a belief in God to be moral than not. That more people amongst those Americans polled believe that you have to be religious in order to be moral. Am I in the 21st century or the 12th?

40 Romantic Heretic  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:48:05am

re: #34 SpaceJesus

America should not be allowed to call itself "Western."

Why not? The cultural trail seems pretty clear to me.

Although it seems to me that America is a step or two behind the rest of the Western world. I believe that has to do with the long geographic and cultural isolation it suffered from. Many, perhaps, most of the colonists that came here did so to leave Europe behind, and these thought habits still affect America's thinking.

Or so it appears to me.

41 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:48:24am

re: #27 Lidane

1. "Judeo-Christian" is a bogus term. It has no meaning, and exists solely as a cover for bigots who want to wrap their hatred in a supposedly inclusive flag.

2. What's the difference between full-blown Sharia law and the fundamentalist Christian whackjobs in this country who would set women back a few centuries?

Judeo-Christian is an American political term that represents the political power in this country of Christians and Jews (and Muslims' lack of power, since they too would be included in a list of religions that trace themselves back to Abraham). It's a way for politicians to list the 2 religious groups they need to kiss the ass of most. (Or sell things to, which is why the shrewd filmmaker Cecil B. DeMille made The Ten Commandments instead of a movie about the apostle Paul or the Maccabees.)

42 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:48:39am

re: #25 Sergey Romanov

Fundamentalist Judeo-Christian values are indistinguishable from fundamentalist Islamic values.

what is the incidence of current implemented systems based on J/C fundamentalism versus current implemented systems based on Islamic fundamentalism? You make a nice point in abstract theory, but I'm curious how you see it as applied to real life.

43 Olsonist  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:49:37am

re: #34 SpaceJesus

America should not be allowed to call itself "Western."

Correct. We should be called Southern.

44 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:49:45am

re: #42 Gepetto

what is the incidence of current implemented systems based on J/C fundamentalism versus current implemented systems based on Islamic fundamentalism? You make a nice point in abstract theory, but I'm curious how you see it as applied to real life.

re: #20 Varek Raith

Look up 'Dominionism'.

45 Dewd  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:50:24am

A few thousand fundamentalist Christian whackjobs versus a few million fundamentalist Muslims now there's a difference. Here's another one, I've never heard of a Christian Fun fundamentalist whackjob advocating for Female Genital Mutilation.

46 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:50:25am

re: #42 Gepetto

what is the incidence of current implemented systems based on J/C fundamentalism versus current implemented systems based on Islamic fundamentalism? You make a nice point in abstract theory, but I'm curious how you see it as applied to real life.

Also, we have nothing based on J/C fundamentalism.

47 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:50:50am

re: #41 Charleston Chew

Judeo-Christian is an American political term that represents the political power in this country of Christians and Jews (and Muslims' lack of power, since they too would be included in a list of religions that trace themselves back to Abraham). It's a way for politicians to list the 2 religious groups they need to kiss the ass of most.

No, not really . It's normally a way of co-opting Jews, without including them. Most Jews are not on board with religiously-based law.

48 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:51:16am

re: #45 Dewd

A few thousand fundamentalist Christian whackjobs versus a few million fundamentalist Muslims now there's a difference. Here's another one, I've never heard of a Christian Fun fundamentalist whackjob advocating for Female Genital Mutilation.

Have you heard of Christian fundamentalists murdering doctors who perform abortions?

49 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:51:20am

re: #45 Dewd

A few thousand fundamentalist Christian whackjobs versus a few million fundamentalist Muslims now there's a difference. Here's another one, I've never heard of a Christian Fun fundamentalist whackjob advocating for Female Genital Mutilation.

And which group has political power in the US?
Has congressmen who agree with fundamentalism?

50 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:51:29am

The 10 commandments are usually pimped as some proto-US law. Let's take a look:

And God spoke all these words, saying: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
You shall have no other gods before me.

[Uh, no, separation of church and state, freedom of religion and conscience.]

You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

[Uh, no, separation of church and state, freedom of religion and conscience.]

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

[Uh, no, separation of church and state, freedom of religion and conscience.]

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

[Up to individual.]

Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

[Honor cannot be legislated.]

You shall not murder.

[The first good one.]

You shall not commit adultery.

[Up to individual.]

You shall not steal.

[The second good one.]

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

[OK, let's count this one too, there are libel laws, oaths in court, etc.]

You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.”

[Anyone can legally covet anything.]

OK, that's 3 out of 10? That's the "Judeo-Christian" foundation of law? Don't murder, don't steal and don't lie is specifically "Judeo-Christian"?

51 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:51:47am

re: #45 Dewd

Ours are much closer to getting a lot of nukes.

52 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:51:48am

re: #42 Gepetto

what is the incidence of current implemented systems based on J/C fundamentalism versus current implemented systems based on Islamic fundamentalism? You make a nice point in abstract theory, but I'm curious how you see it as applied to real life.

They both end up at the same coordinate in space - Latitude: douche, Longitude: bag.

53 HappyWarrior  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:52:04am

re: #47 Obdicut

No, not really . It's normally a way of co-opting Jews, without including them. Most Jews are not on board with religiously-based law.

I believe polls show consistently that Jews among the religious are the most support of separation of church and state, and why not? The Jewish people know how dangerous it is when the church and state are one.

54 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:52:25am

re: #42 Gepetto

what is the incidence of current implemented systems based on J/C fundamentalism versus current implemented systems based on Islamic fundamentalism?

All of the stupid anti-abortion shit, all of the stupid anti-gay shit, here in the US, comes from Christian zealotry.

Meanwhile, we have 0 laws based on Islamic beliefs here in the US.

So, here in the US, fundamentalist Christianity is far more of a threat to secular society.

55 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:53:18am

re: #42 Gepetto

what is the incidence of current implemented systems based on J/C fundamentalism versus current implemented systems based on Islamic fundamentalism? You make a nice point in abstract theory, but I'm curious how you see it as applied to real life.

Applied to real life it means that all kinds of fundamentalism should be opposed.

56 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:53:34am

re: #45 Dewd

A few thousand fundamentalist Christian whackjobs versus a few million fundamentalist Muslims now there's a difference. Here's another one, I've never heard of a Christian Fun fundamentalist whackjob advocating for Female Genital Mutilation.

Christians or Jews advocating circumcision? Preposterous!

57 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:54:20am

re: #56 Charleston Chew

Christians or Jews advocating circumcision? Preposterous!

Circumcision is not in any way comparable to female genital mutilation. At all.

58 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:55:03am

I think anyone who wants such laws should move to Saudi Arabia or Iran and be done with it.

re: #33 Gepetto

59 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:55:36am

re: #45 Dewd

A few thousand fundamentalist Christian whackjobs versus a few million fundamentalist Muslims now there's a difference. Here's another one, I've never heard of a Christian Fun fundamentalist whackjob advocating for Female Genital Mutilation.

Nobody says one should ignore Islamists.

60 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:56:29am

re: #28 Obdicut

It's not just a comparative measure. People thinking of themselves as Christians first matters in and of itself.

If thats "bad" do you also consider it "bad" to consider yourself a Muslim, Druid, Buddhist or Hindu first?

61 RadicalModerate  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:56:50am

re: #24 Dewd

Is there anyone who seriously thinks there is any moral equivalence between the Judeo/Christian values and Anglo/Saxon law that have been passed down to form our modern legal system and Shari'ah Law.

Up until the women's suffrage movement of the late 19th/early 20th century, followed by the feminist/women's rights movement of the mid 20th century finally recoginzed women as (somewhat) equal to men?

Yes. I do see a strong equivalence. And today's religious conservatives are trying to roll back most of those gains via their redefinition of what rape is, attempting to overturn domestic violence laws to where men won't be prosecuted for battering women, and stripping women of all reproductive freedom, including the banning of abortion and female contraceptive devices.

62 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:57:04am

re: #60 Gepetto

If thats "bad" do you also consider it "bad" to consider yourself a Muslim, Druid, Buddhist or Hindu first?

I do.

63 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:57:26am

re: #45 Dewd

A few thousand fundamentalist Christian whackjobs versus a few million fundamentalist Muslims now there's a difference. Here's another one, I've never heard of a Christian Fun fundamentalist whackjob advocating for Female Genital Mutilation.

"A few thousand fundamentalist Christians?"

What are you talking about? James Dobson's far right fundamentalist radio show has an audience of 220 MILLION people.

You're just making up numbers.

64 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:58:00am

Bachmann was also nifty at The Family Fundamentalist Fest @ Iowa:

The Minnesota congresswoman said the Affordable Health Care Act, which Republicans call “Obamacare,” has opened the door for public dollars to pay for terminating pregnancies.

“We can’t get it wrong,” Bachmann said. “… Planned Parenthood now will be pushing chemical abortion and billing that to the federal government under preventative care.”

[…]

Bachmann also used the forum to highlight her opposition to same-sex marriage.

The lawmaker said she fought in 2004 to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman in Minnesota following the legalization of same-sex unions in Massachusetts.

I was Public Enemy No. 1,” said Bachmann, who said she received death threats because of her work on the issue. “But I knew it was right, and we persevered.”

[…]

Although the lawmaker was cordial to her five fellow White House hopefuls during the more than two-hour debate, her campaign emailed members of the media a press release blasting former House Speaker’s Newt Gingrich anti-abortion credentials while the candidates were still wrapping up their remarks for the evening.

So were Perry & Gingrich. Maybe Cain was the least outrageous.

65 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:58:05am

re: #60 Gepetto

If thats "bad" do you also consider it "bad" to consider yourself a Muslim, Druid, Buddhist or Hindu first?

Indeed.

66 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:58:05am

re: #31 Sergey Romanov

While it's not a bad question in general, neither Turkey nor Poland are in Western Europe.

is italy? and why be so selective as to poll christians only and only in those specific countries?

67 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:58:14am

re: #60 Gepetto

If thats "bad" do you also consider it "bad" to consider yourself a Muslim, Druid, Buddhist or Hindu first?

Yep. I'm confused why you'd have to ask that.

68 Jdorfma4  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:58:43am

re: #45 Dewd
so your argument is basically that their hatefilled religious bigots are worse than ours because ours haven't been more successful? Good point, I see your impeccable logic.

You would rather live under a Christian theocracy than an Islamic one. You're Christian. How shocking. I'm Jewish, I would rather live in an Islamic theocracy than a Christian one. You both want to kill me but at least they have the decency to tell me that to my face. Honor.

Lord save me from your followers.

69 makeitstop  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:59:42am

re: #60 Gepetto

If thats "bad" do you also consider it "bad" to consider yourself a Muslim, Druid, Buddhist or Hindu first?

I think the difference is that the Dominionists want everyone to live under their laws, whether they're Christian or not. See prior links to 'world takeover.'

The same argument has been made regarding Muslims (A specious argument, IMO), but Druids, Buddhists or Hindi? Not so much.

70 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 10:59:54am

re: #67 Obdicut

Yep. I'm confused why you'd have to ask that.

Because liberals are supposed to hate Christians and make excuses for Islamists, of course!

71 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:00:09am

re: #66 Gepetto

is italy?

Look it up.

72 Alexzander  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:00:11am

I had to log in just to say what an excellent post this is. Excellent choice for the front page.

73 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:00:27am

re: #70 Charles

Because liberals are supposed to hate Christians and make excuses for Islamists, of course!

And I'm an atheist, which is basically just like being a Muslim anyway, according to many GOP candidates for President.

74 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:00:33am

re: #67 Obdicut

Why do you hate Druids?

75 Jdorfma4  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:00:48am

re: #73 Obdicut

Worse, clearly.

76 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:00:57am

re: #74 jaunte

Why do you hate Druids?

Stonehenge is an eye-sore!

///

77 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:00:59am

re: #67 Obdicut

Yep. I'm confused why you'd have to ask that.

JFTR, I don't see anything bad with it.

78 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:01:10am

This issue reminded me of Gunnery Sergeant Hartman in Full Metal Jacket: "God was here before the Marine Corps, so you can give your heart to Jesus, but your ass belongs to the Corps!"

79 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:01:39am

I just love right wing gotcha questions like that.

