Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your question makes a faulty presumption, and that is that Truth cannot be known; or more precisely, that the state is not competent to determine what is True Religion. On the contrary, the state can and must make that determination. As for how I would personally feel about a Muslim monarchy... I really can't say, because that could look like any number of things. It's certainly not ideal, but would it be better or worse than what we currently have? Who could say?
Here is a fact: Neither you nor the federal government are competent or capable of determining what religion is best for another person.
That would be wishful thinking then IMO. It is already as bad as all that, and there is more than a "tendency" to "encroach". That gradualism was arguably true until fairly recently, but not any more. One thing you have to give the far right religious zealots, they know what they want, don't care what anyone thinks, and take no prisoners. The decorous, fastidious people on the other side of this equation just keep getting eaten alive.
The only consolation is that right wing zealotry and authoritarianism is not sustainable and will eventually fail, with the potential for something new and hopefully better to rise up in its place. But who knows how many months, years, or decades of misery and human suffering lie between here and there? And who can say that a near-extinction event like nuclear war might press the "reset" button on the whole shebang in a really big way?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
Based on history, there are a number of things that we can be virtually assured would happen if the church (any church) were allowed to control the government in the United States.
First of all, we would all be taxed to pay for churches. Nine of the 13 American Colonies had taxes to pay for churches, and several European countries do so to this day. Some of the current taxes are as high as 20%. In a monarchy, there is no way to override the rule of the monarch, so you can be certain that your taxes would be used to pay for churches.
Secondly, rules that have no purpose beyond religion would become the rule of the land. Whereas we now have a few places where alcohol sales are prohibited (dry counties), those are few and are generally limited to the Bible Belt. These laws have been lessened a great deal in recent years, but a few remain. We, as citizens, can expect to see our ability to buy and consume alcohol severely curtailed.
Third, laws regulating when businesses can be open will become widespread. Most of the Sunday Blue Laws have been repealed, but a religious monarchy would, based on historical precedence, impose those laws, forcing businesses to close on Sundays. No more grocery shopping or restaurant meals on Sundays.
Fourth, laws hat were opposed by churches would be repealed and we would soon find that same sex marriage becomes illegal. interracial marriage becomes a felony, and all forms of commercial gambling becomes against the law, closing all the casinos in the country, including those on sovereign land belonging to the Native Americans. Nobody is exempt, and there is no appeal when a rule comes from a monarch.
Fifth, again based on history, religions that the monarch doesn't like will be closed and the leaders imprisoned. In the case of a Catholic Monarch, this would mean that all Protestant ministers who refuse to disclaim their religions would become political prisoners. Other religions most like wouldn't even get a chance to renounce their faith, but would be taken into custody, their churches seized, and heir followers put on police watch lists.
None of these things is even an exaggeration. They have real basis in US history, or they exist in the world today.
This is all just a bogus waste.
...more than a "tendency" to "encroach"?
That has been proven to not be true.
Because, they COULD have taken over...even with the current system.
It isn't like they haven't been "organized" to act en mass if that was their true propensity.
With numbers like they had for decades (80% of the electorate) they could have voted out whoever they wanted out, and voted in whoever they wanted in...at the smallest local level to the national level.
They could so heavily skew the Federal Government they could pass any and all legislation/laws they wanted...even amend the Constitution to whatever they wanted it to say we had to do/be...vote to disband the Supreme Court...override any Presidential veto if they hadn't voted their own person in yet.
And it could have happened in any 4 year election cycle.
IMO...the reason they haven't/don't...is because they are nowhere near as authoritarian as some purport that they are.
Your question makes a faulty presumption, and that is that Truth cannot be known; or more precisely, that the state is not competent to determine what is True Religion. On the contrary, the state can and must make that determination.
As for how I would personally feel about a Muslim monarchy... I really can't say, because that could look like any number of things. It's certainly not ideal, but would it be better or worse than what we currently have? Who could say?
Sorry, I had thought I was clear. Many people simply don't see the point. Those with faith tend to go someplace where people actually believe in something (evangelical Protestantism). Those without faith tend to leave Christianity altogether.
I don't know what exactly you have in mind when you say "mucks around"; but Christianity is a political religion. We assert the Kingship of Christ over all things, so the politics of a Christian nation will be affected and influenced by the Church.
I don't advocate theocracy, generally speaking. Church and state have their own distinct purpose and function. The bishop is not a king, and the king is not a bishop.
You've made the faulty and base assumption that those who are not Christian are also those without faith. There are millions of people who are completely faithful; they simply aren't Christian.
Here is another sincere question for the OP, or anyone who cares to answer:
i am going to ask you a sincere question. what is behind your intention and motivation and desire to impose a Catholic monarchy in the USA?
is it to shore up membership of an organization whose members are leaving in droves?
is it to eliminate other religions?
is it to return to the glory days of forced conversions through coercion and violence?
is it to salvage bruised pride because people are choosing not to join Catholicism, and those already in it are leaving?
is it envy of other religions whose numbers are growing while Catholicism is shrinking?
is it to show others who is boss?
is it to force your will on others?
is it because you have such a low opinion of humanity that you think they are incapable of making their own choices?
is it because you claim to know what is best for other people (the words that come to mind are patronizing and condescending)?
is it to fill the financial coffers?
is it to access a robust military to have for use by the Catholic church?
or ______________ other, your answers here
I have given no indications in this thread as to my intentions, motivations, or desires.
Your claim here is based on the premise that True Religion either does not exist; or if it does, that it cannot be known.
If True Religion does exist and can be known, then it would naturally follow that a nation and its people must live according to its precepts.
Do you see forced conversion to the True Relgion, like forced birthing, in a Catholic Monarchy?
How do you envision our lives will change?
What freedoms will we lose, and why would it be for the good?
What freedoms would women lose and what would men gain?
Do you see forced conversion to the True Relgion, like forced birthing, in a Catholic Monarchy?
How do you envision our lives will change?
What freedoms will we lose, and why would it be for the good?
What freedoms would women lose and what would men gain?
The Catholic Church teaches that if a baptism is forced on an unwilling participant, then it is of no effect. Therefore, forcing conversion on someone makes no sense as it is counter-productive. I challenge you to show me in history where and when it has been practiced.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
