Percentage of Americans who would like America to be a theocracy
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Truly you should get together with Margaret Atwood for lunch so you can share your mutual dystopian vision of the U.S.A.
Who knows perhaps you can pressure Ottawa to put minefields along the border to keep the "horrific Christian contagion" out of Canada. You know those horrible Methodists, Anglican/Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans. . . .
Who knows perhaps you can pressure Ottawa to put minefields along the border to keep the "horrific Christian contagion" out of Canada. You know those horrible Methodists, Anglican/Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans. . . .
More farts. Do you have any facts, reasons, or arguments?Truly you should get together with Margaret Atwood for lunch so you can share your mutual dystopian vision of the U.S.A.
Who knows perhaps you can pressure Ottawa to put minefields along the border to keep the "horrific Christian contagion" out of Canada. You know those horrible Methodists, Anglican/Episcopalians, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans. . . .
Anything?
At all?
I agree that they don't want a clergy calling the shots. They would prefer a constitutional theocracy, one with Christian principles written into the constitution, but otherwise democratic, with nominally secular leaders governing in accordance with biblical law. Americans tend to be fundamentalist Christians which means they prefer a "direct" relationship with God, and would reject any sort of ruling clergy. So an American theocracy would look quite different from an Iranian one, and would still be generally democratic.
Pray tell us Fuji, what is "biblical law" that we can't wear clothing made of two different fabrics, that we can't eat Lobster or Crab?
By the way personally I've known but eight fundamentalist Christians and two of them were Canadians.
By the way personally I've known but eight fundamentalist Christians and two of them were Canadians.
More like this:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:S.520:
The CRA of 2004 and the CRA 2005 were never even reported out of Committee, and have not been reintroduced since.
Further, if this is “biblical law,” in which book of the bible is U.S. Constitutional Interpretation mentioned?
"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."
Once again you demonstrate that you are either an idiot of completely disingenuous and i do not believe you are an idiot. Continuing to repeat these talking points does not make them true. Israel unlike many Arab and other countries does not have a state religion and all religions enjoy religious freedom. Israel was created as the homeland of the Jewish people just as it was contemplated that the remainder of the mandate would the homeland of the Palestinian people. really pretty innocuous other than symbolically which to the people of Israel is very important.
That's right. The dominionists don't currently have enough votes, but that's what they would like to do, the 30% of so of Americans who support that crap. Note that making God the sovereign of the nation is one of the key elements of the definition of theocracy.
I see you are one of those wackos who does not believe in separation of church and state.
for the most part, this whole debate is just a front for the rednecks desire to see a continuation of the discrimination towards homosexuals ( and to a lesser extent hetero sex sins like adultery, but so many of them are guilty, they put that one on a back burner)...it usually comes up regarding gay marriage or gay teachers, etc..........we don't don't see the "christians" protesting wars by proclaiming jesus' ghandi-like treatment of peace, forgiveness and non-violence, do we? And quite hypocritically, we see christians knock muslims for punishing rape victims, when the bible encourages the same thing.
If you wish to throw around labels the correct one is Original Interpretation, there are currently three Supreme Court justices and scads of lesser judges and attorneys who believe in this legal philosophy, which need it be added is confined to discussion of the First Amendment .
Now on the other had "biblical law" seems to be an idea which has little to do with the Bible and a lot to do with certain people finding free expression of Religion particularly Christianity threatening.
Really it seemed to me to start with Fuji's dystopian fears about the U.S.A.
So how widespread is this Christian punishment of rape victims, and how widespead is its praise by other Christians.
Last edited:
No, that should have been obvious.
By the way it may shock you even further to learn that many mainstream denominations are engaged in internal discussion as to whether they should actually marry couples at all rather than bless civil marriages.
There is far more dispute over what St. Paul is really driving at than whether one should wear clothing made of two different fabrics, or eat Lobster or Crab.
I give you two phrases to go Google: Diocese of New Westminster and Diocese of New Hampshire.
I don't think this will ever happen, it's not easy to change the Constitution of the United States, eventually even those who support it are going to have to decide what Branch of Christianity to Select, other than dismissing Roman Catholics it won't be easy to decide.
Then there are other issues, what Bilbe do you use ? futher old or new testament ? once these things sink in it won't go much farther than that.
Then there are other issues, what Bilbe do you use ? futher old or new testament ? once these things sink in it won't go much farther than that.
Which as you know is what that portion of the First Amendment is about - no Federal Established Church.
Now Ontario had an established church for eight decades without seemingly going to Hell although William Lyon Mackenzie disagreed.
