Theocratic United States?

[TheBigDog]

I have seen in a number of threads an assertion such as illustrated below...

The present US Executive administration is troubling to me, in that it appears to be engaging in an effort to redefine the relationship of the branches of government in an opportunistic and unconstitutional way, and move the US toward a theocratic form of government.

I would like to examine this notion in its own thread. Maybe it is a regional thing, but I am simply not seeing this same trend, and would like to learn more about the origins of this notion.

 

I would first like to open the floor to those who believe the notion to be true so I can get an idea as to what lead them to that conclusion.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

[C1ay]

I must say, when Bush was sworn in the second time and Justice Rehnquist amended the Constitutional Oath at the end with the phrase "so help me God", I was offended. Bush has shown a number of religious biases in his own actions and decisions that make me uncomfortable.

[Queso]

That makes you uncomfortable?

 

I too, have beared witness to that mans religious bias

ever since what, the millenium?

 

I don't think the average joe who sees the prez on television puts two and two together,

 

they just see his hand on the bible, and assume he's a man of god.

 

awww, a good guy!

[TheBigDog]

I must say, when Bush was sworn in the second time and Justice Rehnquist amended the Constitutional Oath at the end with the phrase "so help me God", I was offended. Bush has shown a number of religious biases in his own actions and decisions that make me uncomfortable.

I can understand how that break from tradition could make you uncomfortable. Much the same way that removing the mention of God from traditional places makes those who wish to see it remain there uncomfortable. For example, the oath taken by the Vice President is...

 

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

 

And all congress members take this oath...

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

 

And all supreme court justices take this oath...

 

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

 

Are those traditional oaths offensive and the work of an administration bent on creating a theocracy?

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

I for one am not particularly worried about George W. Bush turning the United States into a theocracy.

 

Because I don't think Karl Rove would let him. Once conservatives have solved all of their social agenda issues, their alliance largely evaporates.

 

If we lived in a world without abortions, gay people, blacks, or atheists, how long until the conservative alliance evaporated and people started voting on other issues?

 

They don't want to these things to happen, which is the dirty secret of the Republican machine.

 

On the bright side, though, I don't think Bush and Rover are particularly interested in creating a theocracy.

 

What worries me more than them, is "opinion makers" who really, really are. Tim LaHaye for instance, author of the Left Behind books has been repeatedly associated with Christian Dominionism.

 

The extreme form of Dominionism is Christian Reconstructionism, which aims for nothing less than an Iranian style "Christian Revolution." Frankly, this form of extremism is pretty rare, and is best exemplified by crazies like RJ Rushdoony.

 

Dominionism is sorta like what they have in places like Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq, where Islam informs to a great extent political decisions. Reconstuctionism is the white version of the Taliban, and they are, to mind essentially the same thing. If they had power they would be just as dangerous.

 

Honestly I think a lot of people just don't find the idea of Dominionism that frightening, because something like 85% of the United States is Christian.

 

But in any case, while Dominionism is a fairly common viewpoint among Religious conservatives (that is, that Biblical (which I use with some hestitation) / theological concerns should weigh heavily on public and political decisions, the actual advocacy of an establishment of a theocracy is a pretty rare viewpoint.

 

I worry about Dominionism, not because I'm not a Christian, but because I think that the people who are generally hocking it don't realize the depth of compatibility between Christianity (as Jesus, not Pat Robertson, or the Scofield Reference Bible taught it) and Liberalism.

 

Remember guys, the first rule isn't "don't sin" it's "Love thy neighbor."

 

TFS

 

edited to remove gratuitous use of the word "frankly"

[Turtle]

Remember guys, the first rule isn't "don't sin" it's "Love thy neighbor."

 

TFS

 

I believe the first rule is "Thou shalt have no other God's before me."? Interesting in itself as it admits to the existence of other Gods.

[Turtle]

I would first like to open the floor to those who believe the notion to be true so I can get an idea as to what lead them to that conclusion.

 

Thanks

 

Bill

 

I see this bent in Congress as well. Just the other day the an Oregon Senator pounded his theocratic view home in a talk while using his Bible as a prop of authority. Just one example of many.

In spite of what people claim, most of our founding fathers weren't Christians, but Deists. How many politicians can dance on the head of a pin?:shrug:

[TheFaithfulStone]

I believe the first rule is "Thou shalt have no other God's before me."? Interesting in itself as it admits to the existence of other Gods.

 

First commandment. The teachings of Jesus are subtly different.

 

I'll have to look up the passage, but I think it goes something "Teacher what is the most important law?" - "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

 

TFS

[C1ay]

Are those traditional oaths offensive and the work of an administration bent on creating a theocracy?

They are irrelevant. The Constitution specifically gives an oath to be administered to the incoming President. It is not the administrator's freedom to solicit a belief in God as an amendment to the Constitutional oath. This lack of freedom does not infringe any rights of an incoming President to add such a phrase if they choose, but it should not be solicited. Chief Rehnquist stepped over a line when he did this, IMO.

[Freddy]

First commandment. The teachings of Jesus are subtly different.

 

I'll have to look up the passage, but I think it goes something "Teacher what is the most important law?" - "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

 

TFS

From King James RSV in;

Matthew 22:36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind.38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depends all the law and the prophets."

