Sites pertaining to American Theocracy.

[BlueStreak]

Here are a couple of my favorite sites pertaining to an aspect of the topic of this forum.

Just in case anyone is interested.

http://theocracywatch.org/

http://www.au.org/

Yes, that's right. I believe the "wall of separation" was meant just as it implies, "high and impenetrable". And I believe there are people rising up in the ranks of the GOP who are deluded and potentially dangerous lunatics who must be brought to heel. (Through non-violent measures, of course.)

This is just my personal opinion.

Enjoy,
Dave

[flacaltenn]

Only neurotic paranoid partisians could take a beautiful Bible verse and turn it into something this sinister...

This highly politicized concept of dominionism is based on the Bible's text in Genesis 1:26:

"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." (King James Version).

"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'" (New International Version).


The vast majority of Christians read this text and conclude that God has appointed them stewards and caretakers of Earth. As Sara Diamond explains, however, some Christian read the text and believe, "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns." That, in a nutshell, is the idea of "dominionism."


Seize the DMV -- dominant the National Parks.. GOD commanded it.. Besides Dave -- That Genesis Bible verse belongs to Christians, Jews and even Moslems. With Christians irrefutably being the Late-Comers!!! How can anyone academically credentialed interpret that as "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated"???

I don't get the threat Dave.. If the world is gonna end in an atomic cataclysmic event, I don't need the secularists or the radical Christians to tell me that it's gonna start in the Middle East..

[BlueStreak]

Only neurotic paranoid partisians could take a beautiful Bible verse and turn it into something this sinister...



Seize the DMV -- dominant the National Parks.. GOD commanded it.. Besides Dave -- That Genesis Bible verse belongs to Christians, Jews and even Moslems. With Christians irrefutably being the Late-Comers!!! How can anyone academically credentialed interpret that as "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated"???

I don't get the threat Dave.. If the world is gonna end in an atomic cataclysmic event, I don't need the secularists or the radical Christians to tell me that it's gonna start in the Middle East..

Being anti-Theocracy is not to be anti-Judeo-Christian, Muslim or even Atheist for that matter. It is to be opposed to allowing anyone, including Atheists to use political office to advance any spiritual or religious agenda.

If you had checked out the AU site, you would have discovered that that organization is run by Clergy who fear that mixing religion and politics corrupts the Church and Deifies politicians. It's membership runs the gamut of the religious spectrum.

They just simply don't want religious figures acquiring and using the muscle of government to "save" people and "help" individuals "choose" their personal spiritual path.

I would think the spirit of this would appeal to the Libertarian mind.:)

Does that explanation help?

Dave

[flacaltenn]

It helps a little. What matters is the STAND on issues. Not neccessarily how you arrive at that conviction.. Don't need to be far religious to be Pro-life or even against gays obsconding with the term marraige. Plenty of Dems in Congress have those views.

I have a belief that if an organization OF ANY TYPE can be abused or attacked by Govt, that they ought to be able to defend themselves and their views in the political realm.

That applies to unions, corporations, religious institutions, minorities of any type..

[BlueStreak]

I can see that. However, I would go on to say that none of those organizations should be permitted to force their views on anyone either. Kind of my Ying to your Yang. It completes the circle..........If you catch my drift.

Dave

[merrylander]

I am sitting here trying to recall an instance of the government attacking any religious organization.

[piece-itpete]

When a local city was redoing a park, they sold brick for donations, you could have them written on.

You could not mention God. Freedom of speech? Wait till the hate crime laws really kick in.

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Yes, Pete, sometimes things do go a bit too far. A city ordering homeowners to remove a cross or a Nativity scene from their yard at Christmastime is bogus. I can see that too. Where is the harm?

But, when (ostensibly) non-profit religious institutions start making political donations, making political speech from the pulpit, endorsing candidates who wave around their religious credentials and refer to America as a "(Insert name of specific religion here) Nation",---------To my mind a line is being crossed. One that I believe the First Amendment was written for, (part of it anyhow). Especially considering these institutions operate tax free.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

And how can one say they 'own' a piece of property if they have no control over it?

Your second part sounds a lot like the wall is being breached, by the state :p

Pete

[flacaltenn]

I am sitting here trying to recall an instance of the government attacking any religious organization.

Does Mount Carmel ring a bell? Does the attack on the Boy Scouts of America by cities (denying them access to public facilities because of faith-based elements of their program) ring a bell? C'mon man..

