Theocratic United States?

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by C1ay

They are irrelevant. The Constitution specifically gives an oath to be administered to the incoming President. It is not the administrator's freedom to solicit a belief in God as an amendment to the Constitutional oath. This lack of freedom does not infringe any rights of an incoming President to add such a phrase if they choose, but it should not be solicited. Chief Rehnquist stepped over a line when he did this, IMO.

From Article II, Section I of the US Constitution

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I wonder if any President has left out the God crap and stuck to the text as written by the delegates and ratified by the states.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Freddy

From Article II, Section I of the US Constitution

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

I wonder if any President has left out the God crap and stuck to the text as written by the delegates and ratified by the states.

Notice that the Constitution allows one to affirm instead of swearing. Thus far 3 presidents taking this option were John Tyler, Franklin Pierce, and Herbert Hoover. OTOH, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, and Richard Nixon swore the oath on two Bibles. I don't think anyone knows how many have or have not amended their oath to include "so help me God" though.

[Cedars]

The present US Executive administration is troubling to me, in that it appears to be engaging in an effort to redefine the relationship of the branches of government in an opportunistic and unconstitutional way, and move the US toward a theocratic form of government.

Originally Posted by BigDog

I would first like to open the floor to those who believe the notion to be true so I can get an idea as to what lead them to that conclusion.

There is not one effort that I can single out as a "this is why". Probably the most blatent example is Faith Based Initiatives. Religious orgs were always allowed to apply for fed funds before this initiative however, they were also required to adhere to the laws which protect all americans, specifically religious discrimination. Slowly the separation is being taken away.
Heres a list of various agencys which now offer monies to orgs under 'faith based'
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

What is wrong with this?

A quote from this page: http://usliberals.about.com/od/faith...nds_Faith2.htm
"What changed was the President Bush's first Executive Order of his presidency authorizing establishment of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, followed by H.R. 1261. "Community Services Block Grant Act of 2003 - Job Training Reauthorization/Bill to Provide Federal Assistance of Job Training Programs and Allow Providers of Job Training to Discriminate by Using an Individual's Religion as a Factor in Hiring Decisions."

It's commonly referred to as the "right-to-discriminate" provision because it allows a faith-based service provider to follow its own dictates and not federal guidelines, in its hiring practices for federally-funded programs. It allows churches to adhere solely to their interpretation of God's will in their program's hiring decisions, and not federal regulations.

$1 billion of taxpayers' funds were gifted in 2003 to social services providers who may freely discriminate in their hiring practices when using those funds. "

And places you would never imagine a problem with religious discrimination, such as Head Start
http://www.adl.org/civil_rights/boehner_amend.asp

I always figured Christmas had this covered:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...usdaymemo.html

From the wikipedia G. W. Bush entry:
On August 1, 2005, in response to a press question about the teaching of intelligent design versus evolution in public schools, Bush answered, "Both sides ought to be properly taught . . . so people can understand what the debate is about. Bush said, "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought."

Wikipedia references this article for above statement: http://www.boston.com/news/education...ligent_design/

There is also the Bush stance on stem cell research. Now if he really thinks this is unethical (their killing potential babies), why does he not find it abhorant to destroy the eggs that are unused? Additionally, as I understand medicine, every citizen of the US can refuse medical treatment. So if a person has an issue with a treatment (for this example stem cell derived medicine), they could refuse it under their religious idealisms (J.Ws and blood transfusions, etc). But the denial of the ability of science to develop medicines for those of us with no religious prohibition can only be described as government mandating a religious idea on everyone regardless of separation.

I dont know that this administration is worse than others in the past with regards to religious beliefs and taking america towards theocracy however, I think that the religious factions/individuals in this country who do have that vision of the USA have felt more comfortable with attempting to instill this on everyone else since this adminstration came into the white house.

An example: Pharmacists refusing to fill contraceptive prescriptions.

Google "religious discrimination" and "salvation army" or "catholic charities" and view how this is becoming manifest in formerly non-discriminatory social services.

[Freddy]

So they take our money and then allow those who distribute it to discriminate in their employment practices. There has not been a federal court case concerning this? What is wrong with this picture?

[Turtle]

Just watching some nightly news in order to get my blood to boilin' so I can save money on heating costs. It worked! Work...unlike the US congress who put in a mere 100 days of work this past year. If I were still working one of the jobs that helped disable me I'd be fired on the spot with extreme prejudice.
No small help to moderating my ire then when I see the bastards opening a session of Congress with a goddamn prayer! The theocratizing of government isn't our only problem, but it's a major one. The bastards are doing nothing but campaigning from the moment they win an election. I want my Constitution employed according to the oathes these SOB's took. They work for me! And you! Separation of church and state and a working person's work ethic is as hard to find in Congress as an angel on the head of a pin.
It is not enough to vote out the theocratic scum, we have to follow up with the secular scum we put in and make sure they get to work! Religious moderation is an oxymoron.

[Southtown]

What about the freedom of expression? They're citizens too.

[Erasmus00]

I see the "theocracy" at work in decisions to not fund good science (stem cells) for entirely religious reasons. I also see a growing trend in this country to neglect science where inconvenient, both in the administration and in the people (global warming, evolution, etc). I think that this article

http://www.aboyandhiscomputer.com/Gr...t_America.html

hit the nail reasonably close to the head.
-Will

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Southtown

What about the freedom of expression? They're citizens too.

The Constitution grants freedom of speech, not expression.

Originally Posted by USConstitution

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the Government for a redress of grievances.

Such freedom is prefaced on not violating other Constitutional law. Having a Bible, a prayer, or any invocation of religion or its tenets in Congress is respecting those articles and so in violation of the Constitution.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Southtown

What about the freedom of expression? They're citizens too.

I do not expect my representative to pray as part of his/her official duties. He/she can do that on their own time. Prayers should not be part of the official start of a congressional seesion....

[Igby]

I often wonder why Bush isn't criticised more for his evangelism-cum-dispensationalism, apcalyptic rhetoric and messianistic self-image. I guess calling him a stubborn cretin who would rather be certain than right is quicker and easier. Hmmm.

The Faith-Based Initiatives are more aimed at attracting religious voters than creating a theocracy. I read this article in Time magazine last week, and it shed some light on what's going on with the FBIs. I totally agree with what TheFaithfulStone said about Rove.

Someone else also mentioned the low value which seems to be given to science by the Bush administration, as far as global warming is concerned. In regards to that, I think this is a case of Bush and Cheney being from where they're from, and the careers they used to have. They are oil boys, through and through. As soon as those two are out of office, regardless of whether the GOP or Dems win in '08, energy reform will be implemented, and properly implemented.