Sites pertaining to American Theocracy.
 

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

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

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..

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

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

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

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

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

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..