Theocrats

[Pah]

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcs_who_theocrats.htm

Theocrats:
The most extreme position opposed to separationism in all of its forms is held by those who can be called "theocrats," these are people who wish to create a theocratic government in the United States. To state it plainly, the theocrats consider even the most conservative Christians in the Religious Right to not be "godly" enough. Sometimes arguing that a theocracy was intended for the United States from the very beginning, theocrats believe that any sort of compromise would be invalid.

The theocracy they want would, of course, be entirely Christian in nature. Theocrats oppose the "neutrality" among various religious groups which is advocated by non-preferentialists, and they even oppose the more extreme views held by some "accommodationists" which would allow for local communities to impose some particular religion on minorities (because in some communities, the majority might be non-Christian).

Despite their extremism, however, theocrats have a lot of support from the rest of the Religious Right for many of their basic principles. For example, their arguments that the United States is a "Christian Nation" is echoed by many who would not otherwise admit to wanting to replace American democracy with a more repressive system.

One way of understanding this phenomenon is to consider the label "Christian Nationalism". For Christian Nationalists, America is God's chosen country which he has blessed beyond all others for our faith and belief in him. American leaders directly empowered by God to do his work here on earth. Anyone who opposes the work of American leaders must, therefore, also be opposing the will of God. This makes them simultaneously blasphemers and traitors.

As should be evidence, such an ideology conflates America and Christianity to a great extent - a Christian Nationalist is quite unable to differentiate between American Patriotism and Chrisitan Ideals. They portray America as ever being under attack by enemies - whether enemies of the body politic or enemies of God (rhetoric usually starts out by describing someone as belonging to one of those two categories, but by the end they become a member of the other as well).

Christian Nationalism owes a great deal to Christian Reconstructionism - and, in fact, can probably be regarded as a form of Reconstructionism. They share with Reconstructionists the idea that American laws should be modeled on biblical laws and the primary difference seems to be that whereas Reconstructionists emphasize in their writings the Bible and biblical laws, Christian Nationalists give equal weight to American patriotism and the Bible. Reconstructionists might actually argue that the Christian Nationalists are making idols out patriotic symbols like the American flag, but in the end the goals of both groups are largely the same: making this a Christian Nation in every fundamental sense.

The Creed of Christian Nationalism A hate group off-shoot.
CHRISTIAN RECONSTRUCTIONISM, DOMINION THEOLOGY, AND THEONOMY
Christian Reconstruction and other links

 

[Sunstone]

Given how successful the American experiment in democracy has been, it seems to me that it would take someone who was brain dead to want to return to the good old days when theocracies were common.

 

[kreeden]

Technically Sunstone , the US isn't a Democracy , it is a Republic . However , I do think that they would have their work cut out for them , rewriting the Charter of Rights and all .... or is that Bill of Rights ?

 

[Pah]

A Theocracy Won't Forgive Our Trespasses
by Jay Bookman

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-27.htm

Listen to us talk at each other, will you?
We Americans are actually debating in the public square not which policy is the most practical or most wise, or which leader is the more competent, but which is the most Christian. We have taken religion — the highest expression of human thought and spirit — and we have cheapened it by using it as a weapon to attack and belittle those with whom we disagree.

Religious leaders are even daring to instruct us in how to vote, and in some cases are suggesting that those who dare to vote contrary to their leaders' wishes risk their soul and standing with God.

This is America?

We know better than this. Or at least we used to. We used to understand that government and religion function best when they function independently, when the only link between them is the indirect link of human beings acting out their private faith through public service. We used to understand that if religion takes a direct role in government, government must inevitably take a direct role in religion, and that the long-standing wall between them was built for the protection of both institutions.

But I guess those are some of the traditional American values now under attack by the dominant political and cultural elite, the Christian right. Yes, that group still likes to depict itself as the most victimized group in American public life, but that's a mere pose, a sham designed to stroke its members' egos and satisfy their need to feel persecuted. That same group, after all, is also beating its chest, proclaiming itself as the nation's most powerful political group to which even the president and Congress must now pay homage. Logically, both self-images cannot be true.

It's too bad, really, because in a rough sense we already know how this story ends. We've seen it so many times before. There is no case in recorded human history, regardless of era or culture, in which religion and government have been intertwined without eventually compromising basic human freedoms. Inevitably, every time, that relationship gets out of control and people get hurt.

Despite what the political and cultural elite try to tell us, though, there's still hope. The values that have made this country great and nurtured a strong religious tradition still have some power among the people. According to a nationwide poll taken in August by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, for example, 65 percent of Americans still say it is inappropriate for churches and religious leaders to endorse candidates. And 69 percent say it is wrong for political campaigns to request church membership lists, as President Bush's campaign did.

