Fundi polygamist cults at it again.

[Warsie]

The original caller was a hoax. This came out yesterday

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=61963

[Mayabird]

Do you have a respectable source for that? Because if World Net Daily said the sky was blue, I'd step outside to make sure. And it'd probably be cloudy that day, too.

[Gerald Tarrant]

Unlike most Christian demoninations, the Mormon doctrine has a much tighter grasp on the dumbasses who follow it, requireing a tithe, even go so far as automatic deductions.

Required tithes? Yes. Automatic deductions? That's news to me. My folks work at BYU (the Church run University) and I still remember them writing checks once a month to pay tithing. I had a summer job working there as well, and I never had automatic deductions, I'd like a source on that claim please.

Directly controlling the household, and dictating to them who their family will be.

Once again this is news to me. The closest real-life example of this I can find is the LDS Church's former policy on members who don't marry other Mormons. It used to be that those members were not allowed to attend the temple. Also The church does issue a bunch of guidelines for families, at one point face cards were listed as not appropriate, (I can't count how many times I've played hearts/spades/poker with my family-immediate and extended).

[Gerald Tarrant]

The original caller was a hoax. This came out yesterday

Legal question.

That shouldn't change things should it? Even if it were fake, in response to the "fake call" the Texas authorities went out to the YFZ ranch, and found sufficient evidence for a Family Services intervention. It was a fairly served warrant, even if the evidence that spawned it was faulty, right?

[The Yosemite Bear]

Do you have a respectable source for that? Because if World Net Daily said the sky was blue, I'd step outside to make sure. And it'd probably be cloudy that day, too.

you live in washington!

the sky is ALWAYS cloudy/raining.

It's like emo/grunge heaven...

[phongn]

Do you have a respectable source for that? Because if World Net Daily said the sky was blue, I'd step outside to make sure. And it'd probably be cloudy that day, too.

There may be something to this; the Houston Chronicle is reporting something similar to WND.

[Napoleon the Clown]

As is your own for not actually looking at the religion, rather than just assuming that they are 'good' and 'right.' The Mormons are also the only group (that I know of) were a person can be converted after death, wether they wish for it or not. (And yes, some dickhead 'converted' some of my ancestors who were dead by the time the Young came along.)

Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about? Really? So does getting baptized as a baby mean the child of a Catholic family has converted to Catholicism? Baptism for the dead (the thing you're referring to) is like baptism of a living human being, by Mormon belief. Mormons believe the person can reject the baptism if they don't want it. It's still a dick move, but the person isn't "being converted" any more than a baby is when Catholic parents dribble water on its head.

So, the government cant put down dickhead religious nuts? Oh yeah, what would you call the raid? Regardless of that, and I'm going to be an ass, and say that they should have done a better job. There wasnt even any real fighting that took place when the troops were sent, rather the Mormons used a scorched earth tactic. Then, as is now, they are a Religious Cult, bent on trying to control the Government.

Which would have been the case if the Mormons had been trying to displace the government instead of practice their beliefs. Fuckwit. Since when is it "trying to control the government" when you want your right to freedom of religion to be respected?

Lets see..a bit of logic here:
1.) A Mormon does what the prophet (lead asshole) of the church says, as that prophet's words are divinly inspired and infallible.
2.) The Governor is Mormon.
3.) If that isnt enough, a case can be made that the Governor is in direct contact with the church at all times. One such evidence being that there is a tunnel from the capital to the church, directly linking them.

The conclusion is easy to come to:
1.) since 1 is true (and you didnt even try to refute it) and 2 is true, the only logical explination is that the Church controls the Governor. I do realize that each person makes up their own mind, however, It seems to me that only a 'good' Mormon would be 'elected' governor in the first place.
2.) Utah, is a theocracy,

Theocracy is a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a church), replacing or dominating civil government.[1] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws.

Theocracy should be distinguished from other secular forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held "By the Grace of God".

A theocracy may be monist in form, where the administrative hierarchy of the government is identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two 'arms,' but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy.

Some democratic political parties and other organizations advocate reconstruction of governments as theocracies. See the article on the Islamic party. Other alleged examples include the Unification Church and Christian Reconstructionism.