80 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:01:42am

re: #34 SpaceJesus

America should not be allowed to call itself "Western."

fine with me. half my ancestors had the good sense to leave that shithole. of course, then they promptly stole land from and enslaved my other ancestors.

81 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:01:47am

re: #73 Obdicut

And I'm an atheist, which is basically just like being a Muslim anyway, according to many GOP candidates for President.

Worse.

82 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:02:15am

Freetoken: great Page. Will chew on this later.

83 Reverend Mother Ramallo  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:02:20am

This also explains why there is no push back from modern conservatives regarding their desire to gut public education -- hell, public anything.
This is what makes the religious right useful idiots for the guys at the top who hold the real power. If you can't break the teacher's union, gut the curriculum. If you can't misinform, uninform.
The more these guys pray for the removal of science and the rewriting of history, the more likely the US will fall behind the rest of the world in innovation. Bye-bye economy, social justice, and religious freedom.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

84 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:02:26am

We should not have any religion's fundamentalism as the basis for law here.

If anyone wants that, they can move to Iran or Saudi Arabia, or do like every one else and practice it privately, in their homes, and religious centers. We've already had Christian theocracy here. It predated "fundamentalism", but it was also a big disaster.

re: #42 Gepetto

what is the incidence of current implemented systems based on J/C fundamentalism versus current implemented systems based on Islamic fundamentalism? You make a nice point in abstract theory, but I'm curious how you see it as applied to real life.

85 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:02:38am

re: #69 makeitstop

Hindus or Buddhists here in the US don't have the numbers for that kind of thing, but definitely there have been Buddhist theocracies. I don't think any religion-by-name is more or less inclined towards wanting secular dominion than another. Sub-sects of that religion-- like the Quakers, for Christianity-- you can meaningfully distinguish, but at the very big level, it's all kind of the same.

86 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:02:39am

re: #81 Sergey Romanov

Worse.

Definitely worse.

87 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:03:46am

re: #74 jaunte

Why do you hate Druids?

Because they stole Michaleen Oge Flynn's ancestral home.

/obscure.

88 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:04:06am

re: #85 Obdicut

definitely there have been Buddhist theocracies.

Shaky terminology. Better to call them buddhocracies.

89 Alexzander  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:04:15am

Turkey's national furor (and its rules against "insulting Turkishness") are boarderline fascist. There is also tremendous pressure to identify (on Poles and official census's) as Muslim in Turkey even if one doesn't practice at all. Go to Turkey during Ramadan (or Ramazan as it is known there) and notice how many Turks are eating, smoking and drinking.
All of that is to say, they wouldn't be particularly useful for comparison.

90 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:04:17am

re: #74 jaunte

Why do you hate Druids?

They're hard to kill with level 3 fireballs! Bastards! ///

91 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:04:37am

re: #36 jaunte

It's a very broad question.

just looking for consistency here. Is there a religion upon which you feel a country's laws should be based? Is it "bad" to base them on J/C values but "okay" to base them on any other religion? pretty easy question.

92 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:04:38am

My first thought was that American's have a more global way of thinking. I fear Nationalism as much as I fear Dominionism.

If we could somehow take the global nature of the "chrisitan identity" and make it a "generic human" identity, I think would we be much better positioned to take our place in the Brave New World.

93 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:04:40am

re: #88 000G

Shaky terminology. Better to call them buddhocracy.

Are you joking, or serious?

94 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:04:59am

re: #88 000G

hehe

95 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:05:19am

And the gotcha questions keep on comin'!

96 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:05:48am

re: #91 Gepetto

just looking for consistency here. Is there a religion upon which you feel a country's laws should be based? Is it "bad" to base them on J/C values but "okay" to base them on any other religion? pretty easy question.

Why would you expect anyone to solely be opposed to Christian values?

And can you stop saying "Judeo-Christian"? It makes no goddamn sense. most Jewish attitudes towards religion and the state are entirely different from the kind of people who use the phrase "Judeo-Christian".

97 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:05:52am

re: #27 Lidane

1. "Judeo-Christian" is a bogus term. It has no meaning, and exists solely as a cover for bigots who want to wrap their hatred in a supposedly inclusive flag.

2. What's the difference between full-blown Sharia law and the fundamentalist Christian whackjobs in this country who would set women back a few centuries?

You mean like Ron Paul's paean to patriarchy last night? Shudder.

98 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:05:59am

re: #83 OhNoZombies!

This also explains why there is no push back from modern conservatives regarding their desire to gut public education -- hell, public anything.
This is what makes the religious right useful idiots for the guys at the top who hold the real power. If you can't break the teacher's union, gut the curriculum. If you can't misinform, uninform.
The more these guys pray for the removal of science and the rewriting of history, the more likely the US will fall behind the rest of the world in innovation. Bye-bye economy, social justice, and religious freedom.
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face...

There are more than a few Christian power-mongers in the US that wouldn't mind if their nonsense hurt the country, because they agree with John Milton's Satan - Better to reign in Hell than to serve in Heaven.

99 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:05:59am

re: #93 Obdicut

Are you joking, or serious?

Just pedantic. And I think that's okay, with theistic notions about religion being abound, even among atheists.

100 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:06:32am

re: #91 Gepetto

just looking for consistency here. Is there a religion upon which you feel a country's laws should be based? Is it "bad" to base them on J/C values but "okay" to base them on any other religion? pretty easy question.

No, there shouldn't be Islamic states either. If that's what you mean.

101 Alexzander  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:06:35am

There have certainly been buddhist theorcacies, but Buddhism seems to lend itself more easily to democracy.

For example, the King of Bhutan has been instrumental in moving his country towards democracy.

And the Dalai Lama has said that he may not be reborn, and has instituted a democractic system for exhiled Tibetans.

They are openly renouncing their theocratic power.

102 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:06:42am

re: #99 000G

Just pedantic. And I think that's okay, with theistic notions about religion being abound, even among atheists.

Oh. Well, no, I don't think Buddhocracy is a better terminology.

103 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:06:49am

re: #74 jaunte

Why do you hate Druids?

Tree huggers.

104 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:06:57am

re: #44 Varek Raith

a non-answer.

105 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:06:59am

re: #91 Gepetto

just looking for consistency here. Is there a religion upon which you feel a country's laws should be based? Is it "bad" to base them on J/C values but "okay" to base them on any other religion? pretty easy question.

Easy answer.

No.

106 sagehen  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:06:59am

re: #50 Sergey Romanov

The 10 commandments are usually pimped as some proto-US law. Let's take a look:

OK, that's 3 out of 10? That's the "Judeo-Christian" foundation of law? Don't murder, don't steal and don't lie is specifically "Judeo-Christian"?

There's a case to be made that Social Security and Medicare are ways to "honor your father and mother".... but oops, the right wing wants to toss those.

107 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:07:11am

re: #74 jaunte

Why do you hate Druids?

Best theme music ever!

108 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:07:26am

re: #104 Gepetto

a non-answer.

To an unserious question.

109 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:07:58am

re: #102 Obdicut

Oh. Well, no, I don't think Buddhocracy is a better terminology.

Do you deny that a lot of buddhism, including some types that were made state religions, were atheist?

110 Jdorfma4  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:08:15am

re: #91 Gepetto

As a Jew I'd like you to stop using the Judeo prefix when you talk about your hate filled theories. They are no more Jewish than Christmas. We aren't fooled that your ilk has any affinity for us other than for our comedians and the role we play in your end of world fantasies.

Seriously, stop it.

111 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:08:17am

re: #91 Gepetto

I think religious traditions are an accumulated mass of customs, prejudice, and unexamined habits. I don't think blindly following one would result in a optimal legal system.

112 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:08:32am

re: #101 Alexzander

I don't think these are apt examples. DL is not in standard circumstances, his predecessors were atrocious (free Tibet was a shitty state). King of Bhutan moving country to a democracy - that's a self-negating paradox. All in all, nothing to do with Buddhism as such, IMHO.

113 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:08:55am

A few thousand Whacko™ Christians?

I'd suggest reading this to see how seriously these concepts are taken by so-called "rational" people. The author is a D.C. insider no less. Been on C-Span and everything.

114 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:09:56am

re: #106 sagehen

I don't think such a case can be made. Those are not religiously-based and they're not about parents.

115 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:10:08am

re: #101 Alexzander

There have certainly been buddhist theorcacies, but Buddhism seems to lend itself more easily to democracy.
.

Tibet certainly wasn't democratic. China isn't democratic. Thailand just had a military coup. Vietnam isn't democratic. Myanmar isn't democratic.

116 sagehen  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:10:36am

re: #66 Gepetto

is italy? and why be so selective as to poll christians only and only in those specific countries?

Because they're only comparing the majority religions of countries with comparable political systems.

117 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:10:37am

re: #109 000G

Do you deny that a lot of buddhism, including some types that were made state religions, were atheist?

I don't care about that definition of atheism. It's archaic.

118 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:10:59am

re: #109 000G

Do you deny that a lot of buddhism, including the types that were made state religions, were atheist?

Can you prove it?

119 makeitstop  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:11:01am

OT: Nirthers gone wild in New Hampshire

New Hampshire’s electoral governing body, the Ballot Law Commission, turned down the complaint in a public hearing via 5-0 vote. It got pretty ugly shortly thereafter.

“Traitors!” screamed the members of the attending public. “Treason!”

“You have no decency! You have no honesty! You’re committing treason!”

The group of birthers, which included several New Hampshire state representatives, erupted after the decision, shouting at the commission attorneys as they tried to exit the hearing room. Another state representative apparently suggested committee members should cover their face with a mask if they ever found themselves in his district.

120 Alexzander  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:11:06am

Another great Buddhist example:

Emperor Ashoka:

He embraced Buddhism from the prevalent Hindu tradition after witnessing the mass deaths of the war of Kalinga, which he himself had waged out of a desire for conquest. He was later dedicated to the propagation of Buddhism across Asia and established monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Gautama Buddha. Ashoka was a devotee of ahimsa (nonviolence), love, truth, tolerance and vegetarianism. Ashoka is remembered in history as a philanthropic administrator. In the history of India, Ashoka is referred to as Samraat Chakravartin Ashoka - the Emperor of Emperors Ashoka.
...
Ashoka played a critical role in helping make Buddhism a world religion.[2] As the peace-loving ruler of one of the world's largest, richest and most powerful multi-ethnic states, he is considered an exemplary ruler, who tried to put into practice a secular state ethic of non-violence. The emblem of the modern Republic of India is an adaptation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

121 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:11:28am

You asked jaunte and not me but the answer is no, and no.

Everyone kicking around your ridiculous questions has said as much.

re: #91 Gepetto

just looking for consistency here. Is there a religion upon which you feel a country's laws should be based? Is it "bad" to base them on J/C values but "okay" to base them on any other religion? pretty easy question.

122 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:12:03am

re: #117 Obdicut

I don't care about that definition of atheism. It's archaic.

Really?

Wikipedia:

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4][5] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

Merriam-Webster Online:

1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

123 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:12:20am

re: #111 jaunte

I think religious traditions are an accumulated mass of customs, prejudice, and unexamined habits. I don't think blindly following one would result in a optimal legal system.

QFT, and more eloquent than my "No."

124 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:12:21am

re: #88 000G

Shaky terminology. Better to call them buddhocracy.

Agree. Theocracy does imply the rule of God, which wouldn't really be appropriate for Buddhists.

125 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:12:21am

re: #120 Alexzander

Yes, there were good Christian rulers too. So?

126 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:12:37am

re: #120 Alexzander

He didn't, however, try to make India a democracy.

127 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:13:03am

re: #122 000G

Yes, really. I am totally bored by the argument, as well.

128 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:13:26am

If there's a search for consistency, why would one support a Christian based legal system/government but be against Shari'a?

129 RadicalModerate  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:14:07am

And for those of you who don't think that these people's express desire is to form an Christian theocracy in the United States?

How about a direct quote from one of the architects of the Reconstruction/Dominionist movement that the vast majority of these individuals are modelling their ministries after?

"The long-term goal of Christians in politics should be to gain exclusive control over the franchise. Those who refuse to submit publicly to the eternal sanctions of God by submitting to His Church's public marks of the covenant - baptism and holy communion - must be denied citizenship, just as they were in ancient Israel." - Gary North

130 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:14:08am

re: #118 Sergey Romanov

Can you prove it?

