Is the US A a theocracy?

[pkt]

Hot topic:
Is the USA a theocracy?

To wit:
- In 2000 George Dubya said that his favourite political philosopher was JC.
- The USA, the world's largest foreign aid donor, in providing aid to other countries and in participating in UN projects stipulate that there should be no discussion of abortion even for incest or rape, no discussion of family planning and the only USA-approved method of family planning and AIDS-fighting is abstinence. [No sex please, we're Americans?] This puts the US in the same unlikely bloc of nations as Iran, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan, and the Vatican.
- US politicians of every political party except the obviously non- and anti-religion ones are the only ones in the world who are expected to invoke JC in their speeches.
- In the 1950s Rev. Jerry Falwell declared himself to be a fundamentalist and thereafter, the Islamic (not Islamist) scholars of Egypt started to pay attention to this phenomenom in Islamic countries.
- Roy's rock in Alabama and the kerfuffle it caused.
- the Pledge of allegience to the Flag in schools. [I know this may not be religious in fact, but it smacks of religion in the flag.]
- 'In God we trust' on US bank notes for a country professing seperation of church and state.
- AmWay, Walmart are pseudo religions.

Is theocracy 'a good thing' or not for a country that's supposed to have constitutional guarantee of the seperation of church and state.

One rule for discussion:
I'm not dissing religion per se. I might be an agnostic, but I'm not anti-religion.

No name-calling PLEASE. We all know how off-putting that is.

Let's keep the discussion on a non-passionate, dare I say, scholarly, level.

Now go for it.

Thank you.
PK

[Inquartata]

Theocracy? No. Plutocracy, maybe.

Of course, as Euripedes said, "Money is the wise man's religion", so maybe it's a distinction without a difference!

[Dragonfly]

Government is certainly having a difficult time with the role of government and religion, how the two can blend, In God We Trust is good for a nation. Truely, if a nation doesn't have some basis of belief, it's rootless. I read recently how the state of Alabama was forced to dismantle the ten commandments. I see no inconsistency with keeping some religious items on display for the public, if only for its' historic roots. The nation is fundementally Christian/Judiac, having these roots in a monument form [maybe as a modest display] is not a problem. I hope this helps. For me, my religion is somewhat minor in the country, I wouldn't expect to see anything displayed about it for perhaps another 500 years, as it has no historic sentiment. I am actually thinking of not practicing anything for a while as I find mysef exhausted from the effort of sustaining a faith for 20 years almost on my own. I feel our government is on the mend again, but so much damage has been done to it's structure, that it may be a long difficult climb out of the doldrums.

[cowpaste]

The United States in the most unreligious country I've heard of, yet it is still very religious. The president always mentions "God" in his speeches. I sang patriotic songs when I was in elementry school which praised God in some way. The "under God" in the pledge was added way after the pledge was created. Republicans control half the goverment.
The best was when a bunch of people from my high school thought I was an idiot for not attending my high school graduation ceremony because it contained two prayers.

[Dragonfly]

I think those things are important for young people to have in school. We had the pledge, we sang "My Country Tis of thee" and we had prayer in school also. Kids then were pretty grounded. No life is without spirit. The discussion of Spirit, holiness, ways to live life with resect for others helps people and their country. The question of "whose religion" brought many changes to the nation. While it's true that each religion can't be recognized in each school, maybe each school should offer relgious study as coursework. I feel I am highly tolerant as I can study other faiths easily.

I spent a lot of time with the Hindu people and attended some special events; I also attended many ceremonies with the Methodists at that time, they were very strong on the islands.

Many times lately people have asked me about religion and I generally advise them to stay with larger more mainstream organizations with some history.

The President is Christian and his basis in faith comes from whichever church he belongs to. So, to find out where his head is at, find out which church he's involved with. They set the tone. The same for other countries and where they're coming from. I did see that some strides are being made in the middle east again. Maybe this time something will stick.