[BlueStreak]

Yeah, okay. Christians are being "persecuted". Throw them in the arena and loose the lions. Whatever. Maybe their religion is declining due to obsolescence or a lack of interest? "Market Forces", if you will? Have you ever noticed that when people come to this country from say, Iran, the first thing that happens is that generally religion becomes somewhat less important to them? It's because many of them have come here to escape the tyranny of overbearing religion that has acquired the power of state endorsement. But, now we have a bunch of morons running around calling "Christian Nation" and voting for people whom they believe will advance their "Christian Values" but, that America could never become a Theocracy because Christianity is somehow "Different". It's only different here in America because of these words--"The Government shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion." Hello. Thank you, Thomas Jefferson. "His Christian Majesty King George" and Great Britain were Christian too. There was no such separation under that government at the time and prior. How'd that work out?

Anyone up for a Witch Hunt?:p

I know it's hard for you guys to understand, but the only reason we have religious freedom in this country, is because we keep it in it's place....a personal choice. How can you understand this when it comes to so many other topics, but not with this one?

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Yes, but singling out religious entities to be prevented from practicing their right of free speech?

Why should, say, the ACLU or the NRA be treated differently than the Catholic Church? Because one is a Christian they can't vote their conscience?

Pete

[flacaltenn]

BlueStreak::

I think you've found the justification for a number of things here..

Maybe their religion is declining due to obsolescence or a lack of interest? "Market Forces", if you will?

Substitute "Unions" for "religion" in that statement and you got my opinion also.. ;)

I don't buy the "christian nation" part of it. But it was clearly a non-secular founding in the creation of the states. And a belief that man's law was subservient to "natural law"..Good solid LIBERAL ideas like the sovereignty of individuals guaranteed by powers higher than paperwork. Thus the "God" references on Fed buildings and currency that just itch your hide..

I'll fight to keep it secular -- but not to point of cutting that tie-back to "natural law".

Look man.. I moved to the very BUCKLE of the Bible Belt. I'm no bible-thumping, wine sucking churchmouse.. And I moved from the vast emptiness of crystal worshippers and tree-huggers in the Socialist state of California. Notice the Diff? Yeah. Folks are more disciplined in their personal lives. They are not physical or psychological slobs. Have they burned crosses on my lawn? Piled Bibles on my porch? Tried to get into my kids head? No.. Not at all. We chat about it like adults. I show interest in their summer bible schools, and work programs with the poor. We chat about our "mixed marraige". My daughter who I raised as a non-affiliated believer in natural law -- is constantly invited to join in youth group activities. And indeed many of the humongeous churches have the most beautiful teenage coffeehouses and entertainment that you've ever seen. I'm DELIGHTED that she participates.

Politically -- It's a hell of an improvement over California. Much less stress on me personally. And I'll oppose them when they're wrong without any fear of being rejected or social outcasting.

The only major conflicts you really got indicating ANY threat of Theocracy (from Christians at any rate) are Abortion and Gay Rights. There are minor skirmishes about "faith based funding" but those are largely non-partisian. If I'm wrong on this let me know. All of that needs to handled rationally and consistently. Both sides are gonna have to moderate to get to rational and consistent..

But, now we have a bunch of morons running around calling "Christian Nation" and voting for people whom they believe will advance their "Christian Values" but, that America could never become a Theocracy because Christianity is somehow "Different". It's only different here in America because of these words--"The Government shall pass no law regarding an establishment of religion."

Besides the 1st amendment, there is ANOTHER important protection against Theocracy that you should consider... Article VI.3


The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

That is just as important (to me anyway). Because BOTH sides need to ponder this one seriously. Not only does pre-empt a Theocracy, it also disallows that religious affilation should ever be a consideration for office..

[BlueStreak]

BlueStreak::

Substitute "Unions" for "religion" in that statement and you got my opinion also.. ;) Sad, but true.

I have lived in the "Bible Belt", too, Man. Since 1986. The reason neither of us has experienced any trouble for not being as devout as some of these people is because the Constitution stands between us and them. One thing I'll give them is they do seem to respect that......so far. But, give them a government that lends its influence to help as they "Prosletize" and "Spread the Word" and watch what happens. "Onward Christian Soldiers, Marching as to War!", Bud. Anyone whose beliefs don't affirm theirs will pay the price. You can bet on it.

Besides the 1st amendment, there is ANOTHER important protection against Theocracy that you should consider... Article VI.3

Do you really think I hadn't considered that.