I guess you could say belief in Deva makes even Theravada non-atheist. However, I have never seen belief in the existence of any set of Deva or other supernatural beings to be required outside of Mahayana strains of buddhism.

131 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:14:35am

re: #127 Obdicut

Yes, really. I am totally bored by the argument, as well.

Well, that's too bad, since you fail to offer any evidence for your position.

132 sagehen  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:15:03am

re: #91 Gepetto

just looking for consistency here. Is there a religion upon which you feel a country's laws should be based? Is it "bad" to base them on J/C values but "okay" to base them on any other religion? pretty easy question.

God's laws are for God to enforce, if and when he wants to, in this life or the next. (you'll notice he strictly enforces the Law of Gravity, only Michael Jordan is allowed to break that one.)

Earthly laws, decided upon by earthly governments, to be enforced by earthly means, must be based on earthly reasoning. (God logic is not like our Earth logic).

133 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:15:27am

If anyone thinks the tendency to fundamentalist Christianity isn't bad for our politics and the health of the nation, see The Republican War on Science.

134 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:16:05am

From the Wiki:

He has also spoken at universities, churches, political events, bookseller conventions, fund-raisers, the International Spy Museum,[citation needed] to members of the US Congress, the White House, CIA, and The Pentagon.[9]

Evangelical Whackos talk to Congress about Gog and MaGog and they are not a threat? Much more so than the Islamist Whackos, IMHO.

135 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:16:05am

re: #128 BigPapa

If there's a search for consistency, why would one support a Christian based legal system/government but be against Shari'a?

Because Islam simply can't compete against black and white outfits and shoe buckles.

///

136 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:16:09am

re: #54 Obdicut

All of the stupid anti-abortion shit, all of the stupid anti-gay shit, here in the US, comes from Christian zealotry.

Meanwhile, we have 0 laws based on Islamic beliefs here in the US.

So, here in the US, fundamentalist Christianity is far more of a threat to secular society.

you did not answer the question.

137 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:16:51am

jftr, I don't think that buddhocracies are desirable either. I just think that dropping the whole European bag of "theology" and its rejection on it is misguided.

138 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:16:57am

re: #131 000G

Well, that's too bad, since you fail to offer any evidence for your position.

I'm not interested in making any converts. I don't care how people who believe in supernatural things divide them up and call them different things. If you believe in anything other than physical reality, I don't care what you call it. It's all the same to me. I don't care if you anthropomorphize your magic or call it karma.

139 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:17:10am

re: #136 Gepetto

If you know what answer you're looking for already, why don't you just say it instead of trying to play gotcha?

140 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:17:12am

re: #132 sagehen

God's laws are for God to enforce

QFT!

141 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:17:34am

re: #55 Sergey Romanov

i agree. there seem to be some here who are unconcerned with non-christian fundamentalist impact.

142 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:17:49am

re: #138 Obdicut

If you believe in anything other than physical reality, I don't care what you call it. It's all the same to me. I don't care if you anthropomorphize your magic or call it karma.

Or law. Or economics. Or logic. ;-)

/pedantic

143 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:17:53am

re: #120 Alexzander

Another great Buddhist example:

Emperor Ashoka:

He embraced Buddhism from the prevalent Hindu tradition after witnessing the mass deaths of the war of Kalinga, which he himself had waged out of a desire for conquest. He was later dedicated to the propagation of Buddhism across Asia and established monuments marking several significant sites in the life of Gautama Buddha. Ashoka was a devotee of ahimsa (nonviolence), love, truth, tolerance and vegetarianism. Ashoka is remembered in history as a philanthropic administrator. In the history of India, Ashoka is referred to as Samraat Chakravartin Ashoka - the Emperor of Emperors Ashoka.
...
Ashoka played a critical role in helping make Buddhism a world religion.[2] As the peace-loving ruler of one of the world's largest, richest and most powerful multi-ethnic states, he is considered an exemplary ruler, who tried to put into practice a secular state ethic of non-violence. The emblem of the modern Republic of India is an adaptation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka.

[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Ashoka was a smart dude. He conquered with violence, then after he got what he wanted, he decided violence was bad. Perfect timing.

144 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:18:24am

Christian politicians in the U.S. are (or must pretend to be) anti-science, which makes them anti-reality, which makes them dangerous.

145 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:18:27am

re: #136 Gepetto

you did not answer the question.

Your question is stupid. There's lots of Islamic regimes in the Middle East. I don't live in the Middle East. I live in the US, where Christians get laws passed based on Christian doctrine, and Muslims don't.

Though, ironically, many of the laws the Christian zealots get passed mesh very well with the laws in those Islamic countries.

146 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:18:28am

re: #141 Gepetto

i agree. there seem to be some here who are unconcerned with non-christian fundamentalist impact.

Because the Christian variety is more of a threat to the US.

147 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:18:37am

re: #141 Gepetto

i agree. there seem to be some here who are unconcerned with non-christian fundamentalist impact.

Name them.

148 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:18:50am

re: #141 Gepetto

i agree. there seem to be some here who are unconcerned with non-christian fundamentalist impact.

There it is, finally!

re: #70 Charles

Because liberals are supposed to hate Christians and make excuses for Islamists, of course!

149 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:19:16am

re: #142 000G

Yeah. Like I said, this argument bores the shit out of me. It's the ultimate in pedantic jerking off.

150 AK-47%  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:19:19am

I agree with the notion that fundamentalism is a lot more politically entrenched in the Muslim World than in the "Christian" west, but it is not a matter of just counting heads.

151 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:20:46am

And when people refuse to play along with the gotcha questions, and they don't get the answer they're looking for, they just state it as a fact.

Seen this routine once or twice before.

152 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:20:49am

re: #149 Obdicut

Yeah. Like I said, this argument bores the shit out of me. It's the ultimate in pedantic jerking off.

I really don't see why it's so important to cling on to misguided terminology, though. Just because it's more convenient than dealing with hangups over the nature of metaphysics/positivistic bias and/or eurocentric perspective?

153 zora  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:21:01am

this is a interesting read about why a large number of people distrust atheists. got the link from sully's blog btw.

Distrust Feeds Anti-Atheist Prejudice

New research finds atheists are widely perceived as untrustworthy, which may be a major factor in why they’re disliked more than other minorities.

Plenty of people are reviled for their religious beliefs. But a lack of faith seems to inspire even more intense antipathy...

So why are atheists “among the least liked people … in most of the world,” in the words of a research team led by University of British Columbia psychologist Will Gervais? In a newly published paper, he and his colleagues provide evidence supporting a plausible explanation.

Atheists, they argue, are widely viewed as people you cannot trust.

“People use cues of religiosity as a signal for trustworthiness,” the researchers write in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Given that “trustworthiness is the most valued trait in other people,” this mental equation engenders a decidedly negative attitude toward nonbelievers.

[Link: www.miller-mccune.com...]

154 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:21:10am

re: #152 000G

That's nice.

155 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:21:13am

It's been 10 years since 9/11. The country has expended considerable resources on the non-Christian threat. In the meantime, the Whacko Christians have been stepping-up their work under the radar.

Charles as done a lot of good work to put them on the radar.

156 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:21:35am

American Theocracy thread always summons up...
...
...
Sharia Squirrel!!!

157 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:22:07am

re: #154 Obdicut

That's nice.

Yes, that's nice.

We'll just continue this the next time you bring up any affirmation of anything else than physical reality.

158 austin_blue  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:22:41am

re: #14 Dewd

Yeah, why don't you ask the women who live in majority Muslim countries how that shari'ah law is working out for them. To imply that it is the same as Judeo/Christian is not only willfully ignorant so as to be thought tolerant but is just sad.

Dewd-

You need to read some Margaret Atwood.

159 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:22:57am

re: #157 000G

You do that. That sounds really important.

160 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:24:05am

re: #68 Jdorfma4

so your argument is basically that their hatefilled religious bigots are worse than ours because ours haven't been more successful? Good point, I see your impeccable logic.

You would rather live under a Christian theocracy than an Islamic one. You're Christian. How shocking. I'm Jewish, I would rather live in an Islamic theocracy than a Christian one. You both want to kill me but at least they have the decency to tell me that to my face. Honor.

Lord save me from your followers.

where are these Christian Theocracies you'd rather avoid? President Obama is a Christian, but I hardly think he is leading a Theocracy here.

161 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:24:14am

re: #159 Obdicut

You do that. That sounds really important.

You like clinging on to misguided terminology. I like tying up loose ends.

*shrugs*

162 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:24:44am

re: #160 Gepetto

where are these Christian Theocracies you'd rather avoid? President Obama is a Christian, but I hardly think he is leading a Theocracy here.

What do you think about basing law off of religion?

163 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:24:51am

re: #161 000G

That's nice.

164 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:25:15am

So, in this the point in the "argument" where we get told that American Muslims are untrustworthy, because they think of themselves as Muslim first and American second, but American Christians are totally trustworthy because they put God before America?

165 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:25:17am

re: #160 Gepetto

where are these Christian Theocracies you'd rather avoid?

Really? You can't think of any example in the US in the last ten years or so where people ruled with their bible?

166 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:25:50am

re: #163 Obdicut

That's nice.

Yes, that's nice.

Everybody needs a hobby. I think mine makes more sense. But as I said, we shall continue this another time.

167 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:26:43am

We've never had Islamic theocracy here. We have had Christian and states rights totalitarianism here, though, which is what a loot of these bigots think they want.

Disasters, both. For whatever reasons, the gepettos of the world prefer to skip over that "fail" aspect. Weird.

re: #134 ggt

From the Wiki:

Evangelical Whackos talk to Congress about Gog and MaGog and they are not a threat? Much more so than the Islamist Whackos, IMHO.

168 ProGunLiberal  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:27:00am

re: #160 Gepetto

Fiji isn't a bad example of how things go south. Also, multiple European states for a period from 600-1600 CE

169 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:27:35am

re: #130 000G

I guess you could say belief in Deva makes even Theravada non-atheist.

Of course it does, just as belief in Greek gods made a person a non-atheist even though they're very different kinds of gods than Judaic, Christian or Islamic gods are.

However, I have never seen belief in the existence of any set of Deva or other supernatural beings to be required outside of Mahayana strains of buddhism.

The question is not what is required, but what was actually practiced.

170 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:28:03am

Lot, not loot

re: #167 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

171 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:28:10am

re: #71 Sergey Romanov

Look it up.

don't have to. Italy has always been considered a Western European Country. So now, the question of why it was left out of the OP? could it be that it was left off to reinforce the terrible US vs enlightened Europe debate?

172 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:29:32am

Historical Perspective --and propaganda, but worth watching.

173 HappyWarrior  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:30:03am

re: #171 Gepetto

don't have to. Italy has always been considered a Western European Country. So now, the question of why it was left out of the OP? could it be that it was left off to reinforce the terrible US vs enlightened Europe debate?

Italy wasn't polled by Pew. Take it up with them and not Charles.

174 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:30:56am

re: #171 Gepetto

could it be that it was left off to reinforce the terrible US vs enlightened Europe debate?

That's probably it. I mean, it'd suck if you tried to learn something from this survey. Better to just speculate about conspiratorial motives that inspired it.

175 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:31:15am

re: #141 Gepetto

i agree. there seem to be some here who are unconcerned with non-christian fundamentalist impact.

I don't see them. Names?

176 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:31:49am

Segue into the inevitable "you're worried about nothing" argument.

Despite the fact that last night we saw all the top GOP candidates (except the Mormons) in a debate sponsored by one of the most extreme fundamentalist organizations in the country, at which they all professed their desire to mix religion and politics.

You silly liberals are worried about nothing!

177 albusteve  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:32:02am

re: #175 Sergey Romanov

I don't see them. Names?

I don't even see the impact...oh well

178 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:32:12am

re: #175 Sergey Romanov

I don't see them. Names?

He's dodged that question a few times already; hardly expect him to start answering it (or any substantial) question at this point.

He's more of an asker, not so much an answer-er.

179 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:32:45am

re: #152 000G

I really don't see why it's so important to cling on to misguided terminology, though.