[Wizardly]

The government is not a theocracy - the priests aren't actually in charge. It's a plutocracy or corporate republic, but i'm not sure exactly which yet, though theology certainly has it's nasty influence. However, ammendment 1 is dead, and it was killed by people who can't stand it when people think, speak, or worship differently than they do - it is our only hope against a fundamentalist government or theocracy.

Corporate republic, plutocracy, or theocracy, it makes little difference - either way someone's imposing their will upon someone else rather than by concensus of the majority of the governed.

[pkt]

Originally posted by Wizardly
... It's a plutocracy or corporate republic, but i'm not sure exactly which yet, though theology certainly has it's nasty influence. ...

Wiz,

Is it typo or are you simply confused:
It's = It is
Its = possessive case of 'it'

You used it correctly in the first instance and incorrectly in the 2nd.

PK

PK

[pkt]

Originally posted by Dragonfly
... Truely, if a nation doesn't have some basis of belief, it's rootless. ...

So DF,
Are you saying China is rootless because China does no thave a basis of religion unless you count Communism.

In China, there is no indigenous religion - Buddhism was from India. Catholicism and Christianity, well, you know where those came from - simply because Confucianism, a philopsophy not religion, provided a moral framework without the religion gobbledy-gook. China got along without a state religion for 3,000 years. You can't call that rootless.

What China before communism proved is that religion is not a necessity to life.

PK

[zeidolon]

I would say absolutely not.

Theocracy:

1. Government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God; hence, the exercise of political authority by priests as representing the Deity.
2. The state thus governed, as the Hebrew commonwealth before it became a kingdom.

a) The US government is not composed of priests of any particular religion.
b) There is a clear separation of Church and State.

Side note: many people misunderstand the concept of point b. It should be where the Church does not excercise governance over the State, but is commonly used to depress and repress religious freedoms...there are many schools where prayer or bible study is forbidden, religious symbols are banned, and the adoption or reverence of religious tenents/morals/ethics is also restricted or forbidden. As such, there are many countries with a greater degree of religious freedom than the US.

Regardless of what anyone believes, I do not think it is right, morally or ethically, to restrict an individual's or a community's rights to practice religion, provided it is not violent, hate-based, or detrimental to an orderly society.

Personally, I think they should allow prayer in schools (regardless of religion) provided it does not interfere with education (i.e. prayer during free time, such as lunch or study hall) and does not require participation.

Anyway, I digress. The question was about the USA being a theocracy, and I would say that based on the definition of the term, the answer is an definite No.

Robert/zeidolon

[Inquartata]

Wiz, ALL government consists of "someone's imposing their will upon someone else rather than by concensus of the majority of the governed". Even when there IS a consensus of the majority, it is not possible to poll that majority on every issue, except in a very tiny democracy such as classical Athens...and true democracy has its own problems.

One of the few immutable laws of human behavior is that the majority will always be ruled by a minority. The best that can be hoped for is that that majority be passably good and passably wise, and not too self-interested to look to the public interest as at least a secondary goal.

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by pkt
Wiz,

Is it typo or are you simply confused:
It's = It is
Its = possessive case of 'it'

You used it correctly in the first instance and incorrectly in the 2nd.

PK

Don't get too caught up in the grammar and typing...at least i'm using the right words.

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by zeidolon
Side note: many people misunderstand the concept of point b. It should be where the Church does not excercise governance over the State, but is commonly used to depress and repress religious freedoms...there are many schools where prayer or bible study is forbidden, religious symbols are banned, and the adoption or reverence of religious tenents/morals/ethics is also restricted or forbidden. As such, there are many countries with a greater degree of religious freedom than the US.

Regardless of what anyone believes, I do not think it is right, morally or ethically, to restrict an individual's or a community's rights to practice religion, provided it is not violent, hate-based, or detrimental to an orderly society.

