The Cellar - How Do You Achieve Theocracy? In Imperceptible Increments, That's How

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - How Do You Achieve Theocracy? In Imperceptible Increments, That's How (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=10255)

How Do You Achieve Theocracy? In Imperceptible Increments, That's How

Like the story here, for instance. I particularly like the quote at the end where Representative Johnson notes that voting against it would make you look bad, like you were against religion. Its the political equivalent of the classic question, "When did you stop beating your wife?"...

http://www.stltoday.com/blogs/news-g...an-resolution/

Quote:

Mo. House considers Christian resolution
By Tim Townsend
03/02/2006 12:34 pm
A Missouri House resolution stating that “voluntary prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, and the recognition of a Christian God are not a coalition of church and state” has made it through the committee process and is scheduled for a floor vote as early as today (Thursday, March 2.)

HCR 13, sponsored by Rep. David Sater (R-Cassville) and co-sponsored by Rep. Barney Joe Fisher (R-Richards), was voted out of the Rules Committee 5-3 and onto the floor, according to Rules Committee member and Minority Whip Rep. Connie “LaJoyce” Johnson (D-St. Louis).

The resolution, which is concurrent with the Senate, does not have an enacting clause, and therefore “is just a political statement about Christianity,” said Rep. John P. Burnett (D-Kansas City), a Rules Committee member who voted against passing the resolution to the full House.

Rob Boston, a spokesman for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said the resolution had no teeth and was nothing new.

“This is a resolution, not a law,” he said in an e-mail message. “The legislature is basically approving a statement saying it does not like the Supreme Court’s rulings on school prayer. It changes nothing. It’s akin to passing a resolution praising motherhood. It may make some people feel good, but it doesn’t achieve anything.”

But the Anti-Defamation League was not as casual about the possibility of the resolution. “I’m sure Representative Sater is coming from a place of sincere and strongly held faith and you can’t fault him for that,” said Karen Aroesty, the ADL’s regional director in St. Louis. “But this would disenfranchise a whole bunch of people who are his constituents…even if this doesn’t pass, the harm is substantial.”

Neither Sater nor Fisher returned calls seeking comment. Rep. Shannon Cooper (R-Clinton), chair of the Rules Committee also did not return a call to his office.

David Clippard, executive director of the Missouri Baptist Convention, said he was not familiar with the resolution, but after hearing its language said the resolution “seems to reflect our country’s history.”

“Fifty three of the founding fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence were committed evangelical Christians,” said Clippard. “The foundations of this country started with Christianity, and this just goes back and acknowledges where we started.”

The resolution states that:

“Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation…

“Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority’s right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object…

“Now, therefore, be it resolved…that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours…”

Rep. Leonard Hughes (D-Kansas City), a member of the Rules Committee, said lawmakers were told in the public hearing that the resolution was “to protect majority rights.

“Last time I checked, majority rights were protected,” he said. “It’s ridiculous.”

Burnett said he wondered who “the majority,” referred to in the resolution, was. “Is the majority ‘we the policy makers in the legislature,’ or is it ‘we the citizens of Missouri,” or is it ‘we white people?’” he asked.

Clippard said the resolution’s critics do not understand the basic foundations of the U.S. government. “For someone to get upset with the country’s historical roots…you can’t change history, you can’t change truth,” he said.

Burnett said that although the resolution doesn’t have the “force or effect” of a bill that could become law, he believed the resolution was “a clever half step” in that direction.

Boston said that approach was unlikely to be successful. “Sure, they could pass a law based on the resolution,” he said, “and see it promptly declared unconstitutional by the federal courts.”

Potential amendments to HCR 13 have been circling the legislature, according to lawmakers. Most are attempts to make the resolution more inclusive by mentioning Islam and Judaism. Others are trying to negate the reference to “the majority.”

Johnson said she thought there might be an ulterior, election-year, motive to the resolution. “If some people vote against this, there’s a fear it might be used to make them look like atheists,” she said. “If you come out against something like this, you can fear a backlash - like you’re coming out against Christianity.”

'Bout time someone took a stand in support of the oppressed Christian Majority.