Are the terms "atom" and "antisemitism" misguided? Do you use them?

180 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:34:33am

re: #171 Gepetto

don't have to. Italy has always been considered a Western European Country.

Why did you ask then?

181 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:35:26am

re: #169 Sergey Romanov

Of course it does, just as belief in Greek gods made a person a non-atheist even though they're very different kinds of gods than Judaic, Christian or Islamic gods are.

Depends on what you mean by "god". This is why I go by ignostic, usually. Because in the most anti-metaphysical sense, even nations can be "god", making any non-constructivist nationalist that believes in "natural" nations a non-theist, making the argument about wholly different concepts.

The question is not what is required, but what was actually practiced.

Well, then FGM is islamic in some areas.

It's wholly optional, Sergey. And in Theravada it doesn't even come close to the more syncretistic variants of Mahayana that incorporate tribal deities to worship.

But this gets off to a whole 'nother discussion which I think is more important: Namely that of worship versus non-worship, not belief versus non-belief.

182 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:35:42am

re: #178 Obdicut

He's dodged that question a few times already; hardly expect him to start answering it (or any substantial) question at this point.

He's more of an asker, not so much an answer-er.

I call them JAQoffs. Just Asking Questions.

183 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:36:24am

Global Survey of Evangelical Protestant Leaders
On the whole, the evangelical Protestant leaders express favorable opinions of adherents of other faiths in the Judeo-Christian tradition, including Judaism, Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. But of those who express an opinion, solid majorities express unfavorable views of Buddhists (65%), Hindus (65%), Muslims (67%) and atheists (70%). Interestingly, the leaders who live in Muslim-majority countries generally are more positive in their assessments of Muslims than are the evangelical leaders overall.

Image: Screen_shot_2011-11-20_at_1.34.59_PM.png

184 RadicalModerate  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:36:37am

There is a term for the years that had absolute Christian rule, where science and competing beliefs were persecuted in a rather dictatorial fashion.

Dark Ages

And another for one of the methods used to accomplish this goal:
Inquisition

185 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:37:00am

The Founders created a group of documents uniquely generic - "Our Creator" and "Providence" are wonderfully not sect specific.

They were intelligent and wise men. If they had wanted to say Jesus they would have.

Some Humans have an issues with that.

186 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:37:01am

re: #181 000G

IOW, you can't name atheistic Buddhist -cracies.

187 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:37:21am

re: #179 Sergey Romanov

Are the terms "atom" and "antisemitism" misguided? Do you use them?

Atom I use because there is no sensible alternative. As for antisemitism, I often use several other words indeed, especially in German, if clarity can be easily achieved.

188 albusteve  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:38:24am

re: #182 Sergey Romanov

I call them JAQoffs. Just Asking Questions.

good one

189 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:38:38am

re: #187 000G

Atom I use because there is no sensible alternative. As for antisemitism, I often use several other words indeed, especially in German, if clarity can be easily achieved.

There is no sensible alternative to 'theocracy' either.
And there is nothing unclear about both terms.

190 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:39:35am

re: #188 albusteve

We're too good to lose to the Redskins today. Which is why we'll probably lose to the Redskins today.

191 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:39:41am

re: #186 Sergey Romanov

IOW, you can't name atheistic Buddhist -cracies.

I believe the Ashoka empire since his embrace of Buddhism was largely atheist. Whatever deity worship there was was mostly Hindu remnants.

192 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:41:00am

re: #171 Gepetto

don't have to. Italy has always been considered a Western European Country. So now, the question of why it was left out of the OP? could it be that it was left off to reinforce the terrible US vs enlightened Europe debate?

So what point do you have, other than the one atop your head? Would the inclusion of Italy into this poll somehow make the notion of Americans being split over whether they hold their religion or their nationality first less worrying? Or that believing that one must be religious in order to be moral any less mind-bending?

193 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:41:04am

re: #189 Sergey Romanov

There is no sensible alternative to 'theocracy' either.

In the case of buddhism there is. Scholars actually regularly use "buddhocracy" as an alternative.

And there is nothing unclear about both terms.

There actually is, because "theocracy" transposes theistic prejudices into the debate without need.

194 albusteve  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:41:45am

re: #190 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

We're too good to lose to the Redskins today. Which is why we'll probably lose to the Redskins today.

always a dog fight...time for O line to step it up and dominate...
no penalties or turnovers either

195 austin_blue  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:42:25am

re: #70 Charles

Because liberals are supposed to hate Christians and make excuses for Islamists, of course!

I'm a Contended Deist. I don't hate any religion, but I do pity people who's entire world view revolves around one.

Ex: "The Bible says, I believe it, and that settles it."
Ex: "Honor killing was our family's only option."
Ex: "I refuse to even entertain the thought that any God, even a remote, uncaring God, can possibly exist."

See? Pitiful. Intellectual and personal growth becomes impossible because of ridiculous constraints.

196 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:44:12am

re: #195 austin_blue

Intellectual and personal growth becomes impossible because of ridiculous constraints.

I concur.

197 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:45:08am

I'm off again.

Have fun!

198 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:46:03am

re: #193 000G

If it's not in any mainstream dictionaries, it's not a sensible alternative, but an obscure usage. Is it? Also, I don't see how alleged theistic prejudices enter the discussion.

199 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:46:16am

re: #148 Charles

There it is, finally!

re: #70 Charles

not sure what "it" is. I don't like fundamentalists impacting laws, period. My conservatism has nothing to do with the fundamentalists who have co-opted most of these issues. I don't want any fundamentalist intrusions into the system. I don't like when people use the extremes of a group to identify the group. I wasn't comfortable with it when fear of Islamic fundamentalism was stretched to apply to every Muslim, and I am damn sure uncomfortable when I see Christian fundamentalism being used to vilify every Christian. I dont believe "secular" implies atheism either.

200 calochortus  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:46:28am

I tell ya, I make a comment on a page, go run errands, and come home to the topic being on the front page with 200 comments... Took a while to catch up.

re: #50 Sergey Romanov

Sergey, good analysis of the 10 Commandments and law. However, I'm willing to make it 4 out of 10-adultery could be considered as violating a contract and that is a no-no in civil law.

201 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:46:54am

re: #195 austin_blue

Wonderfully stated.

202 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:47:10am

re: #199 Gepetto

I am damn sure uncomfortable when I see Christian fundamentalism being used to vilify every Christian.

Where do you see that?

I mean, not that you've answered any of the questions put to you so far anyway.

203 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:47:21am

I have a theory that population density is one of the biggest factors in societies, and I'd like to know what role population density plays in the polled opinion issues.

US - 32 people/square km

Spain - 91
France 114
UK - 255
Germany - 229

I'd like the see the same survey comparing the US to countries with similar pop density like Djibouti, Madagascar, Latvia, Zimbabwe, Liberia, Venezuela, Estonia, or the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

204 RadicalModerate  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:47:24am

Lest we forget.

One of the groups who hosted the Republican "debate" last night created a "voters guide" where they espoused their view of what the United States should be:

[Link: championthevote.com...] (pdf file)

205 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:47:58am

re: #145 Obdicut

Your question is stupid. There's lots of Islamic regimes in the Middle East. I don't live in the Middle East. I live in the US, where Christians get laws passed based on Christian doctrine, and Muslims don't.

Though, ironically, many of the laws the Christian zealots get passed mesh very well with the laws in those Islamic countries.

why do you waste time making non-answers to questions you see as stupid?

206 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:48:29am

re: #192 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

THEY DIDN'T SURVEY THE VATICAN! OMG!

Yeah, not seeing the point either LOL.

One can choose to have one's nose out of joint for many reasons, I suppose.

207 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:48:41am

re: #199 Gepetto

Sensible positions. Why all the fuss then?

208 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:49:01am

re: #199 Gepetto

I am damn sure uncomfortable when I see Christian fundamentalism being used to vilify every Christian.

Where is that happening? Seriously, not a gotcha question. Because it's not in this thread, so you must be thinking of somewhere else.

209 Fat Bastard Vegetarian  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:49:12am

re: #203 Charleston Chew

Canada 5.197

210 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:49:40am

re: #204 RadicalModerate

Lest we forget.

One of the groups who hosted the Republican "debate" last night created a "voters guide" where they espoused their view of what the United States should be:

[Link: championthevote.com...] (pdf file)

"Everyone Will Die" seems to be the only common belief...

:0

211 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:49:52am

re: #198 Sergey Romanov

If it's not in any mainstream dictionaries, it's not a sensible alternative, but an obscure usage. Is it?

I would hope usage makes it less obscure. Sensible in the sense of "having, containing, or indicative of good sense or reason": It provides greater scope of distinction and clarity without loss of meaning on other fronts.

Also, I don't see how alleged theistic prejudices enter the discussion.

In theocracies, god's will as alleged by some religion is supposed to be the law. In buddhocracies, "god's will" simply doesn't matter, because to buddhists even the deities are unawakened.

212 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:50:02am

re: #200 calochortus

If it's a contract marriage, then yes. But a state has no business in punishing adulterers on its own. So still 3.

213 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:50:15am

re: #204 RadicalModerate

Lest we forget.

One of the groups who hosted the Republican "debate" last night created a "voters guide" where they espoused their view of what the United States should be:

[Link: championthevote.com...] (pdf file)

BTW, IMHO, you should Pages Post that.

214 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:50:34am

re: #204 RadicalModerate

Lest we forget.

One of the groups who hosted the Republican "debate" last night created a "voters guide" where they espoused their view of what the United States should be:

[Link: championthevote.com...] (pdf file)

Holy Smokes! By which I mean, what are these "holy" people smoking? Never thought I'd see this in a "voter guide":

Satan: A real person in conflict with God and God’s people

215 calochortus  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:51:08am

re: #212 Sergey Romanov
What kind of marriage doesn't include a contract?

216 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:51:26am

re: #212 Sergey Romanov

If it's a contract marriage, then yes. But a state has no business in punishing adulterers on its own. So still 3.

If the state punished adulterers, the courts would be working 3 shifts a day 365 days a year and still have a 10 year back-log.

217 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:52:55am

re: #205 Gepetto

why do you waste time making non-answers to questions you see as stupid?

I don't consider it a waste of time. Even a dumb question can lead to a good explanation.

218 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:53:05am

re: #209 Fat Bastard Vegetarian

Canada 5.197

Canadian tourism posters should be: "Come to Canada! No, seriously, we need a 4th to play cards."

219 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:53:50am

Frankly the PDF that Radical Moderate Posted should be common knowledge. I was never raised to think this way in the RC church. Many people who consider themselves Christian would re-think their political leanings if there were aware of truly how Whacko the GOP has become.

220 Interesting Times  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:54:02am

While doing a google image search for something completely unrelated, I stumbled across the following - seems fitting for this thread topic:

The Napkin Religion

221 RadicalModerate  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:54:09am

re: #213 ggt

BTW, IMHO, you should Pages Post that.

Kragar already did, a couple of weeks ago.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

222 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:55:37am

re: #221 RadicalModerate

Kragar already did, a couple of weeks ago.

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

Go ahead and repost it and link to Kragar's post, giving him original credit.

IMHO, it needs to stay in the forefront.

223 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:56:00am

re: #211 000G

We don't have to go that far. It is sensible to call a rule by priests a theocracy, so Tibet would qualify. It is also sensible to call a rule based mainly on "revealed" religious law a theocracy, even if the revelator doesn't assert the existence of God or gods proper. A matter of not so much philosophy, as practicality. Same as with atom and antisemitism and a host of other terms. I don't think many people are confused.

224 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:56:29am

re: #220 publicityStunted

While doing a google image search for something completely unrelated, I stumbled across the following - seems fitting for this thread topic:

The Napkin Religion

oooh, I need a URL for that.

How do you link those little pop-up pictures anyway?

225 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:56:35am

re: #213 ggt

BTW, IMHO, you should Pages Post that.

Yes, do.

Although I could sum it up:

AREA: Poop
NATURALISM/ATHEISTIC WORLDVIEW: Stinks.
BIBLICAL WORLDVIEW: Doesn't stink.

226 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:56:52am

re: #215 calochortus

What kind of marriage doesn't include a contract?

