American Theocracy Anyone?---Part Two

Peter Marshall Ministries ^ | 09/06/2007 | Peter J. Marshall

[Sopater]

Part two of this post.

American Theocracy Anyone?---Part One

[Coyoteman]

We don't want a theocracy but this is what you better do [for starters; we'll have a much longer list when we get these]:

• a general prohibition of abortion;
• the allowance of prayer in public schools;
• the rejection of embryonic (not adult) stem-cell research;
• the Federal prohibition of homosexual marriage (either by law or by an admendment to the Constitution);
• further restrictions on pornography;
• a tightening of obscenity laws in movies and television;
• vigorous law enforcement against pedophiles both on the Internet and in the society at large;
• the replacement of sex education programs for students with abstinence-based programs;
• putting an end to the tyranny of Darwinian evolution teaching in public schools such that the flaws in evolutionary theory and creation science would at least get equal consideration;
• and stopping the Federal court system's twisting of the First Amendment to find some supposed "separation of Church and State" that in turn is used to remove all public expression of the Christian faith from American society.

Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.

[Sopater]

We don't want a theocracy but this is what you better do [for starters; we'll have a much longer list when we get these]:

• A society that prohibits murder should prohibit abortion
• A free society should allow students to pray in public schools.
• Since science cannot present objective evidence on when human life begins, see the first point above.
• The health of any society is significantly reduced when homosexual activity increases. Historical evidence supports this.
• Restrictions to protect children are necessary for a healthy society.
• Same as above.
• Same as above.
• Abstinence works 100% of the time. Nothing else comes close. What needs to be taught to children is both of those facts and what the consequences are for ignoring them.
• Science should be taught in government schools, free from ideologies.
• Hey, the constitution works. ;-)

[Coyoteman]

Just as one example of why I don't want to see a theocracy in the US:

What the theocrats advocate:

putting an end to the tyranny of Darwinian evolution teaching in public schools such that the flaws in evolutionary theory and creation science would at least get equal consideration

And about this, you say:

Science should be taught in government schools, free from ideologies.

That right there is evidence of why theocrats of all stripes should be kept out of positions of power. You have defined your religious belief in creationism as "science" and defined real science as an ideology. Those are both absolute untruths, but ones of which George Orwell would have been very proud.

As Heinlein wrote:

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100, 1953

Paging Nehemiah Scudder. Pick up the white courtesy telephone please.

[muawiyah]

Many pagan analysts are so devoid of knowledge about Protestantism (to say nothing of Christianity itself) they have no idea of how diffuse Evengelical organizational structures really are.

Which is a good reason for not even attempting to debate them ~

[b_sharp]

" * A society that prohibits murder should prohibit abortion

OK.

" * A free society should allow students to pray in public schools.

A free society would not give one religion preference over any other. Either all prayer needs to be restricted or no prayer should be restricted. Your choice.

However, a theocracy would legislate a religious preference.

Which is the author advocating?

" * Since science cannot present objective evidence on when human life begins, see the first point above.

Is this a case of the 'continuum fallacy'? I thought AG and BB debunked that idea?

By that logic, shouldn't an ovum and a sperm be considered human life?

" * The health of any society is significantly reduced when homosexual activity increases. Historical evidence supports this.

Do you really think that homosexual marriages will significantly reduce the health of current society? How does the legal marriage of gays increase gay activity?

The author wants to impose his belief system's definition of marriage.

" * Restrictions to protect children are necessary for a healthy society.

Child porn is already illegal. Adult porn is restricted such that children have no access.

" * Same as above.

See above.

" * Same as above.

Absolutely!

" * Abstinence works 100% of the time. Nothing else comes close. What needs to be taught to children is both of those facts and what the consequences are for ignoring them.

Abstinence only works 100% if followed 100%. Abstinence programs have nowhere near 100% compliance and work more poorly than other programs.

The author's reason for including these programs is because of religious teachings.

" * Science should be taught in government schools, free from ideologies.

Indeed, but it should also not be taught free of research and logic. Creation science fails in that regard.

BTW, I have yet to see any Creation Science free from ideology.

" * Hey, the constitution works. ;-)

That wasn't the point. The author is playing the martyr and wants Christian preferential treatment. Theocracies are based on preferential treatment for a specific religion.

I can see that you are spinning this with all your might but you fail to be convincing in your attempt to show these are not religiously motivated points.

