Percentage of Americans who would like America to be a theocracy

[fuji]

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.

(Why do I have to repeat these things?)

 

[Aardvark154]

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.

What a lovely set of conflicting ideas:
Clergy aren't calling the shots, hence it is not a theocracy (at least according to the textbook definition).
People want Christian principles in the law, gee and that has only been true in the U.K., the U.S.A. and Canada for how many centuries.
Finally "biblical law," I really love this, you seem to use it more to mean Christian principles than to mean kashrut biblical law.

 

[fuji]

Clergy aren't calling the shots, hence it is not a theocracy (at least according to the textbook definition).

Depends on the textbook. Many include in the definition of theocracy a state in which the administration is secular, but subordinate to religious leaders. We can talk about soft and hard theocracies. In any case once you remove the separation of church and state you ARE talking about building elements of the church into the state. There is no other reason to advocate for the removal of that separation.

People want Christian principles in the law, gee and that has only been true in the U.K., the U.S.A. and Canada for how many centuries.

I would argue that was only because it reflected the population of the day. Our current population now has many Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews as well as Christians and it is now wholly inappropriate to base the law on Christian principles, or to describe either nation as a "Christian" nation. It's unwelcoming to other immigrants.

Unless the intent is to set up America (or Canada) as a homeland for Christian people, the way Israel has been set up as a homeland for the Jews. I don't think, though, that that was ever the intent.

 

[Aardvark154]

In any case once you remove the separation of church and state you ARE talking about building elements of the church into the state. There is no other reason to advocate for the removal of that separation.

How is that going for you since there is no legal separation of Church and State in Canada?

Further you must really be upset about England, Scotland, Sweden, Denmark etc. . . all of which have official state churches.

It is now wholly inappropriate to base the law on Christian principles, or to describe either nation as a "Christian" nation. It's unwelcoming to other immigrants.

The only problem is that all but a tiny proportion of those immigrants have no problem with it at all. Perhaps the infinitesimal fraction who do, really shouldn't be coming here.

Depends on the textbook. Many include in the definition of theocracy a state in which the administration is secular, but subordinate to religious leaders.

It is a pretty wacked "textbook" that attempts to hold that because people in government regularly worship that the government is "subordinate to religious leaders."

 

[fuji]

How is that going for you since there is no legal separation of Church and State in Canada?

Canada's system isn't formalized the way it is in the United States, but we certainly have a strong secular tradition here. Plainly there are some exceptions, such as the near theocratic hold the Catholic Church had in Quebec prior to the quiet revolution there, and the continuing vestiges of that in the form of guaranteed funding for the catholic school system.

The key difference, though, is the political zeitgeist in Canada versus the United States. Here we have far fewer people pushing to have law based on religion.

The only problem is that all but a tiny proportion of those immigrants have no problem with it at all.

Do you have any evidence for this claim? Specifically, that non-Christian immigrants to Canada and the United States prefer to live in a "Christian nation"?

It is a pretty wacked "textbook" that attempts to hold that because people in government regularly worship that the government is "subordinate to religious leaders."

For example, many consider Iran to be a theocratic state, although it has a nominally secular and democratically elected government.

 

[CapitalGuy]

Do you have any evidence for this claim? Specifically, that non-Christian immigrants to Canada and the United States prefer to live in a "Christian nation"?

You don't provide evidence for your claims, so there's no reason for anyone to provide you evidence for theirs. Live by your own rules, or go away.

 

[fuji]

You don't provide evidence for your claims, so there's no reason for anyone to provide you evidence for theirs. Live by your own rules, or go away.

Hello troll. I provided 3 references in post #1 backing up the claims I made. Now man up and admit you lied.

 

[CapitalGuy]

Hello troll. I provided 3 references in post #1 backing up the claims I made. Now man up and admit you lied.

No, you did not. So who's the liar (here's a hint - its fujitroll who is the liar (again)).

 

[fuji]

No, you did not. So who's the liar (here's a hint - its fujitroll who is the liar (again)).

Hello troll. The Toronto school board will happily enroll you in a remedial English course, if you apply. I recommend you take one. After you've done so try re-reading post #1.

 

[train]

Not only that, I'm also right about it.

I suppose there is always a first time. It would be a shame because it's somehow comforting to know fuji is never right.

 

[Asterix]

I suppose there is always a first time. It would be a shame because it's somehow comforting to know fuji is never right.

I wouldn't go that far. Fugi has been right many times. The difference is that he never really admits he is wrong. It is a matter of listening rather then talking. Something fuji is not particularlly good at.