Whoops, my mistakeI said Iraq when I meant Iran -- which really is a theocracy.
While no law or constitution is perfect, the American one does a pretty good job of keeping church and state separate.
There's certainly no way that any sane comparison could be made between the US and Iran as similar by way of theocracy.
BTW, Iraq didn't suppress the church, it used it as a means of gaining loyalty. Saddam made a big show of being a Muslim to shore up his popular support (though he probably didn't actually believe any of it).
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:06,
archived)
While no law or constitution is perfect, the American one does a pretty good job of keeping church and state separate.
There's certainly no way that any sane comparison could be made between the US and Iran as similar by way of theocracy.
BTW, Iraq didn't suppress the church, it used it as a means of gaining loyalty. Saddam made a big show of being a Muslim to shore up his popular support (though he probably didn't actually believe any of it).
I'm not saying that america is a pure theocracy, nor a complete oneI'm saying that america is becoming something you might want to call a "demo-thocracy" because the seperation of state and church is weakening.
My claim that america is turning into a pseudo theocracy is that many church affiliated people (not just people who are christian) have been entering both sides of politics of late. You can't really argue with the fact that the demographic of american politicians (those in office) are largely cocasian and christian.
I guess a good example of how this affects the political lanscape is the debate over gay marriage. It's well known that this is a thing looked down upon by the church, but a "seperated state" is unlikely to have any reason to limit the rights of it's citizens based on preferece or belief.
You can argue that this is because christian people elected christian leaders... it doesn't change the fact that this isn't a good example of seperation.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:19,
archived)
My claim that america is turning into a pseudo theocracy is that many church affiliated people (not just people who are christian) have been entering both sides of politics of late. You can't really argue with the fact that the demographic of american politicians (those in office) are largely cocasian and christian.
I guess a good example of how this affects the political lanscape is the debate over gay marriage. It's well known that this is a thing looked down upon by the church, but a "seperated state" is unlikely to have any reason to limit the rights of it's citizens based on preferece or belief.
You can argue that this is because christian people elected christian leaders... it doesn't change the fact that this isn't a good example of seperation.
The US has always been a majority Christian country.Nothing has changed over the years, excapt that many religiously inspired restritions have been lifted.
The prohibition of alcohol was abolished, gayness was legalised, nudity and swearing became acceptable. Over hundreds of years, the trend has been for less religion in government, not more.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:22,
archived)
The prohibition of alcohol was abolished, gayness was legalised, nudity and swearing became acceptable. Over hundreds of years, the trend has been for less religion in government, not more.
Well okprohibition of alcahol was abolished... but that's really standard now except in muslim countries.
Swearing... it's the same really, only there's even fewer countries.
but the rest:
- going nude in the street will get you arrested for "disturbing the peace" or something
- brand new laws against gay marrage (this is the big one... doesn't seem very justified)
See, the church marries people. As such gay people could get themselves married at any church (regardless of religion) that would agree to marry them, and that would stick. So it's a freedom of religion thing... but why is the state stepping in to make laws to prevent all churches from this regardless of their own rules?
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:30,
archived)
Swearing... it's the same really, only there's even fewer countries.
but the rest:
- going nude in the street will get you arrested for "disturbing the peace" or something
- brand new laws against gay marrage (this is the big one... doesn't seem very justified)
See, the church marries people. As such gay people could get themselves married at any church (regardless of religion) that would agree to marry them, and that would stick. So it's a freedom of religion thing... but why is the state stepping in to make laws to prevent all churches from this regardless of their own rules?
No law can prevent gay people being married in a churchbut there are laws that will prevent such a "marriage" being recognised as official by the State. This doesn't change anything, as it merely keeps the status quo.
That's what the overwhelming majority of voters wanted (70% on the referendums).
So really, the problem is that democracy overruled the gay lobby. That's the problem with democracy, you can't always get what you want.
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:36,
archived)
That's what the overwhelming majority of voters wanted (70% on the referendums).
So really, the problem is that democracy overruled the gay lobby. That's the problem with democracy, you can't always get what you want.
"keeps the status quo."... right, I think we nailed it thereas for referendums, they're not good for this sort of thing. Gay people demanding marriage are quite the minority, and by that nature are underrepresented. Most people who voted aren't actaully going to be affected by this.
i always suspected the quo were involved
(,
Sun 27 Feb 2005, 6:50,
archived)
i always suspected the quo were involved