Anyone else here afraid of a theocracy in America?

[Stern21]

Really. I am. The idea really sucks for me.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

1. SCARES ME TO THE BONE

[physioex]

2. Oh heck yea....

If you really think about it the real people pulling the strings are evangelical nut bags like John Hagee and Pat "Patwah" Robertson.

[eShirl]

3. "Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood. n/t

[ropi]

5. i hear ya!

n/t

[tbyg52]

7. If this goes on......

http://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/novels/ifthisogoeson.html

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

18. Yes, I think about that book quite often now. Chilling.

[pokerfan]

55. One of the most frequently "challenged" books

The American Library Association lists it in "10 Most Challenged Books of 1999" and as number 37 on the "100 Most Frequently Challenged Books of 1990–2000."

I'm shocked, shocked I am that religious nutters hate this novel.

[dddem]

71. Exactly what I was thinking.

I think that book should be required reading.

[krabigirl]

4. Yes, very much so.

[tannybogus]

6. I told my brother a couple of years ago that if I disappeared,

he should look for me at Bob Jones U and not Gitmo.:scared:

[hfojvt]

8. I am praying that this won't happen.

What would an American theocracy look like? Would there be Bibles in every hotel room and more churches than bars?

[Iris]

22. Watch Madmen tomorrow night.

All the women at home raising children while the men do business.

[hfojvt]

28. that would be kinda hard to legislate

Most men would be against that too. First, because their wives would tell them to, and second, because they want the extra money that a working spouse brings in. My mom was a stay at home mom, her last child leaving the nest in 1989. It's not such a terrible life.

[Iris]

36. "It's not such a terrible life"

that all depends. Perhaps your mom was lucky and happy. I have many examples of women in my family who were stunted by this lifestyle and cut off from their full potential. It ain't pretty.

Anyway, whether we think they can legislate this or not, it's what they want and what they've been trying to do since the late 70s. Do some research on the Moral Majority and Dominionism - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

[hfojvt]

44. "stunted by this lifestyle and cut off from their full potential"

Ironic, because I have found that to be true for me - out in the work world. I work in factories and bars. Most of my co-workers are not there "reaching their full potential".

That some have been trying to do this since the 1970s does not seem very scary. You might as well tell me that there is a secret group trying to build spaceships so they can colonize Mars. They are trying to swim upstream of the Niagara river and not making very much progress.

[Iris]

46. whatever. I'm sorry you feel like you have no choices, but at least no one has legislate that to be

the case. I have plenty of women friends who are reaching their potential and am glad they weren't relegated to a "not so bad life".


As far as not being scary, I think you underestimate how far they've come. I moved to GA when I was 13 and started hearing these ideas and just thought it was some southern thing. Now, it's nothing unusual to hear this stuff coming from sources all over the country.

[hfojvt]

56. "whatever. I'm sorry ..."

Two things that don't really go together. It must be nice for people who have career options and enjoy what they have to do most of the day.

But it does not seem like the real world to me. Funny thing is that diapers still need to be changed, floors vacuumed, meals cooked, toilets cleaned, cows milked (unless we are all vegans), coal mined, etc., and there is not alot of satisfaction or potential realizing coming from that necessary work.

It sounds like an upper class perspective to consider work somehow fulfilling. You are playing with words too. As far as a "not so bad life", my mom's was/is not any worse, IMO, than my dad's, or my sister who just about became an alcoholic due to the stresses of her job.

I just don't get the "work ueber alles" mentality. :shrug:

[Iris]

58. well, as I stated in a post below, it's more about being able to support yourself financially than

anything else and to have that taken away from you because of your gender (or race or class or sexual orientation) is outrageous even in theory to me.

[Stern21]

41. Wow. You surprise me.

That's nutz.

[hfojvt]

45. What's nuts?

:hide: (as I duck before Tahitinut jumps in to say that being "nuts" is a good thing).

Not only my mom but none of my 8 aunts had a career as far as I know. Of course, many of them were born in the 1920s and thus grew up in the 1950s. My two unmarried aunts had careers, but none of the married ones did.

