Is the United States of America slowly becoming a christian theocracy?

1. 59

   SteveMackenposted 12 years ago

   The ever increasing conservatism of the United States political landscape, combined with the christian rhetoric emanating therefrom, along with certain legislative actions taken in recent years, would lead this neutral observer to believe that this is the case.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You don't sound neutral. What legislation can you cite to back up you therory. Everything I have observed shows America going in a more hostile direction to christianity.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I consider myself neutral because I have no vested interest; I have no vote in the USA.
         
         I can cite the following enactments as examples...
         
         HR 847, passed 11th December, 2007, by a majority of 327-9 recognises "the importance of Christmas and the Christian Faith." It makes no reference to other faiths and the Bill's sponsor, Rep Steve King (R-IA) voted against similar legislation honouring holidays of other faiths. He said on Fox News that his motivation was "to uphold America's status as a Christian Nation."
         
         HR 471, passed 30th March, 2010, diverts public money away from public schools and gives it to private schools, 82% of which are christian religious schools.
         
         The Soldier Fitness Tracker, mandatory US military survey implies non-believers are unfit to serve.
         
         HR 3, passed 4th May, 2011 removes Federal funding for abortions for victims of rape.
         
         There are more, but I'm sure you know how to use a search engine.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            HR's aren't necessarily laws they have to pass in the senate too. Removing fu ding for abortion has nothing to do with religion its a constitutional issue. I'd say your argument is weak.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Would you say as weak or not as weak as your counter argument?

               replyreport
            2. 59

               SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Perhaps, lady_love158, but I don't believe I was making an argument. I believe I was making an observation and inviting discussion. Unlike many in these fora, I don't know everything and am always happy to learn from others.
               
               Your point on HR's is taken but all the HRs cited were subsequently passed by the senate.
               
               HR3 is a constitutional issue? Really? That is interesting. I didn't know abortion was unconstitutional. Some commentators in the US have said that HR3 is religiously motivated and anti women. But that's just their opinion, isn't it?

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Abortion is a constitutional issue in this sense, that the purpose of the formation of our government was to insure that our God given rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are protected for all individuals. At some point yet to be defined a fetus becomes an individual worthy of constitutional protection.
                  
                  Until that point is defined government shouldn't be funding the murder of innocent individuals.

                  replyreport
                  1. 59

                     SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     Thanks for the clarification, lady_love158.
                     
                     I take it you oppose federally funded abortions for victims of rape then.

                     replyreport
         2. 60

            Evan G Rogersposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            "I'm neutral because I can't vote".
            
            That's nonsense.
            
            Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden couldn't vote... they sure as hell weren't neutral!

            replyreport
            1. 59

               SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I'm sorry, Evan, in the context of this discussion, I'm not really sure what you are actually saying, can you elaborate please?

               replyreport
   2. 60

      qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Steve:
      What do you think your chances would be, even if you were a billionaire, to become Pres. of these United States if you ran as an avowed atheist?
      Or you were just one who could not say: "in god we trust" or would drop the word "god" from the "Pledge of Allegiance?"
      Zilch!
      75% of Americans believe in a fairytale god thing!
      WE are a theocratic republic!
      I sometimes consider the possibility (maybe probability) that we are under the fascist control of coporations and religion.
      There's no doubt that we are experiencing change. With what results? Who knows?
      Qwark

      replyreport
      1. 59

         SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         To answer your question, not if I were a trillionaire.
         
         Considering that a 2006 survey conducted by the University of Minnesota put atheists at the bottom of the trust league, this is not surprising.
         
         A 1999 poll, conducted by Gallup, put at 48% the number of people who would refuse to vote for president, "a generally well-qualified person" if that person were an atheist.
         
         A Newsweek survey in 2007 put at 62% the number of people who would refuse to vote for any candidate admitting to being an atheist.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Steve:
            The american voters, my neighbors, are nuts!
            Qwark

            replyreport
   3. 72

      pylos26posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      yo dude...any sensible person may observe nature and realize that the country is becoming more seculat every season...duhhh. so the answer to your lame question is a ripe NO.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thank you for your intelligent, well reasoned and lucid argument.

         replyreport
   4. 0

      Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Apparently you haven't been in the trenches for the last few years fighting the increasing spread of secularism and all things totally anti-Christian.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Indeed I haven't, Brenda, but I have observed an increasing amount of rhetoric from US politicians politicising religion, christianity in particular, that seems to undermine the separation of church and state.
         
         The use of laws, propositions and resolutions at state and federal level, whether enacted or not, that support a principle based on religious dogma, would make any neutral observer ask the same question.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            lady_love158posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            By the way the constitution doesn't limit the state from supporting religions it limits the federal government from establishing a state religion. Did you know that religious services were held in the capitol building on Sundays for years? I don't believe they do that any more.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               That's very interesting, lady_love158, I wasn't aware of that.
               