This is a resolution designed not to create a theocracy, so there's no call for alarm here.

The insuperable problem with "theocracies" is that no actual gods are to be found in the executive branch. They're not found in the other two branches of government either.

Message to MO House "get to some real work you worthless pack of vote whoring show dogs. Resolve to fund early childhood literacy initiatives."

therein lies the problem, the more educated you get the less likely you are to go along with a theological based government.. and trust me the mid west doesn't want people knowing too much.. it's bad for them you know. apple, garden, ribs and the devil put dinosaur bones in the ground to test our/your faith. etc etc. you know the deal.

(ps. by the by I am not trying to start an arguement on the topic 'HEY! I'm well read but also religious! the two are not mutually exclusive..okay?)

Aren't there some elections (primary) coming up soon?:eyebrow:

Yes. I am so sick of religious pandering, I could just puke. It is just another commodity in the great "vote me into power so I can get richer" game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

The insuperable problem with "theocracies" is that no actual gods are to be found in the executive branch. They're not found in the other two branches of government either.

The three branches of government in a theocracy? Are you talking about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

“voluntary prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, and the recognition of a Christian God are not a coalition of church and state”

Does this mean that, on public property, I can't display my Menorah or my statues of quetzalquatl, Vishnu, Buddha, or build Stonehenge? http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sa...smiley-055.gif http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/sa...smiley-049.gif

I'm pretty sure that, if you try it, someone will point out that it is not Christian, and therefore not a majority expression, and therefore not allowable.

After all, this is only about being the Majority.

Naw, it's about pandering to voting blocks.:rolleyes:

Theocracy? Nah, Not At All!

The onslaught of Christian vs Anyone Who Doesn't Live Their Way continues in Missouri. Our current Right Wing government, fresh from kicking thousands of indigent and disabled off of the Medicaid rolls, is now preparing to take away birth control from women on public assistance. The best part? It doesn't save any money from the existing budget, and the sponsor of the bill (a woman) flat out states that it is a Right to Life issue.

Yep...you read it right. A Right to Life issue. This means that the motion is intended to either curtail people from doing the nasty, or making sure that the chances of conception are increased if the act is committed, at least, by those who rely on public funds. Another case of "the majority" forcing their religious ethics on everyone else. This case is particularly stupid, since lack of access to birth control for the already indigent can only lead to the birth of more indigent children, and a greater burden on the public dole. But at least God will be happy.

Someone tell me again how we aren't moving to Theocracy? I find it amusing to hear those arguments while my legislature continues to work on laws designed to bring The State of Missouri closer to God.

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansas...l/14109047.htm

Birth control is elective, medical assistance shouldn't be paying for it anyway. Neither should any private insurance plan.

I want to see more strict regulations regarding drug use ... mandatory testing, and you get dropped off the rolls if you turn in a hot urine*.

*I know from experience that the tests are unreliable, and have a high number of false positives. If someone tests positive, then they get screened with the more sensitive test. Still positive, you're off welfare.

wolf, with all respect: One dollar of prevention saves 3 dollars of cure.

I also know that those who are "doing drugs" are eventually caught. Easy-peasy Japaneasy. I've done a few (urine) drops myself.

I presume that this sentiment runs to the dispensation of ED medications such as Viagra and Cialis, too? There are *still* insurance plans that pay for that, but not for birth control (which seems silly, too...isn't a pack of pills a lot cheaper than a hospital delivery and insuring of another dependant?)

The view of birth control as elective tends to indicate a view that sex is also elective. The animal drive to propagate the species might make this position problematic. :redface:

I think you should pay for your own damn viagra, yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf

I want to see more strict regulations regarding drug use ... mandatory testing, and you get dropped off the rolls if you turn in a hot urine*.

I keep waiting for government to tie drivers licensing to mandatory and random drug testing. You'll have to test to get a license, and you'll have to drop on demand to keep it.

Guilty until proven innocent helps keep our country safe and strong.

Been pulled over at a sobriety checkpoint lately?

Some private behavior has public consequences. DUI is one of those.

That's a case where such interference can at least be definitively shown to benefit the innocent. Every drunk they pull off of the road won't kill someone else that night.