Now, in my generation and then next, all of the women have jobs. Some, a cousin and a sister in law, are waitresses, in the latter case because that is a readily available job everywhere they move. My cousin has not really left her home area.

Anyway, even though far fewer mothers were working in the 1970s and 1980s, I don't think people were any unhappier than they are now.

[Iris]

47. I'd say it's less about being happy and more about being allowed to be support oneself financially

if one chooses and/or needs to.

[RainDog]

93. You're talking about 2 diff. things : job opportunities/salaries vs legal standing/choice

no doubt it can be a hard road to work on your feet all the time for very little money compared to the amount of money paid for work that is less taxing but doesn't seem to be any more important in the general scheme of the world.

that's capitalism, right? capitalists pay the lowest salaries they can. that's why a living minimum wage is good for families. businesses aren't going to care about the quality of your life, or whether or not your marriage is stressed by financial concerns, or whether your family can afford to take some time off to be together and regroup. Or whether you have a sick child or whether you have health insurance.

those things are the responsibility of those who oversee the general welfare (which actually means the well-being) of the people who vote them into office and who therefore are responsible to them.

Requiring private industry to do these things severely hampers small, localized businesses and those restraints are passed along to the employed whenever possible.

On the other hand, both men and women should have a choice to be a stay-at-home parent. Why should it only be females? The only reason, traditionally, is that the male has a higher paying job. If that's not the case, then the woman may be the best person to provide the main income while young children are in the house.

Before women fought for the right to choice - to work or be a stay-at-home mom, or some variation thereof, women were also not allowed to hold property in their names in many states... even into the 1960s.

See, that's what the whole business about choice was about... about treating females as adult equals to males. about recognizing the humanity of both. we've still got a long way to go. When you do not have the legal right to do things simply because you're a female rather than male adult, something is seriously wrong with your so-called democracy.

Two things -
quality of pay/job/life satisfaction
and
legal standing and cultural acceptance

[krabigirl]

50. Hehe, well, I'm an atheist stay-at-home mom.

I do a bit of freelance writing, but I am home with the kids for now. I don't mind it, after 13 years in cubicle hell, to be honest.

[Iris]

59. pefectly fine, but in today's world, your hubby would not be privy to your therapy sessions

as was the case in this show. And, if worse came to worse, you could probably get another job if you needed or wanted one.

[Jamastiene]

99. The argument is about the difference between doing that

by choice or being forced to do it. There's nothing wrong if someone WANTS to do it, but the Dominionists want to legislate it.

[Warpy]

9. Yes, I'm a bad Buddhist, something that puts me smack dab

in the middle of the most despised religious minority--the atheists. A theocracy in this country would be horribly uncomfortable.

Yet I'm considering a move to a defacto theocracy, Mexico. I imagine that since Gringos are considered a little crazy anyway, they'll give me a pass on not going to their churches.

[Stern21]

38. I'm there as well. However not looking at Mexico.

I do feel however that religious allegiances with any Gov. are nothing more than fronts for the stupid.

[MH1]

10. Definitely.

The number of Americans who have fallen in line like sheep already, is thoroughly depressing.

[Bob Dobbs]

11. The last eight years of it have sucked.

It's what we have had already, and it has been proven to not work.

[Stern21]

35. See Sarah Palin n/t

[cliffordu]

12. Yes, the fundies are as psychotic and dangerous as the Taliban.

[billyoc]

24. Yes, the religious right is the religious right, no matter where you go.

[hootinholler]

49. Which is why I call them the talibornagin!

Why aren't people like Joel's Army infiltrated and charged as terrorists? Why is that reserved for protest communication facilitators?

-Hoot

[Lars39]

13. As one who is currently being shunned by fundy family members, yes.

[PDJane]

14. yes.

Although I have friends there whom I would love to visit, I have not been to the US for four years, and the last visit was, frankly, a hassle I don't want to repeat. I am both an atheist and one of those "pinko" types, belong to enough peace and social issues groups that I'm sure my name is on every watch list down there!