[Coyoteman]

I can see that you are spinning this with all your might but you fail to be convincing in your attempt to show these are not religiously motivated points.

Actually, Sopater quoted an article that concluded with "What kinds of public policies do we evangelical Christians want to see take place in America today?" (followed by a long list of demands).

These demands are indeed religiously motivated--by evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christians are a small percentage of the population of the US, but they would love to take over and establish a theocracy. Then they could get all of their demands enacted as law, and everyone would have to follow their particular beliefs.

One man's theology is another man's belly laugh.

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

[betty boop]

Question: By that logic, shouldn't an ovum and a sperm be considered human life?

Answer: NO. Life comes from their synergistic combination, not from either one or the other standing alone. They call this process: fertilization, or conception. Not till fertilization does life exist. But once it occurs, it irrevocably specifies the "blueprint" of a living individual human being, from that inception (fertilization, conception) till natural death.

And not coincidentally, that is the very thing the United States Constitution undertakes to protect, preserve, and defend.

Or do you see this issue differently?

[MHGinTN]

The poster is either confused or playing the fool regarding the difference between an organ and an organism. Sperm and ova are sub-units of organs within an organism. A zygote is an organism, as is the 'thing' through every phase of the organismal existence begun at conception (the union of sperm and ovum when it results in a zygote).

[hosepipe]

[.. Question: Shouldn't an ovum and a sperm be considered human life? ..]

You can haveing living DNA and dead DNA.. On dead DNA whats missing?..
Is DNA machinery? or more than that?..

[metmom]

Heaven forbid that some group of religious right wingers advocate the overthrow of our corrupt and immoral government and institute one based on Biblical precepts because they feel that God lead them to.

Can you imagine what kind of mess we might get into then?

[metmom]

That includes atheism/ humanism/secularism/ whatever you want to call it.

The very things you condemn about *religion* IOW the ones that worship a god, are the very things that can be applied to atheism, the religion that denies a deity.

As Heinlein wrote:

It is a truism that almost any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so, and will follow it by suppressing opposition, subverting all education to seize early the minds of the young, and by killing, locking up, or driving underground all heretics.

Robert A. Heinlein, Postscript to Revolt in 2100, 1953

After all, that kind of behavior is well represented by the most bloody atheistic regimes of the twentieth century.

You can't escape that by avoiding religion, which goes to show the problem isn't the religion, any religion, but human nature. Man will do this regardless of the religion and just use the religion as an excuse.

It looks like there's as much to fear from those who lack a religion as those who use it as a cloak.

Your fears of what would happen to this country if it returned to it's religious roots is closer to paranoia than reason. As this country has rejected God, society and civilization have deteriorated. The only reason it is tolerable yet, it that we are still living with the protection the Judeo-Christian ethic provides in morals. Another generation or so of this kind of deterioration, and even you *scientists* won't be safe. The Khmer Rogue spared no one for any reason.

[metmom]

Evangelical Christians Atheists are a small percentage of the population of the US, but they would love to take over and establish a theocracy oligarchy. Then they could get all of their demands enacted as law, and everyone would have to follow their particular beliefs.

There, fixed it.

[doc30]

Your list sounds exactly like theocratically imposed laws.

[Sopater]

You have defined your religious belief in creationism as "science" and defined real science as an ideology.

I have? I believe that you have me mistaken with somebody else. I not defined my religious belief in creationism as science, any more than I would define a religious belief in evolutionism, naturalism, or materialism as science. Your statement above betrays your belief that natrualism is "real science".

[metmom]

The author wants to impose his belief system's definition of marriage.

So what's wrong with that?

Homosexuals want to impose THEIR belief system's definition of marriage.

[metmom]

Is DNA even alive? The cell it’s in is, but what about IT?

[atlaw]

Heaven forbid that some group of religious right wingers advocate the overthrow of our corrupt and immoral government and institute one based on Biblical precepts because they feel that God lead them to.

Can you imagine what kind of mess we might get into then?

Yes.

[hosepipe]

[.. Is DNA even alive? The cell it’s in is, but what about IT? ..]

Exactly, thought I just said that..

[betty boop]

The poster is either confused or playing the fool regarding the difference between an organ and an organism.

Seems that way, MHGinTN. Then again, maybe it was a "trick question." :^)

Thanks so much for providing the important details!