Are you seriously for a state punishing adulterers?

227 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:57:40am

re: #226 Sergey Romanov

Are you seriously for a state punishing adulterers?

I prefer vigilante justice (of the wronged spouse kind)

Some might call it Divorce Court.
teehee

/:0

228 austin_blue  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:58:38am

re: #109 000G

Do you deny that a lot of buddhism, including some types that were made state religions, were atheist?

Non-theistic, certainly. Atheist? Not necessarily.

229 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:58:52am

re: #227 ggt

I prefer vigilante justice (of the wronged spouse kind)

teehee

/:0

Is your name Lorena? *shudder*

///

230 Charleston Chew  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:59:20am

re: #222 ggt

Go ahead and repost it and link to Kragar's post, giving him original credit.

IMHO, it needs to stay in the forefront.

The "Worldview Comparison Chart" is the best part.

231 Gretchen G.Tiger  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 11:59:43am

Ok, I'm really leaving.

bye

232 Interesting Times  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:01:09pm

re: #224 ggt

oooh, I need a URL for that.

How do you link those little pop-up pictures anyway?

Right-click the link and choose "Open in new tab" or "Copy link location", and you'll get the URL. To make the picture a pop-up, you put it in your comment as you would any other link, but add the code rel="shadowbox" after where it says target="_blank" (well, technically it doesn't have to go right in that spot, but it's just a helpful way to remember)

233 RadicalModerate  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:01:48pm

re: #222 ggt

Go ahead and repost it and link to Kragar's post, giving him original credit.

IMHO, it needs to stay in the forefront.

I agree that it should stay in the forefront, but it would probably be better to update this page and link to the PDF and Kragar's post.

234 calochortus  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:02:02pm

re: #226 Sergey Romanov

No, but there could be civil damages that would not come amiss. It would depend on a lot of factors, but as it is, it is certainly grounds for divorce (if one actually needs grounds anymore.)

My observation was that the applicability of the 10 Commandments could be expanded to 4 out of 10 if you considered the adultery prohibition to be an endorsement of contract law.

235 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:02:56pm

re: #223 Sergey Romanov

We don't have to go that far.

?

It is sensible to call a rule by priests a theocracy, so Tibet would qualify.

Tibet is a tricky case, because Tibetan esoteric buddhism actually does include veneration of several commanding deities. Special case. And no, "rule by priests" is not sufficient for sensible use of theocracy. If you go that far then rule by marxist ideologues can be construed to be "theocracy".

It is also sensible to call a rule based mainly on "revealed" religious law a theocracy, even if the revelator doesn't assert the existence of God or gods proper.

Yeah, but that does not apply to buddhism. Buddhism (in general, esoteric buddhism for instance is very much "revealed" and exclusive about "knowledge") is actually very clear about this: This is what we think. These are the reasons. Take it or leave it. Think it through and judge it yourself. If it works, great. If not, ditch it.

A matter of not so much philosophy, as practicality.

Don't know what that is supposed to mean. If you want to gloss over differences and details for convenience, fine. But tI think that's more ignorant than practical.

Same as with atom and antisemitism and a host of other terms.

No, not the same, for reasons I mentioned. The analogy really does not hold. See also, for instance [Link: de.wikipedia.org...] versus [Link: de.wikipedia.org...]

I don't think many people are confused.

I think it confuses people over what buddhism is about.

236 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:03:42pm

re: #228 austin_blue

Non-theistic, certainly. Atheist? Not necessarily.

Fair point.

237 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:04:08pm

re: #162 Obdicut

What do you think about basing law off of religion?

I think most systems of law have religious underpinnings, or have at least evolved from various sets of religious laws. I don't, however believe that they were handed down by the Gods, rather they were common sense that was cloaked in religious garb because thats how we perfused our system controls, especially through an illiterate population. The Ten commandments make a pretty good basis in the absence of other structured law systems for the time they were set down.

I also believe that a religious justification of law in this day and age is a very weak underpinning.

238 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:08:27pm

AN 3.65 sounds decidedly less revealed than Jer 17:5

239 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:08:52pm

re: #96 Obdicut

Why would you expect anyone to solely be opposed to Christian values?

And can you stop saying "Judeo-Christian"? It makes no goddamn sense. most Jewish attitudes towards religion and the state are entirely different from the kind of people who use the phrase "Judeo-Christian".

I am using the current parlance, both in the real world and on this page.

240 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:09:38pm

re: #237 Gepetto

I think most systems of law have religious underpinnings, or have at least evolved from various sets of religious laws

Well, you're wrong.

I don't, however believe that they were handed down by the Gods, rather they were common sense that was cloaked in religious garb because thats how we perfused our system controls, especially through an illiterate population.

O-kay. I'm not sure why you're talking about illiterate populations, but whatever.

The Ten commandments make a pretty good basis in the absence of other structured law systems for the time they were set down.

You know that the ten commandments don't make up a tenth of a tenth of a tenth of the Jewish law they were part of, right?

The 10 commandments on their own make a sucky basis for a structured law system. You couldn't run a society on them, at all.

I also believe that a religious justification of law in this day and age is a very weak underpinning.

So, what do you think about the many laws passed in the US that are based on Christian beliefs?

241 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:10:40pm

re: #239 Gepetto

I am using the current parlance, both in the real world and on this page.

Do you understand why the phrase "Judeo-Christian" makes many Jews angry when it's used by people to defend what is really just Christian beliefs of religion influencing law?

242 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:13:53pm

gtg

243 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:14:42pm

re: #235 000G

And no, "rule by priests" is not sufficient for sensible use of theocracy.

I think it is. You're free to disagree, of course.

If you go that far then rule by marxist ideologues can be construed to be "theocracy".

It cannot be, since Marxism is not a religion and there are no priests, no matter how one might demagogically stretch definitions of both to make such a case.

Yeah, but that does not apply to buddhism. Buddhism (in general, esoteric buddhism for instance is very much "revealed" and exclusive about "knowledge") is actually very clear about this: This is what we think. Take it or leave it. Think it through. If it works, great. If not, ditch it.

There either are specifically religious (i.e. non-secular) elements in the law or there aren't. If there are and they're significant (not just some minor parts, holdovers from the past), yes, they are also sufficient to talk about a theocracy.

Don't know what that is supposed to mean.

Can't help you.

No, not the same, for reasons I mentioned.

Well, yes, actually it is the same, because the terms are used and are clear, despite etymologies.

I think it confuses people over what buddhism is about.

I don't think it does, because not Buddhism is the focus, but the form of government.

244 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:15:40pm

How not to make an 1100 person convention welcome
"Skepticon is NOT welcomed to my Christian business"

245 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:20:43pm

re: #108 Charles

unserious, perhaps, to you. but i did ask it seriously.

246 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:23:54pm

re: #128 BigPapa

If there's a search for consistency, why would one support a Christian based legal system/government but be against Shari'a?

precisely.

247 darthstar  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:24:40pm

re: #244 jaunte

How not to make an 1100 person convention welcome
"Skepticon is NOT welcomed to my Christian business"

Heathen money.

248 calochortus  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:25:04pm

A question for people who know more about the Old Testament than I do. I just listened to Ron Paul's remarks about returning to OT patriarchy and having things decided by judges and not depending on big government. Were OT judges religious, secular or a blend of the two?
In other words, where might these judges Ron Paul wants come from? The government he hates? Some church? The free market?

249 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:25:30pm

re: #246 Gepetto

precisely.

Why did you work so hard to dodge that line of questioning, then?

250 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:33:01pm

re: #164 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

So, in this the point in the "argument" where we get told that American Muslims are untrustworthy, because they think of themselves as Muslim first and American second, but American Christians are totally trustworthy because they put God before America?

no, if you are directing that to me. Once there is acknowledgement that our system evolved over a long course of time from various sets of common sense rules on how to live that were cloaked in religious garb to make them functional at the time, I would like no further religious impact on modern day legislation. It is impossible for committed religious or atheistic people to step into or out of their beliefs like a pair of boots, however, so secularism needs monitors.

251 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:36:42pm

re: #165 000G

Really? You can't think of any example in the US in the last ten years or so where people ruled with their bible?

sure, lots of attempts made, some successful, on individual legislation. but those attempts, successful or not, do not make our system a theocracy. As I pointed out (and got downdinged) President Obama is a commited Christian, but he does not rule over a Theocracy. I understand from the downdings, that there is disagreement with that statement, but I maintain it is true.

252 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:39:11pm

Stupid power outage is stupid.

253 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:40:22pm

re: #250 Gepetto

no, if you are directing that to me. Once there is acknowledgement that our system evolved over a long course of time from various sets of common sense rules on how to live that were cloaked in religious garb to make them functional at the time, I would like no further religious impact on modern day legislation. It is impossible for committed religious or atheistic people to step into or out of their beliefs like a pair of boots, however, so secularism needs monitors.

Indeed it does, hence the discomfort by most in this thread with the poll results and last night's debate. When you have candidates running for the highest political office in this nation participating in a debate run by a fundamentalist organization, arguing various flavors of law based upon religion, then it's time to begin worrying about their committment to secularism. "Do they consider themselves Christians or Americans first?" becomes a legitimate question.

254 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:40:57pm

re: #251 Gepetto

I understand from the downdings, that there is disagreement with that statement, but I maintain it is true.

Why on earth would you think that was the reason for downdinging, rather than your passive-aggressive jackassery?

255 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:41:31pm

re: #167 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

We've never had Islamic theocracy here. We have had Christian and states rights totalitarianism here, though, which is what a loot of these bigots think they want.

Disasters, both. For whatever reasons, the gepettos of the world prefer to skip over that "fail" aspect. Weird.

we've had attempts with a few regrettable successes. But, we do not live under a Theocracy, Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

256 Mattand  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:41:42pm

re: #237 Gepetto

The Ten commandments make a pretty good basis in the absence of other structured law systems for the time they were set down.

You may want to re-read Sergey's post at #50 again.

257 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:42:29pm

re: #251 Gepetto

No, you're downdinged for being pedantic and annoying is all.

258 HappyWarrior  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:45:40pm

What bugs me about many of these Republican candidates is they seem to think it's okay to use biblical law to justify banning things like gay marriage and restricting abortion rights but totally ignore the judiciary whom has found legal gay marriage and abortion rights are in fact constitutional What was it Bachmann or Gingrich said last night? Pass a personhood amendment and block the judiciary from ruling on its constitutionality. We don't live in a theocracy thankfully but I suspect many of these candidates wouldn't mind if we lived in a Christian one or at the very least they're guilty of pandering to people who wouldn't mind that.

259 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:46:00pm

re: #173 HappyWarrior

Italy wasn't polled by Pew. Take it up with them and not Charles.

Charles did not author the OP. I would guess he is happy with your defense, though. I was pointing out the out-come biased nature of the study.

260 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:49:16pm

re: #174 Obdicut

That's probably it. I mean, it'd suck if you tried to learn something from this survey. Better to just speculate about conspiratorial motives that inspired it.

there's nothing to be learned, nor is there anything surprising in this study. It is what it is, and, other than the flawed methodology, I have no argument with the findings. I think the conclusions were obvious to both you and I.

261 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:51:03pm

re: #141 Gepetto

You seem to be more concerned with trying to minimize the damage that RWNJ evangelical CINOs (Christians In Name Only) have done and are doing to the American body politic.

262 HappyWarrior  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:51:28pm

re: #259 Gepetto

Charles did not author the OP. I would guess he is happy with your defense, though. I was pointing out the out-come biased nature of the study.

Biased how, because they didn't poll Italians? Shit I said so myself that I'd like if they had polled other groups. They polled Spainards though whom historically have a similiar religious profile to Italians both being predominately Catholic.

263 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:52:19pm

re: #176 Charles

Segue into the inevitable "you're worried about nothing" argument.

Despite the fact that last night we saw all the top GOP candidates (except the Mormons) in a debate sponsored by one of the most extreme fundamentalist organizations in the country, at which they all professed their desire to mix religion and politics.

You silly liberals are worried about nothing!

didn't watch the debate. did you learn anything new from it, or did it merely reinforce your opinions about every one of the candidates? Seriously, I was not happy with the venue, and I'm not happy with this group of candidates.