[Octafish]

15. The Theocratic-Industrial Complex

It's another neo-con form of population control.

[LWolf]

16. Scared? No.

We already have a pseudo-theocracy, which is moving more and more into the mainstream.

Like it? No. Oppose it? With everything I've got. I'm in the minority in the U.S., though.

Even here at DU, there are MANY who approve of the mixing of religion and politics. It's a bi-partisan disease.

I don't fear it, though. I find fear to be counter-productive. It's also a tool for tptb. I'm not giving them any more tools than necessary.

[ixion]

20. well put... and spot on

IMO... right there with ya. :patriot:

[spoony]

53. Evidence?

Seriously, people. Religion has always been part of politics in the US. Yet it has never been a theocratic country, nor will it. When people got all wound up about prayers at the convention, I linked to much more explicit, exclusive prayers at previous conventions. When people get wound up about flyers at schools or Christmas songs or whatever, I point out that schools are now much more sensitive to religious diversity than in previous times.

In short, your fears are baseless. This country is not moving toward a theocracy, there is nothing whatsoever (based in reality) that shows it is.

[LWolf]

61. What fears?

I think I just said that I wasn't "scared," and that I find fear to be counterproductive.

:wtf:

As for the rest, the republican party has long pandered to the religious right, helping them to advance political goals that, yes, ARE pseudo-theocratic. The fact that the Democrats have now joined them in competing for the "god vote," making christian faith an open, regular, established part of the campaign, is evidence that the U.S. is moving further along the path to theocracy.

It's not just mixing politics and religion, which is distasteful enough. It's the pandering to one particular faith, christianity, with accomodations made for those who practice judeo-christian-islamic faiths.

It's true that the Democratic Party Convention's "Interfaith" Sunday did include a Buddhist. That's great. One among the many, with zero from other faiths and belief systems that don't spring from that Judeo-Christian-Islamic source.

The bottom line for me is that religion and politics shouldn't mix. Period.

http://www.markfiore.com/bible_thumper_0

[spoony]

76. This isn't new.

http://tinyurl.com/55gs2m

This is from the 1856 convention. If this isn't, as you say, "making christian faith an open, regular, established part of the campaign" then I don't know what is. And yet it has not led to the latter part of your sentence, "the U.S. is moving further along the path to theocracy." Indeed, it is far more inclusive now, as is the US as a whole.

[LWolf]

80. WHAT isn't new?

The fact that a convention offered public prayers at a convention back in 1856?

The OP asks if we are afraid of theocracy in America. My remarks are in direct response to that question.

Not to whether or not prayers are appropriate for a political convention.

I'm sure you are aware of the first amendment, and of Jefferson's statements about separation. All of which certainly predate prayer at an 1856 convention.

There are more serious signs that the U.S. is headed that way, or is even now a pseudo-theocracy.

One might be the prime-time national religious interview given by both major candidates. Reverend Warren said:

<snip>

Now, we believe in the separation of church and state, but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics, because faith is just a world view, and everybody has some kind of world view, and it’s important to know what they are.

http://conservablogs.com/velvethammer/2008/08/18/full-transcript-saddleback-civil-forum-with-pastor-rich-warren-sen-barack-obama-sen-john-mccain/

I don't know about you, but I decode that to mean "We say we believe in the separation of church and state, but we really want religion to direct politics."

What IS "church and state," if not "faith and politics???"

That organized religion competes for political power is not new, although I personally consider it to be sacrilegious. The pursuit of spiritual enlightenment is not one in harmony with the pursuit of political power. In my opinion. That political parties, candidates, campaigns, and government pander to religion to such an extent is certainly a matter of concern for anyone who supports and defends the separation clause.

All of that is beside the point. The point is that the OP asked me if I feared an American theocracy, and I answered. Look beyond the Democratic Convention if you want to discuss the prevalence of religion in politics. It's there, and it's foolish to deny it.

Whether or not it is prevalent enough to declare the U.S. a "theocracy" is a matter for debate, certainly.

