[TheBigDog]

I have seen in a number of threads an assertion such as illustrated below...

Originally Posted by CraigD

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.

I would like to examine this notion in its own thread. Maybe it is a regional thing, but I am simply not seeing this same trend, and would like to learn more about the origins of this notion.

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.

Thanks

Bill

[C1ay]

I must say, when Bush was sworn in the second time and Justice Rehnquist amended the Constitutional Oath at the end with the phrase "so help me God", I was offended. Bush has shown a number of religious biases in his own actions and decisions that make me uncomfortable.

[orbsycli]

That makes you uncomfortable?

I too, have beared witness to that mans religious bias
ever since what, the millenium?

I don't think the average joe who sees the prez on television puts two and two together,

they just see his hand on the bible, and assume he's a man of god.

awww, a good guy!

[TheBigDog]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I must say, when Bush was sworn in the second time and Justice Rehnquist amended the Constitutional Oath at the end with the phrase "so help me God", I was offended. Bush has shown a number of religious biases in his own actions and decisions that make me uncomfortable.

I can understand how that break from tradition could make you uncomfortable. Much the same way that removing the mention of God from traditional places makes those who wish to see it remain there uncomfortable. For example, the oath taken by the Vice President is...

"I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same: that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

And all congress members take this oath...

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

And all supreme court justices take this oath...

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.''

Are those traditional oaths offensive and the work of an administration bent on creating a theocracy?

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

I for one am not particularly worried about George W. Bush turning the United States into a theocracy.

Because I don't think Karl Rove would let him. Once conservatives have solved all of their social agenda issues, their alliance largely evaporates.

If we lived in a world without abortions, gay people, blacks, or atheists, how long until the conservative alliance evaporated and people started voting on other issues?

They don't want to these things to happen, which is the dirty secret of the Republican machine.

On the bright side, though, I don't think Bush and Rover are particularly interested in creating a theocracy.

What worries me more than them, is "opinion makers" who really, really are. Tim LaHaye for instance, author of the Left Behind books has been repeatedly associated with Christian Dominionism.

The extreme form of Dominionism is Christian Reconstructionism, which aims for nothing less than an Iranian style "Christian Revolution." Frankly, this form of extremism is pretty rare, and is best exemplified by crazies like RJ Rushdoony.

Dominionism is sorta like what they have in places like Saudi Arabia, or even Iraq, where Islam informs to a great extent political decisions. Reconstuctionism is the white version of the Taliban, and they are, to mind essentially the same thing. If they had power they would be just as dangerous.

Honestly I think a lot of people just don't find the idea of Dominionism that frightening, because something like 85% of the United States is Christian.

But in any case, while Dominionism is a fairly common viewpoint among Religious conservatives (that is, that Biblical (which I use with some hestitation) / theological concerns should weigh heavily on public and political decisions, the actual advocacy of an establishment of a theocracy is a pretty rare viewpoint.

I worry about Dominionism, not because I'm not a Christian, but because I think that the people who are generally hocking it don't realize the depth of compatibility between Christianity (as Jesus, not Pat Robertson, or the Scofield Reference Bible taught it) and Liberalism.

Remember guys, the first rule isn't "don't sin" it's "Love thy neighbor."

TFS

edited to remove gratuitous use of the word "frankly"

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

Remember guys, the first rule isn't "don't sin" it's "Love thy neighbor."

TFS

I believe the first rule is "Thou shalt have no other God's before me."? Interesting in itself as it admits to the existence of other Gods.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

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.

Thanks

Bill

I see this bent in Congress as well. Just the other day the an Oregon Senator pounded his theocratic view home in a talk while using his Bible as a prop of authority. Just one example of many.
In spite of what people claim, most of our founding fathers weren't Christians, but Deists. How many politicians can dance on the head of a pin?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by turtle

I believe the first rule is "Thou shalt have no other God's before me."? Interesting in itself as it admits to the existence of other Gods.

First commandment. The teachings of Jesus are subtly different.

I'll have to look up the passage, but I think it goes something "Teacher what is the most important law?" - "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

TFS

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Are those traditional oaths offensive and the work of an administration bent on creating a theocracy?

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.

[Freddy]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

First commandment. The teachings of Jesus are subtly different.

I'll have to look up the passage, but I think it goes something "Teacher what is the most important law?" - "Love thy neighbor as thyself."

TFS

From King James RSV in;
Matthew 22:36 "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, and with all your mind.38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depends all the law and the prophets."