264 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:53:17pm

re: #258 HappyWarrior

What bugs me about many of these Republican candidates is they seem to think it's okay to use biblical law to justify banning things like gay marriage and restricting abortion rights but totally ignore the judiciary whom has found legal gay marriage and abortion rights are in fact constitutional What was it Bachmann or Gingrich said last night? Pass a personhood amendment and block the judiciary from ruling on its constitutionality. We don't live in a theocracy thankfully but I suspect many of these candidates wouldn't mind if we lived in a Christian one or at the very least they're guilty of pandering to people who wouldn't mind that.

The good news is that they are not attractive to a majority of Americans.

265 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:53:45pm

re: #260 Gepetto

Then why did you spend this entire thread deflecting and asking people if they were especially hostile to Christianity?

You're goddamn transparent.

266 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:54:15pm

re: #254 Obdicut

Why on earth would you think that was the reason for downdinging, rather than your passive-aggressive jackassery?

It always is, isn't it? ;)

267 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:55:06pm

re: #256 mattand

You may want to re-read Sergey's post at #50 again.

Well, for its time they were not bad, I think that's what Gepetto means.

268 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:56:11pm

re: #267 Sergey Romanov

And 'they' weren't anything on their own. They were a small part of a much larger legal framework.

269 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:57:12pm

re: #251 Gepetto

sure, lots of attempts made, some successful, on individual legislation. but those attempts, successful or not, do not make our system a theocracy. As I pointed out (and got downdinged) President Obama is a commited Christian, but he does not rule over a Theocracy. I understand from the downdings, that there is disagreement with that statement, but I maintain it is true.

I haven't seen anyone here saying US is a theocracy. Yet you imply there is an agreement about such an absurd thesis here. Could this be the reason for downdings?

270 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:57:29pm

re: #192 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

So what point do you have, other than the one atop your head? Would the inclusion of Italy into this poll somehow make the notion of Americans being split over whether they hold their religion or their nationality first less worrying? Or that believing that one must be religious in order to be moral any less mind-bending?

nope. but I don't understand where you have been the last twenty years if these are mind bending new revelations to you. To contrast Western Europe with the US effectively, Italy should have been included in the methodology.

271 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:58:38pm

re: #268 Obdicut

And 'they' weren't anything on their own. They were a small part of a much larger legal framework.

Larger both literally, and in Ancient Near East sense. Hammurabi, stuff...

272 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 12:59:17pm

re: #259 Gepetto

Charles did not author the OP. I would guess he is happy with your defense, though. I was pointing out the out-come biased nature of the study.

I must have missed the part where you did this.

273 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:01:02pm

re: #270 Gepetto

nope. but I don't understand where you have been the last twenty years if these are mind bending new revelations to you. To contrast Western Europe with the US effectively, Italy should have been included in the methodology.

So you really have no point, or at least not one you're willing to admit to. Italy not appearing on the poll does not simply erase the American results. Trying to look for some agenda on the part of the folks running the poll, such as the "Europe vs. America" bit, does not help your case.

274 Charles Johnson  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:01:26pm

re: #251 Gepetto

As I pointed out (and got downdinged) President Obama is a commited Christian, but he does not rule over a Theocracy. I understand from the downdings, that there is disagreement with that statement, but I maintain it is true.

I downdinged your comment again because it's just as much of an absurd straw man argument the second time.

275 JRCMYP  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:01:37pm

re: #57 Obdicut

Circumcision is not in any way comparable to female genital mutilation. At all.

There are some people who would disagree with you. Male circumcision does remove part of the gentiles, and is therefore gentile mutilation, but of a different degree.

276 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:02:17pm

re: #275 JRCMYP

There are some people who would disagree with you. Male circumcision does remove part of the gentiles, and is therefore gentile mutilation, but of a different degree.

Please tell me that wasn't an intentional typo.

277 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:03:12pm

OK, last thing we need is a circ thread. G'night, golks.

278 Mattand  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:03:46pm

re: #267 Sergey Romanov

Well, for its time they were not bad, I think that's what Gepetto means.

Yeah, that occurred to me almost immediately after hitting the "Post It" button. Still, I kind of wonder about that. Did it make those societies actually run better? What kind of punishments were handed down for something like "disrespecting" your parents? I'm guessing it was bit more severe than taking away the keys to the donkey cart.

279 Mattand  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:05:00pm

re: #277 Sergey Romanov

OK, last thing we need is a circ thread. G'night, golks.

Hey, at least It's a cut above the rest! BOO YAH!

280 funky chicken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:05:29pm

Is it possible the guy is just really insulted that Pew didn't survey people in his country? I notice he's not pissed off that they didn't survey Portugal, Greece, Denmark, Belgium, or the Netherlands. Aren't they all also EU members?

LOL

Hell, some of my people came from Prussia. Where the hell are they? Huh? Huh?

281 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:10:04pm

re: #208 Charles

Where is that happening? Seriously, not a gotcha question. Because it's not in this thread, so you must be thinking of somewhere else.

When the current political climate in this country is being rather often compared to a NonJudeo/Christian Theocracy, when the Right is rolled into the Religious Right and then lumped into Christian fundamentalism, and then thats used as some ridiculous portent of a new Dark Age complete with a new Inquisition, it sure looks like its happening. In contrast, I think the pendulum is swinging away from the few idiotic attempts at fundamentalist-based laws, and I have never felt we were on any sort of precipice or near any sort of abyss involving a slide into theocracy.

282 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:11:29pm

re: #216 ggt

If the state punished adulterers, the courts would be working 3 shifts a day 365 days a year and still have a 10 year back-log.

thats shovel-ready stimulus, right there. :)

283 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:12:59pm

re: #281 Gepetto

What do you think of all the recent laws restricting abortion? How does that fit in with your theory?

284 HappyWarrior  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:14:17pm

re: #283 Obdicut

What do you think of all the recent laws restricting abortion? How does that fit in with your theory?

Or these candidates who want to bring back DADT and ban gay marriage everywhere.

285 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:14:49pm

re: #283 Obdicut

re: #284 HappyWarrior

LASER GUIDED JOBS!

286 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:26:34pm

re: #240 Obdicut

Well, you're wrong.

>>No, I am not. where do you think they come from? what do you think they are based on?

O-kay. I'm not sure why you're talking about illiterate populations, but whatever.

>>Really, you see no link between illiteracy and the need for religious justification of laws? Do you not think the ability of a population to read and the enlightenment that follows makes for a stronger basis for secular law?

You know that the ten commandments don't make up a tenth of a tenth of a tenth of the Jewish law they were part of, right?

>>Absolutely, and Jewish Law is only a minute part of the religious law systems I was speaking of. It ain't all about the Jews, or the Christians, or the Muslims you know. For an atheist, you are pretty stuck on one religion.

The 10 commandments on their own make a sucky basis for a structured law system. You couldn't run a society on them, at all.

>>I used that as an example. there are plenty of other God-says-so systems that influenced current law all over the world.

So, what do you think about the many laws passed in the US that are based on Christian beliefs?

>>you'll have to be more specific here. are you speaking of US laws that were not adopted from European frameworks? If so, which ones would those be? I've previously stated modern laws shouldn't be based on religious beliefs.

287 Amory Blaine  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:27:43pm

re: #244 jaunte

How not to make an 1100 person convention welcome
"Skepticon is NOT welcomed to my Christian business"

Any pictures of businesses in America showing signs excluding Christians?

288 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:28:05pm

7 of the 10 Commandments are unconstitutional.
;)

289 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:28:11pm

re: #281 Gepetto

When the current political climate in this country is being rather often compared to a NonJudeo/Christian Theocracy, when the Right is rolled into the Religious Right and then lumped into Christian fundamentalism, and then thats used as some ridiculous portent of a new Dark Age complete with a new Inquisition, it sure looks like its happening. In contrast, I think the pendulum is swinging away from the few idiotic attempts at fundamentalist-based laws, and I have never felt we were on any sort of precipice or near any sort of abyss involving a slide into theocracy.

Spoken like a naive person who has never been a target of Christian theocratic aims.

290 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:28:49pm

re: #286 Gepetto

>>No, I am not. where do you think they come from? what do you think they are based on?

Enlightenment values and philosophy. And learn how to use the quote button.

Really, you see no link between illiteracy and the need for religious justification of laws?

Really. The Jewish population had an extremely high literacy rate, especially for that time period, and yet had religious justification of laws. So yeah, your theory makes no sense.

>>

Absolutely, and Jewish Law is only a minute part of the religious law systems I was speaking of. It ain't all about the Jews, or the Christians, or the Muslims you know. For an atheist, you are pretty stuck on one religion.

What one religion is that? I've discussed, in this thread, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. So which is the one religion I'm stuck on?

you'll have to be more specific here.

Why? Are you not American? Are you unaware of the numerous laws passed restricting abortion? Are you just uninterested in the topic, or what?

291 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:29:59pm

re: #288 Varek Raith

7 of the 10 Commandments are unconstitutional.
;)

Well then, the solution is obvious: Amend the Constitution. Who needs that pesky First Amendment anyway?

///

292 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:30:27pm

re: #255 Gepetto

we've had attempts with a few regrettable successes. But, we do not live under a Theocracy, Christian, Jewish or Muslim.

And who has said we do?

293 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:31:02pm

re: #292 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

And who has said we do?

Mr. Intense Strawman and Mr. Igotnothin' did.

294 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:31:10pm

re: #241 Obdicut

Do you understand why the phrase "Judeo-Christian" makes many Jews angry when it's used by people to defend what is really just Christian beliefs of religion influencing law?

I have since changed my reference to "NonJudeo/Christian" once I realized it chaps your atheist ass so bad when its said the way my AP style manual suggests.

295 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:33:08pm

re: #294 Gepetto

I have since changed my reference to "NonJudeo/Christian" once I realized it chaps your atheist ass so bad when its said the way my AP style manual suggests.

Did you take a course in being passive-aggressive or something?

My atheism has nothing to do with being annoyed by that. It's that I don't like seeing Jews used to shield Christian fundamentalists who want to increase the amount of religion in politics.

Why on earth did you think it had anything to do with atheism?

296 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:33:16pm

re: #249 Obdicut

Why did you work so hard to dodge that line of questioning, then?

i suspect i've answered this in subsequent posts. if you don't find an answer you like or can understand, i'll be happy to explain it again to you.

297 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:34:39pm

re: #253 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

not arguing with that, really.

298 freetoken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:34:52pm

re: #26 Gepetto

"asked of Christians only" and only in comparison to 4 Western European countries. Whats the point? nationalism is Stronger in those 4 countries than here? We're more comfortable with expressing our freedom of worship? Why leave off Italy or Turkey or Poland?

If you read the fine print in the Pew survey, you' discover they sample more countries on this, only less frequently. This report just pulls out those countries from the Spring '11 survey, and those countries which historically are the "West" with close relationships.

299 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:37:39pm

re: #296 Gepetto

i suspect i've answered this in subsequent posts

Well, you're wrong again. You haven't provided any comprehensible reason why you, out of the blue, started asking people if they had a problem with Christianity in particular as involved in religion, for example. It's a weird question; why on earth would you think someone who was against religious involvement in politics would single out one religion more than another-- other than that religion having actual more presence in the politics of their country?

300 freetoken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:39:23pm

re: #66 Gepetto

is italy? and why be so selective as to poll christians only and only in those specific countries?

Pew polled more than Christians in the whole survey. The graphs I posted were selections of the data to look at trends in that self-identified demographic.

301 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:39:30pm

re: #296 Gepetto

I'm against all religion in all politics.
BTW, I'm a scawy afeist!
Strawman meet fire.

302 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:41:35pm

re: #254 Obdicut

Why on earth would you think that was the reason for downdinging, rather than your passive-aggressive jackassery?

I thought down-dinging meant one disagreed with a statement. Since you have spun it into some kind of complex and nuanced judgement- and- insult system I will yield to your adherence to it. I understand it is very important to you.

303 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:42:46pm

re: #302 Gepetto

I thought down-dinging meant one disagreed with a statement. Since you have spun it into some kind of complex and nuanced judgement- and- insult system I will yield to your adherence to it. I understand it is very important to you.