[spoony]

84. Who's denying that religion is in politics?

My point is that it's "foolish to deny" that it hasn't always been there and that pointing to it as evidence of a theocracy is very loose soil on which to build such a claim.

The entire purpose of linking to the 1856 convention was to show that things are NOT becoming MORE religious, that religion has always been there. There are only two conclusions to draw: either that we've BEEN a theocracy all along--which is ridiculous, or that religion in politics is no basis for claiming a coming theocracy.

And I daresay that the separation of church and state is taken more seriously and more literally now than in previous decades when religion was far more overt and far more exclusive to Christianity in school and other areas of public life.

None of this shows any movement toward theocracy. There is simply no reason to think otherwise.

[LWolf]

105. I disagree.

Obviously. I've watched the process for 4+ decades now.

Better said, "There is simply no reason that you can see to to think otherwise."

You've made up your mind, and that's fine. You haven't made up the minds of others, though, and apparently some do have reason to think otherwise.

[Zhade]

88. That doesn't make it RIGHT.

NT!

[spoony]

92. But is it THEOCRACY

You'd have to say the US has been a theocracy for basically it's entire existence. And that doesn't make sense, at all.

[Zhade]

94. I wasn't commenting on that question, merely that you pointed out how long this has gone on.

It's been wrong all along.

Is it a theocracy? Not yet. Hopefully, it never be - but that depends on how willing liberal believers are to support secular government, the only kind that ever allows societies to thrive.

Mixing in MORE religion would have the opposite effect.

[physioex]

65. Is that so?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynBlsZDfG80

[spoony]

77. I'm not wasting ten minutes on some Haggard speech.

There have always been extremists like this, but so what? If there's something specific in there you want to address, you'll do me the courtesy of summarising it.

[OneGrassRoot]

68. Politicians pandering to a Rapture-ready crowd who are...

by and large racist, homophobic and sexist, since the whole Moral Majority movement in the 80s....that's not a rather new development in the history of this country?

The courting of that particular vote, and now one who is not only pandering but ONE of them, being a VP candidate, is quite disturbing and showing a potential trend if not exposed for what it is.

[spoony]

78. Oh, racism, homophobia and sexism. Those ARE new!

Come now. If you haven't noticed, we are a better society now regarding those things than at any other point in the country's history. Yes progress may seem intolerably slow, but when else in US history could you talk about gay marriage and be taken seriously by ANYONE in power?

And conservatives, they aren't new. They have traditionally been those things in the subject line. While they may be loud now, they are loud because the "good old days" where those things were acceptable is disappearing and they are railing against it.

None of this sounds like theocracy, it sounds like progress.

[Seldona]

72. Are you kidding me?

Try running for office on an athiest, humanistic, platform. Your house would probably be firebombed before the end of your first week. Nor would you recieve more than 10% of the vote. Something like 80% of Americans think it is perfectly acceptable not to vote for someone who does not believe in god. If that isn't at least moving towards a theocracy I don't know what is.

I am so greatful we have the Constitution to protect the minority from the tryanny of the majority. Hell, if we lived in a straight up Democracy there would be 12 ton rocks with the ten commandments on them in front of every courthouse, and creationism would be taught as SCIENCE in our schools, when it is anything but. Even if it has been legally dressed up to look like something completely different, like 'Intelligent Design.' I mean how can a religion based on FAITH expect to prove their religion exists? It wouldn't require faith anymore, would it?

[spoony]

79. That isn't theocracy either.

It's a prejudice, but one that exists in many religions against nonbelievers. That isn't new, and it doesn't illustrate any move toward theocracy.

As your second paragraph doesn't seem to have anything but general ranting and imagined dystopia, it needs no rebuttal.

[blm]

82. And I'll bet you couldn't even IMAGINE Revmoon controlling over half the nation's fishing industry

and owning all the land above the world's largest aquifer - the Guarani Aquifer in Paraguay. Gee - and he did all that thru his 5 decade alliance with the Bush family. Gee...wonder why.