               I do believe that the holding of religious services in the Capitol on Sundays could possibly be construed as state sponsored religion so an end to it was probably just preempting a constitutional challege to the practice.

               replyreport
   5. 60

      tony0724posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      If anything I believe the oppisite is true. We are becoming more secular. And I believe the removal of God from American life is directly proportional to the ever growing moral bankruptcy we read about on the internet and in the papers everyday. I think we need a little more God in this society.

      replyreport
      1. 59

         SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         With reference to 'the removal of God from American society', how is this manifested, and would you approve of the use of the legislature to change this?

         replyreport
         1. 60

            tony0724posted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Yes I would.

            replyreport
            1. 59

               SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               In what way, tony0724, would you use the legislature? What enactments would you like to see?

               replyreport
      2. 60

         qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Tony:
         
         Really? More "god?!!!"
         
         Are you nuts and blind?
         
         People have been killing people in gods name ever since man began to record his history!
         
         Pls, if you can, define this "moral bankruptcy" you envision.
         
         Morality is defined by culture.
         
         The majority of american citizens are religious and "morality," in these United States of America is determined by them.
         
         I'm sure that when you attempt to define "moral bankruptcy" your presumption will be a religiously oriented one.
         
         Morality should be based upon reality and survival, not upon hope and a reward and punishment system created by troglodytes who based their beliefs on abject ignorance and fear!
         
         This is the 21st century! Lets get real!
         
         Qwark

         replyreport
         1. 59

            SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Qwark, if I may, I'd like to add some logic here.
            
            According to the 2008 census, 87% of the US population identified themselves as members of a religion. 76% identified themselves as members of the christian religion. If there is, as tony0724 states, a moral bankruptcy in America, then it is logical to assume that the moral bankruptcy is proportionally representative amongst those who identify with a religion.
            
            Or perhaps the moral bankruptcy is only amongst the 13% who do not identify with any religion, but that is illogical and most unlikely.
            
            The US Department of Corrections statistics indicate that 99.8% of the prison population identify with a religion while only 0.2% identify with no religion.
            
            The moral bankruptcy tony0724 mentions does not therefore seem to be, prima facie, directly related to a lack of religion in a society.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               qwarkposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               ...the "stats" do make my point!
               Ty!
               Qwark

               replyreport
            2. 61

               TLMinutposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               You really can't go by prisoners claiming a religion, can you? You'd have to find out what they claimed before they went in, once they're in, it looks better and gets them privileges to claim a religion. They get meetings with others and a reason to claim "proof" that they've changed thier ways.

               replyreport
               1. 59

                  SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  Indeed, TLMinut, there may well be extenuating circumstances that alter the accuracy of the prison statistics but if you allow for the proportion of the prison population avowing religious affiliation to be reflective of society as a whole, you still end up with a result that suggests that more religion does not necessarily equate to an increase in morality.

                  replyreport
2. 76

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   We're going backwards! We're de-volving even as technology is advancing.
   
   It's all about control. And what better than a scared, police-state, judgemental society to maintain control?
   
   "You are free to do just what we tell you to do."
   
   Our God.
   Our money.
   Our bodies.
   Our rule.
   
   YOU own nothing...not even your privacy.
   What you do in your private life is State Business.
   Subject to State Control.
   
   "The Handmaids Tale"....it's prophetic.

   replyreport
3. 76

   Hugh Williamsonposted 12 years ago

   According to Gallup, Americans are becoming more secular in their view of politics.
   
   
   Gallup Poll
   December 29, 2010
   Near-Record High See Religion Losing Influence in America
   Current 70% nears all-time high of 75% recorded in 1970
   by Frank Newport
   
   PRINCETON, NJ -- Seven in 10 Americans say religion is losing its influence on American life -- one of the highest such responses in Gallup's 53-year history of asking this question, and significantly higher than in the first half of the past decade. (more...)
   
   http://www.gallup.com/poll/145409/Near- … erica.aspx

   replyreport
   1. 59

      SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the link, Hugh, it makes for interesting reading although it isn't clear from the survey whether those who said that religion was losing influence wanted religion to have more influence.
      
      I would assume that anyone who wanted religion to have more influence would respond in one particular way while those who wanted it to have less would respond in a different way.
      
      It's a pity the survey did not deal with this parameter specifically.
      
      It is interesting that the survey shows that Republicans, who many perceive as religiously conservative, are more inclined to say that religion is losing its influence.

      replyreport
4. 76

   lovemychrisposted 12 years ago

   How do you "remove" God?
   Either it's there, or it isn't. Putting it on money--degrades the concept!
   Forcing people to bow to your God--Anti-thetic to the whole concept!
   
   These people are just angry that the whole world doesn't think like them. IMO
   
   And using the State to enforce your view is a great means of control, but has nothing to do with God.
   Religion+State=Iran/Israel. Not good for freedom.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I would agree that state religions are not good for the freedom of all citizens as it gives primacy to one dogma over all others and I believe that it would be contrary to the wishes of the founding fathers, who would appear to have been secular in their outlook, and against the constitution.

      replyreport
5. 76

   Hugh Williamsonposted 12 years ago

   We would be better served by a government guided by morality rather than religion. Religion doesn't necessarily ensure moral behavior, as other posts have pointed out.
   
   When someone promotes God or religion being involved in government, they inevitably mean their God and their religion.

   replyreport
   1. 59

      SteveMackenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Indeed, Hugh, religion does not guarantee morality. The morality of the individual is independent of that individual's religious persuasion. It would be fair to say that the morality of a nation would be similarly independent.

      replyreport