Are We To Become A Christian Fundamentalist Nation?

Brown


You tell me how many of the posts are helpful? I think you are taking the discussions on a2k much to seriously. Aside from the participants of a2k nobody is listening. In fact I wonder at times if even we are listening to each other.

.
and so do I AU

Right again AU.

Although we must get some enjoyment or we wouldn't do it.

Cheers.

ebrown_p
For me it's a little knowledge and much entertainment. Unfortunately, when a medical condition struck which limits my mobility soon after retirement all my plans of travel went to pot. Being able to participate in this forum was and is a life saver. It keeps me from having to watch the idiot box a good part of the time as well as keeping me somewhat mentally active . It also keeps me from climbing the walls while allowing me the opportunity to cause others to.

Something to calm the nerves

DOO WOP HORSES (will make you smile!)] Wait for the entire
screen to load up with all four horses and a fence in front of them. Then
click on each horse. Make sure your sound is on. Re-click on any horse to

make it turn off or turn it back on again. Somebody did some real
wizardry
of programming to coordinate this! Try clicking on the horses from left
to
right then right to left then just one or two at a time... It's fun and a

good stress reliever. Have fun!


http://svt.se/hogafflahage/hogafflaHage_site/Kor/hestekor.swf

Profound.

ebrown

I don't accept your blanket disavowal of this subject.

First, what's proposed isn't the generality you suggest (religion voice is dangerous), the proposal is that a specific variant of the religous voice is dangerous...that which desires or heads towards theocracy. We'll assume you think the Taliban a fairly egregious example of politcal arrangement.

Now, before you say 'comparing the evangelicals to the taliban is ludicrous', let's acknowledge that the differences are extreme...the one is not the other.

But, what steps occur along that path? How does such a system ripen?

One could consider that, in the US or canada for that matter, there is no need to concern ourselves at all regarding church/state issues, because the system will take care of itself and prevent abuses heading in the direction suggested. But which parts of the system would we be counting on to do that? The Supreme Court? Congress? The people's rationality?

Blatham,

You last rhetorical questions are exactly right. The institutions of democracy as instituted in our Constitution have the role of protecting us from theocracy. These include the Supreme Court, Congress and the people's rationality as reflected by their votes.

This is the best we have and it is sufficient. Of course in a democracy, even people who disagree with you have a voice. But I don't see this as a problem.

Besides, No one in this thread has offered any alternatives.

Are you saying that we need to take steps outside of our democacy to keep from turning into a theocracy?

If so, what steps are you proposing?

Here's news about a theocracy that is going to cause "a thunderous roar that's going to be heard across the country."[/b] It's about the politics of the far-right religious fanatics that have been addressed on this thread:

http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/NEWS/StoryAlabamamoore04ww.htm.

ebrown

Yes, I understand the notion of balance of powers, and the protective mechanism which this design was meant to achieve.

That the system is 'sufficient' is not a factual claim, but a statement of faith. I think it a romanticism, and a dangerous one.

The positing of alternative systems or arrangements is irrelevant to the question. One doesn't have to do up a design for a new non-polluting engine to make the valid claim that the reciprocating engine running on petroleum distillates is problematic. One doesn't have to have a plan for feeding the world to argue that world fish stocks are in danger.

Steps outside our democracy? Like bombing? Like rigging elections? Like controlling and distorting discourse? What do you consider 'in' and 'out' here?

What I am saying is that 1) an assumption that the system can't/won't go wrong is foolhardy, and is a comfortable illusion. It assumes a perfectness in the design of the constitution which would have no precedent in human affairs, unless one is a biblical literalist of course, or a REALLY big fan of Abba.

and 2) if perfection ain't the state of affairs, then threats to liberty from this quarter are possible

and 3) such threats are most likely to be evidenced through the attempts to undermine (or effectively control) the institutions of the polity

Now, can we have a conversation?

WilliamHenry -- That link seemed not to work, so I did some digging and found this which may be the story... is it?
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/specialreports/TENcommandments/StoryAlabamamoore1104ww.htm

blatham,
It's worked for 200 years or so, it isn't perfect, but what more could we ask? The process may readjust one way or the other as it should, we are an ever growing and changing nation.

My apologies . . . the link to which I referred above apparently is no longer valid. The news story is about suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore and the continuation of his "fight" despite a refusal from the U.S. Supreme Court.

William Henry, I couldn't get your link to the Alabama Advisor to work. I can get to the newspaper, so if you would post the name of the particular article you are referring to, I can find it by looking at the general site.

Diane<

Tartarin has graciously posted the correct link. Thank you, Tartarin. I hope that Diane and everyone else on this thread will click on Tartarin's link.

diane

tart's post has it

brand x

It's not that we ought to ask more of the system, I think. It is that the system requires and educated and responsible citizenry who are alert that their system ISN'T perfect, and that threats to liberty are not only to be assumed to arise from outside of the borders.

blatham<

Some of the people who are "threats to liberty" in our country do not presume that they are. In fact, they think, they are protecting our liberty. Thus, we must always be vulnerable to threats from within, even though our viewpoint may be contradictory.

It is that balance of viewpoints that must always be heard.

blatham,

The citizenry are alert, that's why all hell is being raised about voting machines, misleading war selling and 5000lb. Ten Commandment monuments on court steps. It's all part of the beauty of the system, if every individual in the nation goes stupid then the system will also, but if at least more than half has some sense the system will be under a watchful-corrective eye.

Brown



What would happen to those protections if the religious right were to capture the agencies of protection? Suppose, just suppose that Bush were able to stack the supreme court with the likes of Scalia and Thomas. How much protection would we than have? Would for instance Roe v Wade survive? Would Bush have any problem with a congress dominated by the religious right pushing his religious initiative through and have them if need be rubber stamped by the USSC.

It is a scary time we live in -