[sam sarrha]

17. INFO on dominionism... BE AFRAID.... BE VERY AFRAID..!!!!! LINKS>>>

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dominionism

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dominionists&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

[kurth_]

19. "If Bristol Palin were the daughter of Democratic parents,

she would undoubtedly be held up as an example of the failures of a liberal, permissive culture. Instead, she is viewed — as are the majority of teenage mothers in Evangelical churches — as a Christian who sinned, is forgiven, and needs to be embraced and supported."

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1839190,00.html

'Nuf said. Fucking hateful hypocrites.

[RoccoR5955]

21. It doesn't scare, it makes me want to stand up against it even more...

...part of the founding of this nation was freedom of religion. The freedom to choose what mythology you believe in, should be preserved at all costs, by any means necessary.

They want you to be afraid, but you MUST stand up to them. It's the only way to win!

[FatDave]

29. I know you're right.

But I'm old, weak, and weary. I've got no fight left. I'm preparing to flee.

[ramapo]

23. Listen to Palin at her church

Scary stuff...not someone I want leading the country. Keep your religion to yourself please.

[bdamomma]

102. they are truly a cult.

the american taliban

[bitchkitty]

25. Only if they have the support of the corporations -

and there would never be a theocracy here unless the corporations got on board. In that scenario I WOULD be scared.

As far as any "handmaid's tale" type situation...there are many substances, both natural and chemical, that you can put in food - odorless, tasteless, and can cause convenient distress for the diner.

I'd fight back any way I could, if I couldn't run.

[TrogL]

26. You're already in one

If religion is any sort of an issue in leadership (ie. Presidential) politics, you are in a theocracy.

[Heather MC]

27. I am Christian and I am terrified

at how much the constitutions is being treated like a historic footnote.
Separation of Church and State if Paramount to keeping our Government Strong
These bible thumping Jesus cramming zealots frighten me!

[FatDave]

30. How long before they start rounding up atheists?

Seriously, does anybody find the notion far-fetched?

[spoony]

52. Yes.

And people say Christians have a persecution complex! No one is rounding anyone up, not liberals, conservatives, gun owners, gun controllers, Christians, Hindus, atheists, Freemasons, no one.

[Zhade]

89. Yet.

NT!

[spoony]

91. a simple question

Do you really, and forget the rhetorical value of the idea, do you REALLY think we as a nation are at a place, or NEAR a place, where you honestly feel you're going to be rounded up into a camp or something? Seriously. Really.

[Zhade]

95. I think we're getting there, but the timeline is unclear.

Here's where you call me crazy, and I remind you that They Thought They Were Free, so we can go ahead and skip that dance.

[magellan]

86. No, not far-fetched at all

It can happen here, especially with religious extremists moving into positions of power. They aren't fomenting hatred and remaining conveniently quiet about things like Adkisson shooting up the UU church in TN for nothing. There's no message coming from leaders saying this is wrong. The message is one of tacit approval, or at least "if you're going to do it, don't get caught".

[kimmylavin]

31. As an atheist, "commie" liberal?

Yup.

[sam sarrha]

32. lots of sarah palin in church video's.. +gods plan in iraj... !!!! >Link>>>

[sam sarrha]

33. lots of sarah palin in church video's.. +gods plan in iraq... !!!! >Link>>>

sarah's pastor..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2uGDKlhtLE&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG1vPYbRB7k

[FVZA_Colonel]

34. I can tell you that if it were tried, a good deal of the Pacific Northwest would actively rise up.

Me included.

[comrade snarky]

37. Yep

There's a difference between leftist and pacifist. I'm not trained but I've always been a good shot and a quick learner.

[mainegreen]

103. As would most of the North East.

We would finally see just how heavily armed New Hampshire really is. (It's MUCH more than most people think or are willing to admit. New Hampshire is Militia Central!)

[KillCapitalism]

39. As a Jewish person, I am.

My people have had a history of being persecuted b/c we are different, and this is especially the case in theocracies.

