Theocracy Party Inside !

[GUNWOUNDS]

(original title was Removing crosses from federal property)

How do they intend on removing all of these?

open attached picture.

[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

[Acriku]

Is this a joke GUNWOUNDS? The people buried where I assume is the Arlington Cemetery, albeit irrelevant, have the choice of what to put as their tombstone. I saw some Stars of David among the crosses when I visited. The government is not forcing a certain tombstone, nor is it presenting any idea of indoctrination of religion in the government. You've got to be joking.

[GUNWOUNDS]

caaaaalm down beavis.

[nemafakei]

Hehe...

Though inspiring how? That you're inspired by lots of tombstones sounds... slightly worrying.

[DukeLeto]

That's not the issue at hand when we talk about removing religious symbols from government property; we're referring to things like crosses and copies of the ten commandments in or around government offices.

No offense Gunwounds, but...

image removed by Caid Ivik, somebody slap DukeLeto's wrist as I can't reach it from here ;D

[Acriku]

It was hard to tell if you were trying to provoke discussion about the separation of church and state or whatever, but oh well. Is it inspiring because so many Christians died for their country, or that it's the only religion displayed in this particular picture?

Careful DukeLeto, last time I used that picture it was removed and I got a slap on the wrist  ;)

[Caid Ivik]

Well, it's a fact that "separation of Church and state" sometimes leads to a djihad against any public religiosity, or simply against the whole culture (ie France)...

[GUNWOUNDS]

I missed the naughty photo.

[Edric O]

Well, it's a fact that "separation of Church and state" sometimes leads to a djihad against any public religiosity, or simply against the whole culture (ie France)...

Riiiiight, just look at the beautiful culture and lifestyle in countries where religion and government are mixed together... countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I wonder why none of the Christian opponents of the separation of Church and state seem to realize that when you mix religion with government, the result is that the government can mess around with religion (and often the head of state declares himself a divine being).

[Caid Ivik]

Why think so radically. Religion shouldn't be either used as a tool by government or opposed by it, that's all I say. We need harmony between institutes inside the society, but that's something you can't understand as a marxist.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Riiiiight, just look at the beautiful culture and lifestyle in countries where religion and government are mixed together... countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia.

I wonder why none of the Christian opponents of the separation of Church and state seem to realize that when you mix religion with government, the result is that the government can mess around with religion (and often the head of state declares himself a divine being).

Because many christian opponents are Protestants.

[Acriku]

I missed the naughty photo.  oh well.

What about unidentified soldiers ... what do they recieve?  Is the default tombstone a cross?

And its awespiring due to both reasons acriku.  If some immigrant or non-christian were to visit the cemetary what do you think they would think?  That we have some sort of christian/jewish army?  We wouldnt want to give the wrong impression to someone about a government institution. I mean the muslim countries already think we are in bed with Israel. I am surprised nobody has petitioned to replace them all with generic square tombstones.  :P

Unidentified fallen soldiers are represented at the Tomb of the Unknowns, in the Arlington National Cemetery. They do not get their own tombstone. As far as immigrants visiting the cemetery, they'd hopefully be knowledgeable enough to know that the majority of people in general during the great wars were Christians and some Jews, so the representation in the military would be proportionate.

Because many christian opponents are Protestants.  And Protestants by very definition are against the corrupt cultist view of religion and despise hierarchy within the church.  If Protestants ran the nation it would be much different (less corrupt)  than say a denomination that embraces hierarchy and allows corruption.....like Catholics.

I am sure there are peaceful non-corrupt non-cultist non-fundamentalist muslims out there who could also run a country quite reasonably.

Your gross misrepresentation of a church state being corrupt is almost as bad as when capitalists bash communism for being corrupt.  You just did something that you rebuke your opponents for.  Communism hasnt been instituted properly and neither has a church state.  So saying either one is not feasible is a fallacy.

That's balogne. A church state is a theocracy, and has been implemented many times. What do you mean properly? If theocracy was allowed, then whoever ruled the country would benefit his religion, but not the entire religion. He would only benefit his denomination, after all - why would he choose to benefit a religion or denomination that he deems heresy and wrong? If someone rules a country with his religion intimately mixed with the government, there will always be people with their rights overturned. What would you say to having the United States a Muslim president that mixed religion and state? You would see references to Allah, and financial benefits given to Muslim schools and churches, while the Christian and Jewish churches and schools receive none. That's peaceful, non-fundamentalist, and non-cultist. Corruption is a fact of life in leadership that high.

[ordos45]

Now everyone please stay nice, don't accuse each other's religions of corruptions.

(And would someone IM me and tell me what the image was, I trust Caid's removing it, but now I'm curious.)

Edit:  Thanks, know what the image was.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Now everyone please stay nice, don't accuse each other's religions of corruptions.