Whining about downdings = more downdings.

304 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:48:20pm

“The principle of democracy is a recognition of the sovereign, inalienable rights of man as a gift from God, the Source of law.”
― Fulton J. Sheen

305 labman57  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:48:50pm

By embracing the political and social ideologies being promoted by tea partiers and religious zealots, the U.S. will slowly evolve into that which we have sacrificed countless lives opposing -- a militant, gun-toting nation with an agenda driven by religious extremists who cherish freedom of thought only so long as it does not conflict with their own ideas.
Sound familiar? We risk becoming the enemy.

Ever since the 1960's, the GOP consistently has been, and will always be, the party of exclusion and intolerance, the party that attempts to diminish those who look different than themselves, pray to a different deity, or follow a different lifestyle. They are the party that uses fear and hatred as a weapon to intimidate any who do not share their points of view.
The GOP offers 20th century solutions to 21st century problems.

306 Varek Raith  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:50:13pm

re: #304 Beltboy

“The principle of democracy is a recognition of the sovereign, inalienable rights of man as a gift from God, the Source of law.”
― Fulton J. Sheen

Prove it.

307 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:54:00pm

re: #306 Varek Raith

The signers of the Declaration of Independence had all the proof they needed.

Our inalienable rights come from The Creator.

308 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:57:56pm

re: #307 Beltboy

The signers of the Declaration of Independence had all the proof they needed.

Our inalienable rights come from The Creator.

Which is why the word "Creator" appears nowhere in the Constitution, yes? Same thing with "God," "Jesus," "Bible," or any other term having to do with the Christian faith?

309 freetoken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 1:59:39pm

The objectors here appear to be totally ignoring the facts on the ground:

1) the debate yesterday was hosted by, and the GOP candidates played to, a group of people who successfully removed from office two IA supreme court justices who were faithfully executing their duty and rendered an opinion (with the majority of the court) that outside legal experts deem as accurate. So why did this happen? Simply because the accurate interpretation of the Iowa constitution allowed homosexual couples to get married. So the host group of the debate decided that was against God's law, and organized a recall campaign.

2) In the GOP discussion there is serious discussion of removing not only judges but entire courts. The reason? Because those courts are making rulings that run afoul of the claimed "Judeo-Christian" values these religious groups espouse.

This is reality - an actual movement that has some success and wants a whole lot more. It really is "theocracy" in as much as Iran is a theocratic nation. The difference between Iran and the US is that these two nations are starting from significantly different cultural positions. The US inherited the Common Law tradition from England, flavored with the Enlightenment movement coming from France. Culturally we've started much farther from being ruled by an oligarchy of religious teachers, where-as Iran has never truly had a long tradition of representative government.

However, the enforcement of religious laws as the laws of the land is the common theme underlying all theocracies.

And that is what the GOP we saw on Saturday, Nov. 19th want.

Also being ignored are the numerous laws coming out of state legislatures that are forcing intrusive medical procedures on women intended only to discourage them from getting an abortion.

310 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:00:32pm

re: #283 Obdicut

What do you think of all the recent laws restricting abortion? How does that fit in with your theory?

Laws based on religious beliefs, other than in a historical context, don't have a place in modern society. if its a God-says-so attempt at justifying a law, it should not be pursued. I do think science and logic will eventually bring us to a clearer resolution here.

311 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:04:08pm

re: #284 HappyWarrior

Or these candidates who want to bring back DADT and ban gay marriage everywhere.

already replied. I don't like the current group as a whole. My conservatism does not really revolve around social issues. My opinions on social issues are not something I feel the need to impose on everyone.

312 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:05:20pm

re: #308 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

You might want to take a second look at the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What rights? Given by the state? Then the state could take them away. This amendment is talking about rights given to us by God and if God gave us these rights then NOBODY can take them away!

313 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:06:45pm

re: #289 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Spoken like a naive person who has never been a target of Christian theocratic aims.

you don't know me. I'm always amazed to see how you combine bigotry and prejudice in such a streamlined package.

314 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:07:01pm

re: #310 Gepetto

Laws based on religious beliefs, other than in a historical context, don't have a place in modern society. if its a God-says-so attempt at justifying a law, it should not be pursued. I do think science and logic will eventually bring us to a clearer resolution here.

So how do you explain that in the context of your theory that the 'pendulum' is swinging the other way?

315 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:07:12pm

re: #312 Beltboy

You might want to take a second look at the 9th Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What rights? Given by the state? Then the state could take them away. This amendment is talking about rights given to us by God and if God gave us these rights then NOBODY can take them away!

Which is why the Constitution has the word "God" nowhere in it, right?

316 MittDoesNotCompute  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:07:45pm

re: #281 Gepetto

One of the main reasons that the US Constitution (and more specifically, the Bill of Rights) is the way it is is to minimize "the tyranny of the majority". Sometimes, it has taken time to realize this (slavery, womens' and civil rights), but more often than not, our government works as advertised.

It is and should be a government of the people, by the people, and for the people...all people, no matter what religion, what color, what gender you are. The RWNJs are a most credible threat to that and the facts bear that out.

re: #307 Beltboy

The signers of the Declaration of Independence had all the proof they needed.

Our inalienable rights come from The Creator.

The Declaration of Independence ≠ the Constitution and Bill of Rights

Nice try, but FAIL.

317 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:17:00pm

re: #314 Obdicut

So how do you explain that in the context of your theory that the 'pendulum' is swinging the other way?

easy. many of the recent attempts to use religious basis for laws are being rejected. many of the old religious based laws are being ignored or reconsidered. this does not preclude attempts to pass such laws, or even the passage of such laws in a free society.

318 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:19:21pm

re: #315 Targetpractice, Worst of Both Worlds

The constitution doesn't need the word "God" written in it per se.
The First Amendment clearly states Freedom of Religion (not FROM).
Besides, the whole Constitution is unenforceable if it's just a "G-- Damn piece of paper".
It can easily be argued that love of God and love a neighbor makes a better citizen and is something that should be heralded. Not feared.

319 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:23:02pm

re: #295 Obdicut

for an atheist, you take a lot of umbrage on behalf of Jewish people. Its a term in current use.

320 Targetpractice  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:30:53pm

re: #318 Beltboy

The constitution doesn't need the word "God" written in it per se.

It certainly does when your argument is that our rights come exclusively from God, rather than from "the state."

The First Amendment clearly states Freedom of Religion (not FROM).

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Besides, the whole Constitution is unenforceable if it's just a "G-- Damn piece of paper".

The Constitution is a social contract, one that we enter into as citizens of this nation. It is not the stamping into law of religious values or beliefs.

It can easily be argued that love of God and love a neighbor makes a better citizen and is something that should be heralded. Not feared.

No, what is feared is when "love thy neighbor" takes a backseat to "God's will," whether it be to hate gays, hate women's rights, hate minorities or so forth.

321 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:30:58pm

re: #290 Obdicut

Enlightenment values and philosophy. And learn how to use the quote button.

Gonna pull an Obdicut on this one. Cite your sources. the foundations I'm talking about existed long before the Enlightenment or what most people consider to be the birth of philosophical thinking. I'm sure you have a brilliant Obdi-world redefinition of your terms, but I'd prefer something closer to the Common Realm.

Actually, don't bother. I don't really care at this point.

and, complaining about quote buttons? Really? thats right up there with attacking spelling and grammar to bolster your argument.

322 Kronocide  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 2:48:28pm

re: #318 Beltboy

The First Amendment clearly states Freedom of Religion (not FROM).

Yes, we are free to choose Protestant, Lutheran, Catholic, Evangelical...
right?

Better not choose Muslim, or worse, None of The Above.

323 CuriousLurker  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:34:04pm

re: #63 Charles

"A few thousand fundamentalist Christians?"

What are you talking about? James Dobson's far right fundamentalist radio show has an audience of 220 MILLION people.

You're just making up numbers.

Someone always tries to deflect with:

But TEH EVIL MOOSLIMS, so shut up!!11!

324 CuriousLurker  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:34:27pm

Great job, freetoken. Congrats!

325 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:42:28pm

re: #321 Gepetto

Gonna pull an Obdicut on this one. Cite your sources. the foundations I'm talking about existed long before the Enlightenment or what most people consider to be the birth of philosophical thinking.

Okay, then you're not talking about the law as it exists in the US, so who cares?

If you don't know that the law in the US came from enlightenment thinking, that the creators of the Constitution were very much men of the Enlightenment, I can't do much to help you except to tell you to read up on the subject.

This is a good place to start: [Link: www.amazon.com...]

and, complaining about quote buttons? Really? thats right up there with attacking spelling and grammar to bolster your argument.

I was asking you to display the courtesy of making your argument easy to read.

for an atheist, you take a lot of umbrage on behalf of Jewish people. Its a term in current use.

I am Jewish.

easy. many of the recent attempts to use religious basis for laws are being rejected

I'm glad you're acknowledging that they're going on. For some reason, that eventually the courts are striking some-- but not all-- of them down, is a 'pendulum swing' to you. Weird.

. many of the old religious based laws are being ignored or reconsidered.

A few are, like DADT, with harsh opposition from the GOP.

this does not preclude attempts to pass such laws, or even the passage of such laws in a free society.

Which is my point. There's a large percentage of the population passing such laws. Your contention that the pendulum has swung the other way is without merit.

326 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:46:49pm

re: #324 CuriousLurker

Before you congratulate Free Token it should be pointed out that marriage isn't just some "fad". The only reason why we would ever celebrate "two people" devoting themselves to each other because it's a scientific fact that only a man and a woman can create a child. It isn't a civil rights issue.
And while you're on the subject. Life begins at conception. It doesn't depend on what side of the vagina you are on.
The judges were voted out (which believe it or not, scares me too) because they ignored simple truth.

327 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:50:22pm

re: #326 Beltboy

A gay couple can adopt a child. And people can get married without any intention to have children. SO what's your point?

328 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:53:20pm

re: #327 Obdicut

A gay couple can adopt. Doesn't mean it's in the natural order.
We still respect the potential power that the man and woman have to create a child.

329 wrenchwench  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:53:43pm

re: #326 Beltboy

Before you congratulate Free Token it should be pointed out that marriage isn't just some "fad". The only reason why we would ever celebrate "two people" devoting themselves to each other because it's a scientific fact that only a man and a woman can create a child. It isn't a civil rights issue.
And while you're on the subject. Life begins at conception. It doesn't depend on what side of the vagina you are on.
The judges were voted out (which believe it or not, scares me too) because they ignored simple truth.

Hey little Beltboy. There you are being a moron again. Should old people, who also cannot create a child, be not allowed to marry?

Also, should every period become a crime scene? Did you know that 30 to 50% of fertilized eggs never implant in the womb, and exit through the vagina as part of a period?

330 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:55:10pm

re: #328 Beltboy

A gay couple can adopt. Doesn't mean it's in the natural order.
We still respect the potential power that the man and woman have to create a child.

What do you mean by 'we', and 'respect'. It's true, but what respect does it need or deserve?

I respect the hell out of a couple who adopts a kid. Don't you?

331 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:56:30pm

re: #329 wrenchwench

Who's being the moron??
A period is not a fertilized egg.
And a fertilized egg that is improperly not placed in the womb is NOT murder.
Which is the intentional destruction of innocent human life.

332 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:57:31pm

re: #331 Beltboy

Many periods are actually, fertilized eggs. Do you not know that? That a large number of fertilized eggs never implant?

333 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 3:58:28pm

re: #332 Obdicut

It still isn't murder.

334 wrenchwench  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:02:02pm

re: #331 Beltboy

Who's being the moron??
A period is not a fertilized egg.
And a fertilized egg that is improperly not placed in the womb is NOT murder.
Which is the intentional destruction of innocent human life.

You are.

A period often contains a fertilized egg, which you said is "life". Shouldn't that period be investigated, to see whether it was "induced"?

A fertilized egg that does not implant is not "improperly placed". It just drifted down the Fallopian tube like they all do. Except the ones that implant in the Fallopian tube, where it can never become a baby, because it will kill its mother first.

335 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:04:18pm

re: #333 Beltboy

It still isn't murder.

Nobody is saying it is.