[Stern21]

42. I don't feel there's a heluva lot of difference today.

[Odin2005]

40. I'm an atheist so hell yeah I'm fucking TERRIFIED!!! n/t.

[lifesbeautifulmagic]

43. the thing if they are successful in establishing a national religion, and outlawing

abortion, they won't stop with that. Birth control, rights of gays/women, labor laws, it won't al come at once, but little by little. It would be a living nightmare, and yes I am afraid.

[vanderBeth]

48. I will see if it will happen, but it does go that way, yes.

:scared:

[RadiationTherapy]

51. Not afraid. I am confident this is the only way we can rid ourselves of these false religions.

I am sorry for all of us who will be hurt and killed because of it, but we are heading towards total religious rule and war. Then it will all fall apart and humanity will move on without the naive "man in the sky" bullshit.

[Raksha]

54. I am more afraid of the stealth theocrats,

aka Dominionists or Christian Reconstructionists, than any other faction of the neocon Axis of Evil.

[pleah]

57. Yes.

When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.

Sinclair Lewis

[kayell]

60. Oh, yeah. We're heading right down that road. nt

[and-justice-for-all]

62. Think of this as repigs last effort to make theocracy...

in America.

As long as we get Obama/Biden in the White House, the dominionist will be curtailed.

Just get off your ass, put feet to pavement, and work for Obama/Biden.

[Seeking Serenity]

63. Nope, not a bit.

Read post #53. Well said.

[arthritisR_US]

64. If your not scared then your probably 6 feet under or a christian taliban. n/t

[Seeking Serenity]

66. I'm neither of those things, but thanks anyway. (n/t)

I'm a member of the reality-based community.

[arthritisR_US]

70. good for you, me too and thanks. n/t

[Zhade]

90. You forgot "willfully ignorant".

NT!

[eugeneliberal]

67. Yes

Read "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America" by Chris Hedges.

[HughMoran]

69. I was until I saw a poll where the majority of Republicans were backing away from the theocrats

It's not the American way, even with the stupidity we see by the Repukes trying to kiss up the these morans.

[AmyCamus]

73. We're closer now than ever before.

Both sides of the ticket are too cozy with the Jesus freaks.

[samsingh]

74. big time

[slackmaster]

75. Yes, very much so

It's one of the worst possible paths we could go down. We must insist on leaders who can silo their religious beliefs, keep them separate from their positions on public policy.

John F. Kennedy was a good example of the right way to do it.

Dennis Kucinich gets my endorsement as another public figure who gets it.

[mitchum]

81. I will fight them to my dying breath; a bended knee is for those praying fools...

not me

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[L. Coyote]

83. That depends. Can I be the theocrat?

I know, I know, everyone asks the same thing. :rofl:

[Zhade]

87. As a fellow atheist who thus has no religion - YES. It terrifies me.

We're already sliding that way, sadly.

[Dukkha]

96. it is they who will learn a new definition of fear

Just ask the former cult of Wackos in Waco what happened to them when the last Dem president showed them their beliefs do not supersede the law.

[Firespirit]

97. This bisexual Deist woman with PCOS is.

Because of the medical condition, I'm not even good to breed, which is the only acceptable "career" for a woman to have in their world. Thus, useless. Add "heresy" and "sodomy" to it and there ya go.

[Jamastiene]

98. You are not alone in that.

I'd rather they go ahead and stone me to death than make me listen to preaching and all that bullshit "pray the gay away" crap of theirs. I'd rather just die and go to Hell now rather than live in a world controlled by fundy assholes. I shit you not.

I look at it this way:
If there are no fundies in Hell and Heaven is full of fundies, it makes the sting and the threat of going to Hell completely irrelevant and it makes Heaven not appealing at all to me.

[Dogtown]

100. I'm afraid it's inevitable.

I think it will splinter the country as slavery was unable to.


War is coming.

[old mark]

101. We have seen the beginning with Bush II

but if Palin gets in as VP, we will start to see the real insanity of these people.

I believe it could lead to a civil war.

mark

[rucky]

104. Facism worse than theocracy.

I think the corporacrats in power use the RR as "useful idiots" to keep people distracted and in-line. The highest powers are agnostic, at best.