(And would someone IM me and tell me what the image was, I trust Caid's removing it, but now I'm curious.)

i am not trying to be inflammatory.. just explaining the whole reason why "protest" is in protestant.

[Edric O]

Why think so radically. Religion shouldn't be either used as a tool by government or opposed by it, that's all I say. We need harmony between institutes inside the society, but that's something you can't understand as a marxist.

I'll ignore your silly ad hominem and get straight to the point: The idea that "religion shouldn't be used as a tool by government nor be opposed by it" is EXACTLY what "separation of Church and state" means. And that's what I support.

[ordos45]

Okay, although that comment wasn't entirely aimed at you.  Everyone needs to keep a level head.

[Edric O]

Your gross misrepresentation of a church state being corrupt is almost as bad as when capitalists bash communism for being corrupt.  You just did something that you rebuke your opponents for. Communism hasnt been instituted properly and neither has a church state.  So saying either one is not feasible is a fallacy.

It's not quite the same thing. The reason why "communism hasn't been instituted properly" is not because the wrong people were in charge. It's because the system wasn't democratic, as it should have been. If you removed Stalin and put any other man in his place (i.e. in a position of absolute power), he would have been corrupted too. Absolute power inevitably corrupts absolutely. That's why communism (or any other system) will never work properly if someone - anyone - has absolute power. It doesn't matter if your Church-state is ruled by Protestants, Catholics or Muslims. If you give anyone absolute power, he will be corrupted by it.

[Caid Ivik]

I'll ignore your silly ad hominem and get straight to the point: The idea that "religion shouldn't be used as a tool by government nor be opposed by it" is EXACTLY what "separation of Church and state" means. And that's what I support.

No, here you have just took out a part of sentence to put me into same radical line. However then you should read the topic from beginning. And don't take this personally, you did not met me...

[GUNWOUNDS]

If someone rules a country with his religion intimately mixed with the government, there will always be people with their rights overturned. What would you say to having the United States a Muslim president that mixed religion and state? You would see references to Allah, and financial benefits given to Muslim schools and churches, while the Christian and Jewish churches and schools receive none. That's peaceful, non-fundamentalist, and non-cultist. Corruption is a fact of life in leadership that high.

HOLD on a minute there.

[Edric O]

the only people getting their rights overturned would be cultist, fundamentalists, corrupt people, and the minority which doesnt share the same religion that the government adopted.

And you consider that a good thing? ???

[GUNWOUNDS]

And you consider that a good thing? ???

If you believe in one true truth then yes.

[Edric O]

Perhaps the best way to do it in the USA would be to let States do it on a state by state type deal.  That would minimize stepping on people's toes.  And the theocracy would be led by the type of governor you elected.  And of course he wouldnt be an absolute leader as religious legislation would have to be voted on by everyone.

That's not a theocracy - that's just a democracy where the people can vote to pass some religious legislation.

A theocracy is a political system in which the Church IS the state - in other words, Church leaders run the country, and derive their power from their clerical status, not from the consent of the people. The leaders of theocratic nations often claim to be God-Emperors (as in Ancient Egypt), or at least claim to have some sort of demigod status.

[GUNWOUNDS]

That's not a theocracy - that's just a democracy where the people can vote to pass some religious legislation.

A theocracy is a political system in which the Church IS the state - in other words, Church leaders run the country, and derive their power from their clerical status, not from the consent of the people. The leaders of theocratic nations often claim to be God-Emperors (as in Ancient Egypt), or at least claim to have some sort of demigod status.

Then what would you call a system by which the nation was lead by a Christian leader who did NOT claim to be a demi-God but rather allowed legislation with Heavy christian influence to be passed?

EDIT-

[Edric O]

If you believe in one true truth then yes.

How does that have anything to do with a country's system of government? The government is an organization that takes decisions (the legislative branch), implements those decisions (the executive branch) and punishes those who do not respect its decisions (the judiciary branch). The purpose of government is to ensure the well-being of its citizens. Whether or not there is any "one true truth" has no bearing on the government's job.

Then what would you call a system by which the nation was lead by a Christian leader who did NOT claim to be a demi-God but rather allowed legislation with Heavy christian influence to be passed?

If that government is democratically elected, I would call it a Moralistic Democracy or an Authoritarian Democracy.

[GUNWOUNDS]

How does that have anything to do with a country's system of government? The government is an organization that takes decisions (the legislative branch), implements those decisions (the executive branch) and punishes those who do not respect its decisions (the judiciary branch). The purpose of government is to ensure the well-being of its citizens. Whether or not there is any "one true truth" has no bearing on the government's job.

If that government is democratically elected, I would call it a Moralistic Democracy or an Authoritarian Democracy.

Ok i agree Authoritarian/Moralistic democracy sounds a bit better to what i am describing.