[Freddy]

They are irrelevant. The Constitution specifically gives an oath to be administered to the incoming President. It is not the administrator's freedom to solicit a belief in God as an amendment to the Constitutional oath. This lack of freedom does not infringe any rights of an incoming President to add such a phrase if they choose, but it should not be solicited. Chief Rehnquist stepped over a line when he did this, IMO.

 

From Article II, Section I of the US Constitution

 

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

I wonder if any President has left out the God crap and stuck to the text as written by the delegates and ratified by the states.

[C1ay]

From Article II, Section I of the US Constitution

 

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

I wonder if any President has left out the God crap and stuck to the text as written by the delegates and ratified by the states.

Notice that the Constitution allows one to affirm instead of swearing. Thus far 3 presidents taking this option were John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, and Herbert Hoover. OTOH, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon swore the oath on two Bibles. I don't think anyone knows how many have or have not amended their oath to include "so help me God" though.

[Cedars]

The present US Executive administration is troubling to me, in that it appears to be engaging in an effort to redefine the relationship of the branches of government in an opportunistic and unconstitutional way, and move the US toward a theocratic form of government.

I would first like to open the floor to those who believe the notion to be true so I can get an idea as to what lead them to that conclusion.

 

There is not one effort that I can single out as a "this is why". Probably the most blatent example is Faith Based Initiatives. Religious orgs were always allowed to apply for fed funds before this initiative however, they were also required to adhere to the laws which protect all americans, specifically religious discrimination. Slowly the separation is being taken away.

Heres a list of various agencys which now offer monies to orgs under 'faith based'

http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

 

What is wrong with this?

 

A quote from this page: http://usliberals.about.com/od/faithinpubliclife/a/Funds_Faith2.htm

"What changed was the President Bush's first Executive Order of his presidency authorizing establishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, followed by H.R. 1261. "Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003 - Job Training Reauthorization/Bill to Provide Federal Assistance of Job Training Programs and Allow Providers of Job Training to Discriminate by Using an Individual's Religion as a Factor in Hiring Decisions."

 

It's commonly referred to as the "right-to-discriminate" provision because it allows a faith-based service provider to follow its own dictates and not federal guidelines, in its hiring practices for federally-funded programs. It allows churches to adhere solely to their interpretation of God's will in their program's hiring decisions, and not federal regulations.

 

$1 billion of taxpayers' funds were gifted in 2003 to social services providers who may freely discriminate in their hiring practices when using those funds. "

 

And places you would never imagine a problem with religious discrimination, such as Head Start

http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/boehner_amend.asp

 

I always figured Christmas had this covered:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/readings/jesusdaymemo.html

 

From the wikipedia G. W. Bush entry:

On August 1, 2005, in response to a press question about the teaching of intelligent design versus evolution in public schools, Bush answered, "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about. Bush said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

 

Wikipedia references this article for above statement: http://www.boston.com/news/education/k_12/articles/2005/08/02/bush_endorses_intelligent_design/

 

There is also the Bush stance on stem cell research. Now if he really thinks this is unethical (their killing potential babies), why does he not find it abhorant to destroy the eggs that are unused? Additionally, as I understand medicine, every citizen of the US can refuse medical treatment. So if a person has an issue with a treatment (for this example stem cell derived medicine), they could refuse it under their religious idealisms (J.Ws and blood transfusions, etc). But the denial of the ability of science to develop medicines for those of us with no religious prohibition can only be described as government mandating a religious idea on everyone regardless of separation.

 

I dont know that this administration is worse than others in the past with regards to religious beliefs and taking america towards theocracy however, I think that the religious factions/individuals in this country who do have that vision of the USA have felt more comfortable with attempting to instill this on everyone else since this adminstration came into the white house.

 

An example: Pharmacists refusing to fill contraceptive prescriptions.

 

Google "religious discrimination" and "salvation army" or "catholic charities" and view how this is becoming manifest in formerly non-discriminatory social services.

[Freddy]

So they take our money and then allow those who distribute it to discriminate in their employment practices. There has not been a federal court case concerning this? What is wrong with this picture?

[Turtle]

Just watching some nightly news in order to get my blood to boilin' so I can save money on heating costs. It worked! Work...unlike the US congress who put in a mere 100 days of work this past year. If I were still working one of the jobs that helped disable me I'd be fired on the spot with extreme prejudice.

No small help to moderating my ire then when I see the bastards opening a session of Congress with a goddamn prayer! The theocratizing of government isn't our only problem, but it's a major one. The bastards are doing nothing but campaigning from the moment they win an election. I want my Constitution employed according to the oathes these SOB's took. They work for me! And you! Separation of church and state and a working person's work ethic is as hard to find in Congress as an angel on the head of a pin.

It is not enough to vote out the theocratic scum, we have to follow up with the secular scum we put in and make sure they get to work! Religious moderation is an oxymoron.:evil:

[Southtown]

What about the freedom of expression? They're citizens too.

[Erasmus00]

I see the "theocracy" at work in decisions to not fund good science (stem cells) for entirely religious reasons. I also see a growing trend in this country to neglect science where inconvenient, both in the administration and in the people (global warming, evolution, etc). I think that this article

 

http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/Greetings_from_Idiot_America.html

 

hit the nail reasonably close to the head.

-Will