American Christian theocracy

lizzie said:

In animals, it is evolutionary, but in humans, it is both evolutionary and religious in principle. Wolves operate purely on instinct. Humans do not. Human make moral and value judgements, based on beliefs of what is good or bad. We even take those value judgements so far as to be counterproductive to our survival and fitness as a species. As an example, wolves would instinctively kill another wolf who was a danger to their society. Humans don't do that. Humans go counter to what is logical, which is where our religious beliefs come into play, whether we acknowledge it as religious belief or not.

Click to expand...

Religion =/= morality. What separates us from the animals is the morality that our society supports and how we were raised as children. Eventually our society stopped tolerating religion's view on morality, and as such stopped letting the church kill people. You take any one of us as babies and throw us back 20k years, and we'll be ruthlessly bashing each other in the head with rocks.

My morality is not grounded in religion. If we got our morality from the bible, we'd be murdering non christians and gays for religious justice. I honestly believe we did really well in spite of religion.

Seems to me, however, that a pack of wolves operates according to what feels right to them in an instinctive sense. I can't imagine a wolf having any sense of 'right' and 'wrong' but rather it is driven by inate instincts to act as wolves have evolved to act. The wolf knows fear, pain, pleasure, hunger, and territorial protection. But not any form of morality.

Humans on he other hand also know fear, pain, pleasure, hunger, and territorial protection, but also of all creatures, the human has a strong sense of 'right' and 'wrong' and is the only species to develop laws. And ALL our laws are based on our sense of right and wrong, i.e. morality, and/or the need or desire to feed the government that enforces the law.

That religion informs us of 'right' and 'wrong' is going to naturally inform us of what morality we will follow. Christianity produces a very different legal system than does Islam. And most of us in America are very grateful that our legal system comes from Christian roots rather than Islamic ones.

RabidAlpaca said:

Religion =/= morality. What separates us from the animals is the morality that our society supports and how we were raised as children. Eventually our society stopped tolerating religion's view on morality, and as such stopped letting the church kill people. You take any one of us as babies and throw us back 20k years, and we'll be ruthlessly bashing each other in the head with rocks.

My morality is not grounded in religion. If we got our morality from the bible, we'd be murdering non christians and gays for religious justice. I honestly believe we did really well in spite of religion.

Click to expand...

I said nothing about Christianity. I'm referring to religious belief itself, which is a set of moral beliefs meant to help maintain a civil society. My point is that humans are religious, in addition to reasonable, as is evidienced by the fact that we keep people alive who are dangerous to our society itself.

lizzie said:

I said nothing about Christianity. I'm referring to religious belief itself, which is a set of moral beliefs meant to help maintain a civil society. My point is that humans are religious, in addition to reasonable, as is evidienced by the fact that we keep people alive who are dangerous to our society itself.

Click to expand...

I know you didn't say christianity and that you aren't christian, but that is the predominant religion of our society, and what many others (not you) claim what our country was founded on.

I don't think most people's morality is grounded in religion. If that were true, then if they lost their religion, they'd become immoral, violent animals. I made the transition from losing my faith while still actually becoming more moral. I now realize how precious life is, because it's fleeting and a one time thing.

RabidAlpaca said:

I know you didn't say christianity and that you aren't christian, but that is the predominant religion of our society, and what many others (not you) claim what our country was founded on.

I don't think most people's morality is grounded in religion. If that were true, then if they lost their religion, they'd become immoral, violent animals. I made the transition from losing my faith while still actually becoming more moral. I now realize how precious life is, because it's fleeting and a one time thing.

Click to expand...

I do think that religion is what most people's morality is grounded in, because I don't see much evidence of reasonable and higher thought processes going on, and I do see much evidence of people living with emotions as their primary guide.

lizzie said:

I do think that religion is what most people's morality is grounded in, because I don't see much evidence of reasonable and higher thought processes going on, and I do see much evidence of people living with emotions as their primary guide.

Click to expand...

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, lizzinator.

RabidAlpaca said:

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree, lizzinator.

Click to expand...

'sokay. I love ya anyway.

lizzie said:

I said nothing about Christianity. I'm referring to religious belief itself, which is a set of moral beliefs meant to help maintain a civil society. My point is that humans are religious, in addition to reasonable, as is evidienced by the fact that we keep people alive who are dangerous to our society itself.

Click to expand...

Don't you think, however, that the 'brand' of religion is important to the discussion? The American Founding Fathers were determined that the people would govern themselves and would not have their rights assigned and/or be subject to the dictates of any king or pope or other authority unless each person chose that for himself/herself. And while they fully allowed mini theocracties to exist within various colonies/states, nobody at the federal level would ever have ability to impose such on anybody. Or deny the people to have that if they wanted it.

Evenso, their moral code was informed and formed by their distinctly Christian beliefs and they, pretty much to a man, believed the Constitution would work only for a moral and religious people. But freedom requires that the federal government secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have and live our lives as we choose to live them. They trusted a moral and religious people to work it out and arrive at the best decisions. And for the most part they did. Those mini theocracies were gone by the dawn of the 19th century. Later those towns in their hellfire days would give way to respectable, peaceful communities. By fits and starts, a free people evolved into better versions of themselves.

But as I see it, trying to remove religion and religious faith from the equation is not working out for us well at all.