How do you feel about a gay couple who adopt a child? Doesn't doing that deserve respect?

336 CuriousLurker  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:06:01pm

re: #326 Beltboy

Before you congratulate Free Token it should be pointed out that marriage isn't just some "fad". The only reason why we would ever celebrate "two people" devoting themselves to each other because it's a scientific fact that only a man and a woman can create a child. It isn't a civil rights issue.
And while you're on the subject. Life begins at conception. It doesn't depend on what side of the vagina you are on.
The judges were voted out (which believe it or not, scares me too) because they ignored simple truth.

Well, since you've already launched into a monologue indicating that your truth is The Truth™ with regard to the definition of marriage & when life begins, AND you feel comfortable dictating what I should & shouldn't think as well as who I should congratulate, then there's no conversation to be had. IOW, piss off—we're done here.

337 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:13:39pm

re: #336 CuriousLurker

You can't properly rebut me. So done we are!

338 wrenchwench  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:14:44pm

Bye Beltboy. I'm going to walk home before it gets too [f-bomb] dark. See you next time!

339 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:14:58pm

re: #335 Obdicut

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"parent #1 and parent #2" is NOT the natural order.

340 jaunte  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:17:40pm

re: #339 Beltboy

The natural order must be for most good religious people to leave adoptable children (that aren't perfectly healthy infants of the right color) in the foster care system, because that's what's happening.

341 HappyWarrior  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:18:12pm

re: #339 Beltboy

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"parent #1 and parent #2" is NOT the natural order.

So, should we not allow sperm donations to couples who can't conceive naturally or not allow in vitro fertilization? After all it's not the "natural order."

342 HappyWarrior  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:22:15pm

Oh and about marriage, in the past it was about as much about family business relationships if not more than romantic love. Your church should be free to choose not to marry gay couples but there's no reason why secular law should be forced to operate because of religious beliefs about homosexuality and furthermore what does one say to place of worship that wants to bless a same sex marriage.

343 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:22:24pm

re: #341 HappyWarrior

Man and woman become husband and wife to become mother and father.
The roles are gender specific.

As for in vitro fertilization-- you are absolutely right. It is not in the natural order. Fertilized eggs are poured down the drain in the process and a consumer element is brought into the selection of the child.

344 CuriousLurker  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:31:12pm

re: #337 Beltboy

You can't properly rebut me. So done we are!

Wow, such keen insight! How did you know?? You nailed it—I'm intimidated by your obviously towering intellect and encyclopedic knowledge of the issues, not to mention your razor sharp wit, so I'll just curl up over here in the corner and and cower quietly in the face of your might.

345 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:32:36pm

re: #339 Beltboy

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"parent #1 and parent #2" is NOT the natural order.

Ah jesus, you asshole. You can't even respect a gay couple with the heart to adopt a child.

Forget you.

346 HappyWarrior  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 4:33:34pm

re: #343 Beltboy

Man and woman become husband and wife to become mother and father.
The roles are gender specific.

As for in vitro fertilization-- you are absolutely right. It is not in the natural order. Fertilized eggs are poured down the drain in the process and a consumer element is brought into the selection of the child.

Man and woman marry to become mother and father? That'll shock the 84 year old and 91 year old couple I saw that married the other day on the news so in your twisted world they're not legitimately married. Marrying to raise kids is one of the many reasons people marry but it's not the sole reason. And why is sperm donation okay but in vitro isn't? Sperm donation isn't "natural" since naturally reproduction happens when a man and woman have sex and his sperm fertilizes her eggs. Why do you give a shit about gay people marrying also anyhow or adopting kids? If you're so worried about protecting marriage. You should be concerned about people who divorce quickly not long term gay couples finally getting their relationship formalized by the state.

347 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 5:46:27pm

re: #325 Obdicut

Okay, then you're not talking about the law as it exists in the US, so who cares?

If you don't know that the law in the US came from enlightenment thinking, that the creators of the Constitution were very much men of the Enlightenment, I can't do much to help you except to tell you to read up on the subject.

not necessary. I was addressing the evolution of law from ancient systems. Jewish law, hamurabic codes, druidical law, ten commandments etc. US Law coming out of the Enlightenment is not in dispute.

This is a good place to start: [Link: www.amazon.com...]

I was asking you to display the courtesy of making your argument easy to read.

I am Jewish.

by which you must mean you are an atheist son of a Jewish mother. my father was a christian son of a Jewish mother. no snark, real question: is it proper to refer to my father as Jewish?

I'm glad you're acknowledging that they're going on. For some reason, that eventually the courts are striking some-- but not all-- of them down, is a 'pendulum swing' to you. Weird.

A few are, like DADT, with harsh opposition from the GOP.

Which is my point. There's a large percentage of the population passing such laws. Your contention that the pendulum has swung the other way is without merit.

If we start from the assertion that the body of laws governing the US grew from Philosophy and the Enlightenment, then obviously the preponderance of laws are not the result of fundamentalist theocrats. What few exist are not generally well supported or enforced. DADT is a good example of that condition. Many recent attempts of god-says-so laws have been voted down. The times are changing, and its not toward christian theocracy, despite the candidates forum.

348 freetoken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 6:01:15pm

re: #326 Beltboy

The judges were voted out (which believe it or not, scares me too) because they ignored simple truth.

The IA supreme court judges were recalled by organized hatred.

349 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 6:21:24pm

re: #347 Gepetto

US Law coming out of the Enlightenment is not in dispute.

Great. Glad you agree the underpinnings or our law don't come from religion. Thank you for admitting that.

No clue why that took so long.

by which you must mean you are an atheist son of a Jewish mother

I mean I'm ethnically Jewish.

my father was a christian son of a Jewish mother. no snark, real question: is it proper to refer to my father as Jewish?

According to who? Did he identify as Jewish?

What few exist are not generally well supported or enforced. DADT is a good example of that condition. Many recent attempts of god-says-so laws have been voted down. The times are changing, and its not toward christian theocracy, despite the candidates forum.

Many recent attempts have not been voted down. Some have been struck down in the courts. You're simply ignorant, I guess, of how many restrictions on abortion got passed in the last couple years.

[Link: nebraska.statepaper.com...]

[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

[Link: blog.al.com...]

350 Beltboy  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 6:35:46pm

re: #348 freetoken

So when Bill Clinton passed DADT he did it out of hatred??

351 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 6:40:50pm

re: #350 Beltboy

So when Bill Clinton passed DADT he did it out of hatred??

DADT was an improvement, or an attempt on improvement, on what came before: active investigation as to the sexual orientation of servicemembers.

It didn't work out that way, so it's a good thing that it's getting shut down and gays can serve openly now.

Don't you agree?

352 freetoken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 6:42:27pm

re: #350 Beltboy

So when Bill Clinton passed DADT he did it out of hatred??

That was simple political expediency, something at which WJC was quite good.

However, some of the supporters of DADT that were needling him... yes, they are/were driven by hatred, which itself is probably based on some very deep fears.

353 freetoken  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 6:44:51pm

re: #352 freetoken

However, some of the supporters of DADT that were needling him... yes, they are/were driven by hatred, which itself is probably based on some very deep fears.

Let me amend that. Obdicut reminds me that the DADT was very complicated indeed. Some saw it as a compromise towards progress someday, while others were trying to draw a line in the sand. Very complex American politics, especially gets played out in the Senate.

354 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 6:48:37pm

re: #353 freetoken

For it to have worked fairly and well would have taken an actual move forwards in the attitude of those enforcing it, which, sadly, didn't happen. Investigations continued, even though they weren't supposed to.

355 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 6:52:34pm

re: #349 Obdicut

Great. Glad you agree the underpinnings or our law don't come from religion. Thank you for admitting that.

No clue why that took so long.

I mean I'm ethnically Jewish.

According to who? Did he identify as Jewish?

Many recent attempts have not been voted down. Some have been struck down in the courts. You're simply ignorant, I guess, of how many restrictions on abortion got passed in the last couple years.

[Link: nebraska.statepaper.com...]

[Link: thinkprogress.org...]

[Link: blog.al.com...]

so this is all you bring? why do you see these few instances as evidence we're hurtling towards a christian theocracy? they're abberations, not a trend. these add up to a small percentage of legislation in contrast to a huge body of Enlightened Law.

356 Obdicut  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 6:54:14pm

re: #355 Gepetto

why do you see these few instances as evidence we're hurtling towards a christian theocracy?

I haven't claimed we are, idiot. Why do you keep setting up strawmen?

357 Gepetto  Sun, Nov 20, 2011 7:34:23pm

re: #356 Obdicut

I haven't claimed we are, idiot. Why do you keep setting up strawmen?

now its down to name calling, nice technique.

358 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Nov 21, 2011 1:57:22am

re: #243 Sergey Romanov

It cannot be, since Marxism is not a religion and there are no priests, no matter how one might demagogically stretch definitions of both to make such a case.

There are fair points in painting Marxism as a political religion, especially "scientific Marxism". There are fair points in painting the professional revolutionaries of the vanguard parties as priests. The demagogic stretch is hardly more than in casting buddhism as a theistic religion.

There either are specifically religious (i.e. non-secular) elements in the law or there aren't. If there are and they're significant (not just some minor parts, holdovers from the past), yes, they are also sufficient to talk about a theocracy.

Sure, we can talk about buddhocracy. But degree matters, of course. Is the US a theocracy because of "in God we trust" and "one nation under God"? Hardly.

Well, yes, actually it is the same, because the terms are used and are clear, despite etymologies.

Well, no, for reasons I already explained and you keep ignoring.

I don't think it does, because not Buddhism is the focus, but the form of government.

But the form of the religion is directly influencing the form of the government. So why would the form of religion not matter?

See, this is really the crux of the matter: Atheists reject religion, but that often is the result of or results in atheists not caring about religion. I get that, but it really makes talk about these issues between "sides" difficult, because a lot of atheists often don't know what they're talking about, and they don't care to know what they're talking about. They confuse religious talk with talk about religion. They think all religions are the same, but then make the mistake of identifying that essential nature of religion with what little they know of the one major religion they have been exposed to in their lifes (usually some monotheism, when talking to Westerners). And then they pretend that there is nothing more to know than what they have already convinced themselves of and dismiss all attempts at making the discussion more profound when it would inevitably lead to learning more about some religion that doesn't fit into their cookie-cutter template of religion.

Religion is a human endeavour. You have to really know about and understand the human actions and thoughts behind it. Just brushing everything off with "superstition" is not helpful, it is as intellectually mature as dismissing modern art by saying "my two-year old son could have painted that!"

359 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Nov 21, 2011 2:06:18am

re: #339 Beltboy

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
"parent #1 and parent #2" is NOT the natural order.

The "natural order" is to sleep in caves and eventually get killed by beasts or die because of some disease easily preventable ot treatable by modern science. I suggest you do that, natural man.

360 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Mon, Nov 21, 2011 2:11:37am

re: #251 Gepetto

sure, lots of attempts made, some successful, on individual legislation. but those attempts, successful or not, do not make our system a theocracy.

I don't think anyone here has called the United States of America a theocracy. The USA is a secular state. But it is a simple matter of fact that especially at the local level (sometimes even higher up), the secular character has at times been subverted in favor of a Christian theocracy. For there to be a Christian theocracy, it doesn't have to be on the federal level.

361 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 21, 2011 2:29:14am

re: #357 Gepetto

now its down to name calling, nice technique.

And you dodge the question.

Like I said, transparent.

362 mustardflower  Mon, Nov 21, 2011 4:34:36am

I'm writing from Italy. Religion is probably more entangled with politics over here than the USA. Over here every public office has a crucifix and some places, like airports, even have chapels inside them.
The right wing is definitely further right here too. Most far right supporters openly declare themselves fascist and are openly racist towards blacks and gypsies.
However the same thing can be said about the left wing. Our president here is an open Stalinist.

363 wrenchwench  Mon, Nov 21, 2011 8:19:21am

re: #362 mustardflower

Welcome, hatchling.

364 Obdicut  Mon, Nov 21, 2011 10:11:59am

re: #362 mustardflower

He's a former Stalinist.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ...
Cheechako
Yesterday
Views: 77 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ...
Cheechako
5 days ago
Views: 178 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 1