Personally, I think they should allow prayer in schools (regardless of religion) provided it does not interfere with education (i.e. prayer during free time, such as lunch or study hall) and does not require participation.

I think you also miss what "separation of church and state" means. Prayer in school is not forbidden, but nor is it mandated (as mandating prayer time enforces SOME governmentally sanctioned form of religious practice on the students). Religious freedoms (symbols and tenents) are not restricted or forbidden, they are simply not imposed upon those people of other faiths, agnostics, and atheists. For example, if YOU want to carry a copy of the ten commandments to school, you're perfectly allowed, but you can't expect the school to impose them upon its students with some kind of painting or monument.

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by Inquartata
Wiz, ALL government consists of "someone's imposing their will upon someone else rather than by concensus of the majority of the governed". Even when there IS a consensus of the majority, it is not possible to poll that majority on every issue, except in a very tiny democracy such as classical Athens...and true democracy has its own problems.

One of the few immutable laws of human behavior is that the majority will always be ruled by a minority. The best that can be hoped for is that that majority be passably good and passably wise, and not too self-interested to look to the public interest as at least a secondary goal.

That was the point of a republic - to avoid the problems of a democracy. And though the legislature is quite assuredly a minority, and the majority cannot be polled, it is reasonable to assume that in a true republic, the elected will act in the interest of the majority of the governed. A corporate republic, on the other hand, has the characteristic of the elected representatives acting in the interest of businesses.

[Inquartata]

I know this will strike many as heresy, but---sometimes the interests of business and the interests of the citizenry are the same thing...

Economically speaking at least, as goes business so goes the welfare of the people, who after all are the owners and employees of business.

If we were truly a "corporate republic", we would have no SEC, no EPA, no FCC, no regulatory shackles on natural monopolies, no unions....

[zeidolon]

Originally posted by Wizardly
I think you also miss what "separation of church and state" means. Prayer in school is not forbidden, but nor is it mandated (as mandating prayer time enforces SOME governmentally sanctioned form of religious practice on the students). Religious freedoms (symbols and tenents) are not restricted or forbidden, they are simply not imposed upon those people of other faiths, agnostics, and atheists. For example, if YOU want to carry a copy of the ten commandments to school, you're perfectly allowed, but you can't expect the school to impose them upon its students with some kind of painting or monument.

Actually, No. Prayer in school -is- forbidden in quite a few places. Students are not allowed to pray before games, during study time, etc. Religious symbols are not allowed to be displayed by students or teachers in many cases, and there have been a few cases where teachers have gotten in trouble for having a bible in their desk and reading it on their own time between classes.

These cases are examples of where the state interferes with religious freedoms, and doesnt sound like there is much separation going on.

Z

[veeco]

Originally posted by Wizardly
For example, if YOU want to carry a copy of the ten commandments to school, you're perfectly allowed, but you can't expect the school to impose them upon its students with some kind of painting or monument.

This is interesting. There has a been a raging debate in France over this. Some female students of muslim faith have been going to school wearing chadors. According to the French constitution, it is forbidden to wear any religious icon or display them in a public school. Some people want to change this to specifically ban the chador, as it is a hot topic and France has a lot of immigrates that come from muslim countries (Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia to name a few). There are private schools which have a religious education given, but public schools are strictly agnostic and no religious education is given in them. According to the French constitution, wearing a christian cross at the end of a necklace for example it prohibited. Of course, probably a lot of students are doing it, since a lot of people in France are catholic. What is interesting is that it is the chador that sparked this debate, since it is an obvious icon that everyone sees, and because some the girls are actually not really choosing to wear them, rather being forced by a parent. It does give a rather uneasy side to the debate, as it is seen as racism by some, since most of these people are immigrants.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by zeidolon
Actually, No. Prayer in school -is- forbidden in quite a few places.

Non-disruptive, voluntary prayer by students in school (or at school events is not forbidden.