AlbqOwl said:

Don't you think, however, that the 'brand' of religion is important to the discussion? The American Founding Fathers were determined that the people would govern themselves and would not have their rights assigned and/or be subject to the dictates of any king or pope or other authority unless each person chose that for himself/herself. And while they fully allowed mini theocracties to exist within various colonies/states, nobody at the federal level would ever have ability to impose such on anybody.

Evenso, their moral code was informed and formed by their distinctly Christian beliefs and they, pretty much to a man, believed the Constitution would work only for a moral and religious people. But freedom requires that the federal government secure our rights and then leave us alone to form whatever sort of society we wish to have and live our lives as we choose to live them. They trusted a moral and religious people to work it out and arrive at the best decisions. And for the most part they did. Those mini theocracies were gone by the dawn of the 19th century. Later those towns in their hellfire days would give way to respectable, peaceful communities. By fits and starts, a free people evolved into better versions of themselves.

But as I see it, trying to remove religion and religious faith from the equation is not working out for us well at all.

Click to expand...

To me, what is important is that we do (as humans) pretty much uphold an essentially universal set of moral standards, as the basis of our laws. Theocracies (as in actual large theocratic rule) are detrimental to human freedoms, and criminalize things which people sometimes have no control over.

CLAX1911 said:

I am conservative on most fiscal issues, tend to bounce between liberal and conservative on social issues. I am Christian, however I am a live and let live Christian. I personally believe that the best form of evangelism is example. I try to be kind to everybody, I try to show love to everybody I attempt to act as Jesus did. This is my form of evangelism.

I used to wonder why people always depicted us Christians a beating people over the head with the Bible. Then I learned of something called the evangelical church. These are the so called "Christians" that act as God, not acting as God would want us to. I discovered the metaphor of a guy beating people with Bibles was a good depiction of these peoples behavior.

I am catholic, many so called "Christians" say I am not Christian but I think I have implied what I have meant about that.

I believe people who refer to themselves as evangelical want a fascist dictatorship of suedo "christianity".

I want a republic that respects no religion, kind of like the constitution says the USA is.

Click to expand...

I don't consider christian denominations as "christian" . Catholicism is Christianity. The bible that they thump people over the head with is Catholic only usually without the deuterocanon (it's what happens when you let some guy who couldn't get his way, butcher it). So when I look at them trying to force their views on others I just see confused people with a lost message.

I know most Catholics would be a bit kinder than I in this regard and would probably disagree with me but that's how I see things.

lizzie said:

To me, what is important is that we do (as humans) pretty much uphold an essentially universal set of moral standards, as the basis of our laws. Theocracies (as in actual large theocratic rule) are detrimental to human freedoms, and criminalize things which people sometimes have no control over.

Click to expand...

But moral standards are not necessarily universal. Not even among Christians are moral standards universal. Some are okay with abortion. Others see it as murder. Some are okay with free love or promiscuity; others teach that you should wait for a ring and date or sometimes even a ceremony before having sex. Some teach wives being submissive to their husband to the extreme; others consider that unacceptable. Some Christians see it as immoral for the government to take from onw person and give that to another while others see that as the duty and responsibility of a moral government.

But for a government to practice morality and require the people to comply, how is that not a form of theocracy? The Founders assigned the duty of federal government neither morality nor immorality but rather saw its sole function to be to secure the rights of the people and maintain what organizational structure was necessary for the states to function as one nation AND as individual states and otherwise all issues of morality would be left to the people themselves to decide and exercise.

AlbqOwl said:

But moral standards are not necessarily universal. Not even among Christians are moral standards universal.

Click to expand...

There is a basic set of moral behaviors which seem to be universal. Those would be aversion to murder, theft, incest (in most cases), and rape, and abuse of defenseless people.

AlbqOwl said:

But for a government to practice morality and require the people to comply, how is that not a form of theocracy? The Founders assigned the duty of federal government neither morality nor immorality but rather saw its sole function to be to secure the rights of the people and maintain what organizational structure was necessary for the states to function as one nation AND as individual states and otherwise all issues of morality would be left to the people themselves to decide and exercise.

Click to expand...

If the ten commandments were the laws of the land, your point might be well taken, but they aren't. A theocracy exists when the religious and governmental authorities are one and the same. See countries with Sharia law as an example.

lizzie said:

There is a basic set of moral behaviors which seem to be universal. Those would be aversion to murder, theft, incest (in most cases), and rape, and abuse of defenseless people.



If the ten commandments were the laws of the land, your point might be well taken, but they aren't. A theocracy exists when the religious and governmental authorities are one and the same. See countries with Sharia law as an example.

Click to expand...

It does not have to be the ten commandments. Any requirement of government that demands us 'do good' to another is a form of morality. Most especially when it is forced upon us as the 'right thing to do' because it is justice or compassion or equality. And using any definition of 'righteousness' as a justification for what government demands of us is indeed a form of theocracy.

Consider the entire welfare state. What is its purpose? How is it justified?

Of course the reverse is also applicable. If the federal government can tell us where we can and cannot pray, where we can and cannot display a religious symbol or work of art, etc. or what school children can and cannot sing, that also is based on considerations of justice or equality or consideration of others' feelings and is also a form of theocracy based on a definition of righteousness.