A substantial majority — 64 percent — say it would be improper for Catholic leaders to deny Communion to Catholic politicians who take positions contrary to church teaching. In fact, of all the groups polled, that practice was condemned most strongly by Catholics themselves, with 72 percent saying it was improper.

Unfortunately, those remnants of common sense may not survive what's coming. In his second term, President Bush has promised a significant expansion of his faith-based initiative, which envisions giving lucrative tax-funded grants to churches and other religious institutions so they can spread their faith in the name of social improvement. That's exactly the kind of thing that our Founding Fathers tried to prevent with the First Amendment, but once President Bush appoints a few more activist judges to the Supreme Court to reinterpret the Constitution his way, that kind of traditional thinking won't matter.

And money will be the true tie that binds. Once we've got politicians dangling million-dollar grants in front of cooperative ministers, and ministers free to pledge their flock's support to politicians who send money their way, oh what a lovely mess it's gonna be.

Of course, some may still believe that religious leaders will somehow be immune to the corrupting influence of power and money, but if so, they haven't paid much attention to history or the headlines.

Or to the Bible either, for that matter.

Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor of the Atlantic-Journal Constitution. His column appears Thursdays and Mondays.

 

[desi]

So since Bush was elected the US is a theocracy? Does killing terrorists make Bush a religious man in your mind?

 

[Pah]

So since Bush was elected the US is a theocracy? Does killing terrorists make Bush a religious man in your mind?

I wouldn't say so and no to the second question as well.

We have not reached the point where a theocracy is in place but the danger to American ideals is apparent should this come to pass.

Bob

 

[Ceridwen018]

Indeed, Bob, but I think it's a little unfair label Bush as a theocrat, or as having the intention of turning this country into a theocracy. He is certainly a religious man, but so has been the case with every president--religious affiliation is politically favorable, after all.

I have heard this whole "Bush=theocracy" argument from many different places, and I honestly don't know where it's coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in his first term, I never remember him doing anything that would even remotely resemble a completely religiously founded action.

The people who don't like Bush, (I almost said, "Lot's of people don't like Bush", but I suppose that would be incorrect, as he did win the popular vote) are obviously very vocal. To me, this is just another scare tactic that they're trying to use to win more people over to their side. They're blaming what they percieve to be Bush's faults on his religion, and I just don't see how that claim holds water.

 

[Pah]

Indeed, Bob, but I think it's a little unfair label Bush as a theocrat, or as having the intention of turning this country into a theocracy. He is certainly a religious man, but so has been the case with every president--religious affiliation is politically favorable, after all.

I have heard this whole "Bush=theocracy" argument from many different places, and I honestly don't know where it's coming from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but in his first term, I never remember him doing anything that would even remotely resemble a completely religiously founded action.

The people who don't like Bush, (I almost said, "Lot's of people don't like Bush", but I suppose that would be incorrect, as he did win the popular vote) are obviously very vocal. To me, this is just another scare tactic that they're trying to use to win more people over to their side. They're blaming what they percieve to be Bush's faults on his religion, and I just don't see how that claim holds water.

The target of this thread is not Bush and I agree with what you've said. I am specifically addressing the organizations (and their "brotherhood") listed in the OP.

Bob

 

[desi]

I wouldn't say so and no to the second question as well.

We have not reached the point where a theocracy is in place but the danger to American ideals is apparent should this come to pass.

Bob

What American ideals are you talking about?

 

[Pah]

What American ideals are you talking about?

Justice and liberty for all

Bob

 

[desi]

Justice and liberty for all

Bob

Where's your beef with Christianity, as those concepts manifest from puritans.

 

[Jaymes]

Where's your beef with Christianity, as those concepts manifest from puritans.

But then it'd be "justice for all white, male, straight Christians..."

 

[desi]

But then it'd be "justice for all white, male, straight Christians..."

Where do you find such language in the Constitution or Bill of Rights which our nation is founded upon?

 

[Jaymes]

Where do you find such language in the Constitution or Bill of Rights which our nation is founded upon?

I was referring to the Puritans. Witch hangings, anyone?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Where's your beef with Christianity, as those concepts manifest from puritans.

Why the beef with Christianity? Perhaps you are unaware that the majority of those with religious beliefs in America are Christian. The fact that the Religious Right will be the main group pushing this agenda (and the group that will benefit the most) would tend to make one eye them warily - unless one were incredibly ignorant of the political landscape of present day America.

I would have to say that you are giving the Puritans a little too much credit. My guess is that the concepts of Liberty and Justice both predate the Puritans by a wee bit - let's be conservative and go back at least to the ancient Greeks, if not sooner.

TVOR

 

[Pah]

Where's your beef with Christianity, as those concepts manifest from puritans.

Hardly!!! The Puritans banned citizens of the colony and forced emmigration when some citizens practised or spoke of a faith less or more ferverant than the Puritans. Connecticut and Rhode Island were founded because of the denial of civil liberty.

Bob