Students are not allowed to pray before games, during study time, etc.

Students are perfectly free to pray before games during study times.... before tests..

What is not allowed is enforced prayer--that is, school officials mandating or allowing official use of prayer--e.g. no prayers broadcast over the loadspeaker before the game (even if student led).

Religious symbols are not allowed to be displayed by students or teachers in many cases,

Teachers--yes (depending on the state and school districts). Students, no. AFAIK, students can (within reason) wear religious symbols.

and there have been a few cases where teachers have gotten in trouble for having a bible in their desk and reading it on their own time between classes.

Could be--not aware of them. Although it seems more likely for displaying on their desk during class than reading to themselves in between class--in the teacher's lounge, for instance.

These cases are examples of where the state interferes with religious freedoms, and doesnt sound like there is much separation going on.

Generally, the schools, as compulsary for students, are set up to be as religion-neutral as possible--while allowing the students religious freedom to the extent it is not disruptive.

Teachers, as employees, and thus "voluntary" have some of their liberties restricted during the time that they are employed.

--Philistine

[Wizardly]

Originally posted by Inquartata
I know this will strike many as heresy, but---sometimes the interests of business and the interests of the citizenry are the same thing...

Economically speaking at least, as goes business so goes the welfare of the people, who after all are the owners and employees of business.

If we were truly a "corporate republic", we would have no SEC, no EPA, no FCC, no regulatory shackles on natural monopolies, no unions....

Individuals have economic interests, but I for one am more than an economic entity, nor do I appreciate being thought of as one. If you aren't a part of the economy, you are SOL, and this trend is increasing. Economic interests are a subset of public interests, not the other way around. The people are not only owners or employees...they are also dependents, homeless, unemployed, clergy, etc... For that matter, the interests of the owners are represented in a corporate republic, not necessarily the employees.

Remember when all those companies undertook all those "unfair accounting practices" tha resulted in Enron and others...SEC was prevented from imposing regulations that would have caught that. EPA is becomming increasingly lax in preventing a SAFE and HEALTHY environment and instead cares about a tolerable environment so as not to burden the polluting industries. FCC - remember the relaxation on media ownership rules. The airwaves are ours, by why are the only networks on television owned by billion dollar companies (except pbs)? No regulation on natural monopolies? Seems they're trying to deregulate the power industry, when last I checked...yesterday.

[pkt]

Originally posted by Inquartata
I know this will strike many as heresy, but---sometimes the interests of business and the interests of the citizenry are the same thing...

Economically speaking at least, as goes business so goes the welfare of the people, who after all are the owners and employees of business.

If we were truly a "corporate republic", we would have no SEC, no EPA, no FCC, no regulatory shackles on natural monopolies, no unions....

In4,

Wrong!
Wrong!
Wrong!

I guess the emphasis in your post should be 'sometimes'. At other times the answer would be NO.

e.g.
the trade disputes the US soft wood lobby foisted on Canada is contrary to interest of the new home buyers. The soft wood that has 27% duty levied on it are the grades either not produced in the US, or poorly so. As a result of the 27% duty, each new home buyer in the US has to pay USD1,000 more than otherwise.

e.g.
The duty that was levied on durum wheat from Canada by the US as a result of the US wheat lobby is not produced adequately and to the same quality by the US farmers.

e.g.
US citizens pay from 10 to 30% more on some prescription drugs as Canadians. We all know the reasons why this is so. How about the cost of medical care?

e.g.
The blackout on 2003/08/14 was caused by EnergyFirst because they are more concerned with the bottomline than the state of their equipment...

Prime Minister Jean Chretien asked Dubya, [I paraphrase] You either want free trade or you don't. You cannot pick and choose on which items to have free trade on.

the US government want free trade for oil and gas. Canada is the 2nd largest provider of oil to the US after Saudi Arabia. Canada is the #1 provider of gas to the US.

Interruption of freee trade by the various lobbies are detrimental to the interest of the individual citizens.