That is just as important (to me anyway). Because BOTH sides need to ponder this one seriously. Not only does pre-empt a Theocracy, it also disallows that religious affilation should ever be a consideration for office..
Abso-friggin'-lutely!



Let me share one small story with you;
It won't drive you into my camp, but at least it should give you some insight;

My Mother had seven children, four boys and three girls. I was the youngest. We were raised in Ohio in the 1940s through the 1970s. My mother was a deeply religious woman raised in a religious household, her family was staunchly Republican. She was determined that at least one of her sons was GOING to be a pious man and become a Reverend. This was her dream. By the time I was a small child all of the others had all disappointed her. Sooo.......,

To shorten it up and get to the point............

One fine Sunday morning, she woke me up and commanded me to get up and ready for church. Being about 10-12 years old, I was beginning to fell a little rebellious, and I told her that I didn't "want" to go to church.............

When she finished whipping me with the cord she tore off of lamp on my night stand, she made me sit in church all morning, (With welts from my shoulder blades, down to the backs of my knees.) under the threat that if I had told anyone, or embarrassed her by crying, that there was "...more where THAT came from." It was a very stoic Sunday morning. Too many of them were.

"You're going to accept Jesus Christ if I have to beat him into you!" Thanks, Mom.:(

Don't ever try to tell me that religious folk, even Christians aren't capable of such things again. It won't work. I'll never buy it.

And when I see that smug, glazed over, "We have cornered the truth, and we're gonna help you find it too!" look in the eyes of some smug, obsessed , self righteous jackass like Bachmann, Palin, Santorum, Hannity or Beck et al, as they spew their propaganda.....Oh, yes it does give me the creeps.

Damn right it does.

Always will.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

I've seen evil. I've seen what it masquerades as. Trust me, it tells you you're free to believe as you wish, and then makes your life hell if you dare to do so. It tells you that it's way is the only true way to find God and achieve salvation and that all others are false. Stick whatever name you want on it. It's all the same game.

[merrylander]

I was a methodist (United Church in Canada), Florence was RC, we no longer attend church since it iss our personal opinion that the churches have more interest themselves as organizations than they do in teaching. I have briefly studied other religions and found some interesting thoughts, Frex "That which is unpleasant to you, do not to your neighbor. That is the whole law and the rest but it's exposition" from Rabbi Hillel.

It was fairly late in life when I realized that to love thy neighbour as thyself implicity requires that you love yourself, elso loving others is impossible. I did not learn any of that in any church. Thuogh when I was attending standards meetings or lecturing abroad I would go to evensong - just to hear the organ, the king of instruments.

[flacaltenn]

If you're so "Abso-friggin'-lutely!" about Article VI.3 -- then how's cum the 1st thing I hear from lefties parsing candidates is "how religious they are" or "what are their biblical beliefs"?

No religious test -- means religious beliefs are also "not relevent" to holding office. Protects Bachmann and Atheists as well. (and especially difficult cases like Kennedys and Romneys..) Taking the oath to uphold the Constitution is more important and OUGHT to be enforced after the swearing-in.

But given your personal nightmares -- I can understand. So I'll help you out when I can to make certain that govt power is never usurped for the purpose of "religious abuse" of any kind. I just can't cuddle up to AU because they fall on the wrong side of a lot of important arguments that I have to win. For instance school choice, and the true (unfiltered, uncensored) celebration of multicultural roots..

[BlueStreak]

I was a methodist (United Church in Canada), Florence was RC, we no longer attend church since it iss our personal opinion that the churches have more interest themselves as organizations than they do in teaching. I have briefly studied other religions and found some interesting thoughts, Frex "That which is unpleasant to you, do not to your neighbor. That is the whole law and the rest but it's exposition" from Rabbi Hillel.

It was fairly late in life when I realized that to love thy neighbour as thyself implicity requires that you love yourself, elso loving others is impossible. I did not learn any of that in any church. Thuogh when I was attending standards meetings or lecturing abroad I would go to evensong - just to hear the organ, the king of instruments.

I too was raised Methodist. As you did, I also briefly studied other religions. One thing that struck me were the similarities between the teachings of Christ and those of Bhudda. Obviously there are differences, reincarnation, for example is not accepted in Christianity. But all of the basic daily life type lessons are the same. An excellent book that illustrates this is "Living Bhudda, Living Christ". Google it up. Another is "Bhudda and Jesus as Brothers".