On the other hand...Belton, the municipality to the immediate South of Grandview, has taken to setting up a checkpoint on 71 Hwy Southbound several times a year. This causes three mile backups (they check *every* vehicle) on a very, very busy highway while they go through the drill.

It is a sight to behold. They have giant area lights with equally giant diffusers to cut down the glare, an ambulance, five or six cop cars, a couple of tow trucks...even a portapotty.

I've decided that, the next time they do this on a night when I'm free, I'm going to drive through it five or six times, slurring my speech and looking bleary, so that when they test me and I blow 0.0, they get pissed and I have fun.

That might be fun, if they couldn't make you blow any number they want.:(

As with any testing equipment, results will vary, depending on the scruples of the operator.:eyebrow:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torrere

The three branches of government in a theocracy? Are you talking about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost?

Well, no, but don't let that stop you from quipping! :) Theocracies aren't required to be trinitarian, after all.

The one under discussion is.:rolleyes:

Er, in the sense of "is required to be trinitarian" or simply "is trinitarian?" We need to know what "is" is. (No Clinton smiley readily clickable, and that's a good thing.)

The one under discussion is trinitarian.:cool:

Wouldn't "triune" be a more applicable term...well, for a little longer, anyway, until a Christianity Amendment gets passed.

Yup...another small increment is under way.

Quote:

House committee endorses measure on critical analysis

Published Saturday, March 18, 2006
JEFFERSON CITY (AP) - A House education panel on Thursday endorsed legislation that calls for critical analysis of scientific theories, with the bill’s sponsor saying he doesn’t want students to just accept evolution as scientific fact.

The legislation does not specifically mention evolution or the concept of intelligent design - the idea that creation of the world is so complex that a higher power must be responsible.

Rep. Wayne Cooper, R-Camdenton, said that he’s not asking science teachers to tell students of alternatives to evolution but that he wants the issue studied critically.

"It’s a bill that wants to bring a fuller picture of evolutionary theory," he said. "We don’t want to picture it as just a fact."

Critics, however, see the measure as opening the door to teaching intelligent design in public schools.

"There’s a lack of understanding of the potential harm we could do to quality science education," Missouri National Education Association lobbyist Otto Fajen said.

The group Science Teachers of Missouri also opposes the legislation and worries it could lead to teaching intelligent design.

"This proposed legislation could be interpreted as requiring that equal or greater time be spent on teaching alternative ideas about the origins of life than those accepted by the scientific community," the group said in a position paper opposing the bill. Officials with the science teachers group did not immediately return calls seeking comment Thursday.

The bill requires science courses for sixth through 12th grades to follow "best practices," including pointing out when something is a theory or consensus of the scientific community but is not hard data. It says such material can be critically analyzed, including the teaching of "alternate logical explanations."

Cooper said part of the bill’s intent is to protect teachers who want to engage students in a discussion of the controversy surrounding the concept of evolution.

"All I want is for students to realize it’s just a theory," he said.

Fajen said scientists see evolution as a settled matter.

Cooper said he’s not pushing hard for the bill to pass this year, saying he wants to work with state education officials and teachers groups.

When the hell is someone going to introduce an amendment that requires that Sunday School tells everyone that Genesis is "just a story"?

You really don't think they'll give up, do you?:headshake

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspode

Wouldn't "triune" be a more applicable term...well, for a little longer, anyway, until a Christianity Amendment gets passed.

Not as I understand the usages: triune describes the Deity's triangular self, while trinitarian describes the believers in this triangular-shaped conception of Deity. There being no actual gods ruling in theocracies, that leaves just one choice, right?

Quote:

When the hell is someone going to introduce an amendment that requires that Sunday School tells everyone that Genesis is "just a story"?

Sounds like a good way to set the cat among the pigeons in Grandview, Missouri. Wanna get famous?

Dude, I'm already the only witch on the block. I'll be lucky if Grandview doesn't stop at my house first when the burning starts.

There's always camouflage. Nativity scenes should be cheap right now.;)

Or maybe getting ritually pantsed and paintballed, as tar and feathers are harder to find lying around back yards these days.