I know, I know, I know, companies are owned by the investors.

Nowadays, the retail investors are the minority shareholders. Ask yourself what %age of the retail investors attend the AGM? Not to mention of those who attend, how many question the CEO about how the company is run.

It is no different in the political arena.

This is one reason I prefer the British parliamentary system:
The PM gets questioned by the opposition parties when the House sit.

When the House sit, the Question Period is daily, M to F.

Furthermore, the Ministers - the US Secretaries of the Departments who are appointed by the President, not elected by the people - are all elected Members of Parliaments. They are questioned in the said Question Periods. [I know, I know, I know, the Minister are jus the front men. It's the bureaucrats who actually run the ministries.]

After each day's session is over, the PM and the various Ministers face the Press Gallery's scrum. Not a spokesman.

Some may question the value of QP and the press scrums, because the politicians have learned to answer by not answering, or by attacking the questioner [indirectly of course since the Memebers are allowed to address the Speaker only.]

So, these are similar questions:
Are the management of a public company responsible to the investors?
Are the politicians responsible to the voting public?

I propose the answers are both 'No.' Emphetically NO.

---)-----------

The US may not be a thoecracy as per the dictionary definition, it is a theocracy in fact.

To wit, as I pointed out in my original question: Why would the US insist on the application of some conservative Christian values before they will provide the aid to the UN?

We all know how well the policy of abstinence as a form of birth control works; yet the US government insist on the application of this policy over family planning which has shown to be successful.

US politicians, in spite of their behviour in the real world, better be seen attending church.

Under the British parliamentary system, as far as I know, the politicians are not shown attending church. Only the Queen does simply becuase she's the Head of the Church of England.

In this regards, the religion belief or lack thereof of the politicians are not important.

Is the reciting of the Pledge to the Flag at the beginning of each school day a neo-religion?

It sure look like it to me. In this exercise the flag becomes a neo-religion icon.

Ask yourself:
Did the Federal Supreme Court justices act correctly to have Roy's rock removed?
What do you think of those religious people [I refrained from using the word 'zealots' to describe those people] who prayed, cried, and complained about the attack on American values and prostrate themsleves? Do you think they are crazy? [Just like the buy in the Ikea ad? Is Roy's rock just another red fan, just another milk container?]

I apologise again for writing such a long post.

Regards,
PK

[Wizardly]

I wonder if you have any compelling arguments one way or the other about inter-country trade protection? Is free trade trickle-down or is it bottom-up (helps the supplier lower prices thus the consumer, or does it help the consumer thus raising demand)? I ask because your first two examples deal with trade restrictions.

The third example, on the other hand, deals heavily with fair business practices. The PD industry is the MOST profitable industry in the country, many drugs are developed with public funds, an average of 20-25% of every dollar or the price goes into marketing and the amount in sheer profit is astounding, the FDA is constantly under pressure to relax its safety standards, the PTO is constantly under pressure to expand the length of patents on drugs, a number of drugs are given huge breaks to treat rare diseases and are then turned to common ailments at huge profit - Americans not only pay the most for the drugs, but they've already paid to develop the drugs. Who's interest do you think is represented in the legislature? The voters who see the health-care costs rise every year, or the companies with umpteen dozen lobbyists and tens of millions of dollars to give in campaign finances who see their profits rise every year?

On a note of irony: we'd still have a flag pledge if we'd just revert back to the ORIGINAL pledge of allegiance...or if they'd add the verse:

"...under God, or the gods, or our ancestors, or the spirits, superior or supreme being or beings, if there is a God, are gods, ancestors watching over us, or spirits superior or supreme being or beings at all, indivisible..."

I'm thinking we should just go back to the original and strike the "under god" part...and just leave it at "if there is a god, the 'under god' part is implied."

Of course, for my part, I'd rather pledge allegience to the country, not the flag...just a thought.