Dave

[BlueStreak]

If you're so "Abso-friggin'-lutely!" about Article VI.3 -- then how's cum the 1st thing I hear from lefties parsing candidates is "how religious they are" or "what are their biblical beliefs"?

I have no idea. Why don't you ask one someday.

No religious test -- means religious beliefs are also "not relevent" to holding office. Protects Bachmann and Atheists as well. (and especially difficult cases like Kennedys and Romneys..) Taking the oath to uphold the Constitution is more important and OUGHT to be enforced after the swearing-in.

Correct. A public office holder can believe in whatever they wish. So long as they never attempt to declare their beliefs a "State Religion".

But given your personal nightmares -- I can understand. So I'll help you out when I can to make certain that govt power is never usurped for the purpose of "religious abuse" of any kind. I just can't cuddle up to AU because they fall on the wrong side of a lot of important arguments that I have to win. For instance school choice, and the true (unfiltered, uncensored) celebration of multicultural roots..

Uh...... Thanks, I guess.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

" it also disallows that religious affilation should ever be a consideration for office."

Official consideration anyway. Although we have finally elected a Islamisict :D

Seriously I can see that being used to disallow anyone who admits to believing in religion from voting. A flexible living document and all.

Rob, agreed that the organ is King of instruments. My (Lutheran) church got a real one when I was 12. The dedication was a religious experience, the church filled to overflowing, the sound of the organ floating on top of the singing....

But then, when the youth group was getting a tour of it (all three 'stories') the organist used Bachs t&f in D minor and the Pastor yelled at her saying it wasn't a toy :rolleyes:

Pete

[BlueStreak]

" it also disallows that religious affilation should ever be a consideration for office."

Official consideration anyway. Although we have finally elected a Islamisict :D

Seriously I can see that being used to disallow anyone who admits to believing in religion from voting. A flexible living document and all.



And that should never be allowed to come to pass. Religious folk should never have their voting rights stripped. Nor should the illiterate or those between 18 and 21 years of age...............................:rolleyes:

Dave

[piece-itpete]

I think only green haired people with black eyebrows and pierced ears should be able to vote :)

Pete

[BlueStreak]

I think only green haired people with black eyebrows and pierced ears should be able to vote :)

Pete

Is that you? Pet, please tell me you're not wearing silk panties, stiletto heels and a spiked dog collar.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

Busted!

:D

Pete

[d-ray657]

Is that you? Pet, please tell me you're not wearing silk panties, stiletto heels and a spiked dog collar.

Dave

Freudian slip? :eek:

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

ROTFLMAO!!!

Pet

[BlueStreak]

Yeah, Pete is my "Pet". The secret is out, Buddy. No go fetch my slippers.....Bi**h.

Dave

[piece-itpete]

LOL!

And all that for 2 packs of cigarettes.

Pete

[Charles]

LOL!

And all that for 2 packs of cigarettes.

Pete

TWO packs of smokos, you're kind of high dollar!!!

The conventional wisdom at MSP was you could have someone murdered for only a pack.

Perhaps a fetish costs more, if i were still there I'd query "Mona". You probably won't want to ask.

You don't probably want to ask about "Sweet Tooth" either. Just some of the life and 50 crowd at the local big house who had grown accustomed to the term of "Situational Homosexual"

Except for "Mona". "It" took that to a whole new level.

BTW, you don't walk around with your pants unsnapped, do you???

Chas

[piece-itpete]

No, but these boobs tattooed on my back are a little over the top :eek:

'Situational homosexual' LMAO!! 'It's ain't gay if you're the one doing the fing' lol!

Pete

[Charles]

No, but these boobs tattooed on my back are a little over the top :eek:

'Situational homosexual' LMAO!! 'It's ain't gay if you're the one doing the fing' lol!

Pete

Should have just had a face tattooed on your buttocks.

Chas

[piece-itpete]

:eek: :eek: :eek:

ROTFLMAO!!!

Pete

[finnbow]

Should have just had a face tattooed on your buttocks....

Chas

... and learned to walk backwards.

[Charles]

For what's it's worth, they had the office in the housing units stocked with medicinal supplies, so us screws to administer to the cons without bothering the MA.

We had Old Advertiser in the cloth bag (with a courtesy pak of Old Country Boys), aspirin, Maalox, and KY Jelly.

I ain't making this up.

Chas

[piece-itpete]

What's Old Advertiser?

Pete

[Charles]

What's Old Advertiser?

Pete

Nastiest tobacco in the world. Made by RJR.

Chas