-from Wikipedia

And yes, any state that has Mormon leaders are technically a theocracy, as the person is expected to do what the church says (though free will and all)

Except I haven't heard the leaders of the LDS faith tell people who to vote for, how to vote, or what laws to support. Guess what other group believes their leader is divinely inspired and infallible? The Roman Catholic Church. Does that mean that any state with a Catholic governor is going to be a theocracy? You're a fucking idiot.

I live in Utah, and the Mormons sure as hell do have an influence on the way things are run. But, and you'll be surprised to read it, the laws are a lot less conservative than primarily Baptist states. I am unaware of there ever being any anti-blasphemy laws on the books, the liquor laws are less restrictive than a number of other states (despite Mormon opinion on alcohol), and all other manner of things. Utah is less a theocracy than Alabama. Having a Mormon governor has less an impact on policy than the majority of the residents being Mormon. And, seeing as how the LDS Chuch leadership rarely express opinion on manners pertaining to government and the establishment of laws, I don't see how a Mormon governor would make a state any more likely to be a theocracy. Mormons are actually kinda big on the whole choice thing, so they're a bit hesitant to try to force people into following LDS beliefs. Contrary to what you may be told, a Mormon is free to drink Coke and still do everything a member that doesn't drink Coke does. Hell, you're free to violate the Word of Wisdom to your heart's content and remain an active member. Granted, you won't be able to hold a temple recommend. But there won't be excommunication or disfellowship occurring. You may get shunned by individual members, but that's more human nature than anything.


Of course, we wouldn't want to get in the way of your delusions and maybe even persecution complex. So if you can't accept that you're wrong about Utah being more theocratic than any other state that's primarily one religion, go ahead and skip over this and be an intellectually dishonest fuckhead.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

Do you have a respectable source for that? Because if World Net Daily said the sky was blue, I'd step outside to make sure. And it'd probably be cloudy that day, too.

I saw it on CNN today, a photo of her was out and everything. But the general statement seems to be, "It doesn't matter, we've found shit here and we're investigating, regardless of who led us to this shit."

[Kamakazie Sith]

The original caller was a hoax. This came out yesterday

Legal question.

That shouldn't change things should it? Even if it were fake, in response to the "fake call" the Texas authorities went out to the YFZ ranch, and found sufficient evidence for a Family Services intervention. It was a fairly served warrant, even if the evidence that spawned it was faulty, right?

No, because the action was based on good faith.

[CaptainChewbacca]

As I understand it (from what Kodiak told me) the baptism for the dead is like mailing a 'blessing' to the soul in the afterlife. They can opt to refuse it if they want, so none of your dead ancestors are mormon unless they want to be.

[Napoleon the Clown]

As I understand it (from what Kodiak told me) the baptism for the dead is like mailing a 'blessing' to the soul in the afterlife. They can opt to refuse it if they want, so none of your dead ancestors are mormon unless they want to be.

You hit the nail on the head there. The belief is that there's always the choice there. Like I said, it's not too different from a baby getting baptized by Catholic parents. There's still the option of rejecting it.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Just found out that my brother-in-law, is a lapsed Mormon. (as in Lapsed enough to hang out at Starbucks)

[Gerald Tarrant]

I'm not sure you're understanding what's upsetting about baptisms for the dead. The vast majority of Christians (who think Mormon doctrine isn't correct) are probably not worried about their ancestors posthumously joining the LDS faith (the reasoning for me is; if the religion isn't correct, then I'm not concerned about the results of it's rituals/ordinances.) To outsiders plenty of things about the LDS church seem Masonic, and some people are probably upset about the possibility of an ancestor's name being used in a "Masonic ritual", regardless of whether the doctrine is correct or not.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Oh, I fully understand that. And, like I said, baptism for the dead is still a dick move. But it isn't "converting someone after death" by any stretch of the imagination.

[Broomstick]

But "conversion after death" is exactly how many people perceive it, whether that is correct or not.

[Zwinmar]

I cant believe I'm saying this on this board of all places. But some need to quit being apologetic for the religion. Try looking at the loony fundies critically.

Their leadership has stated that their dickhead leader is the mouth of god, infallible must be obeyed. That is one of the fuckers beliefs. Rather that even address that some go around say: Yes, but, not everyone follows it.

You brought up the Catholic Church, go review European history, were the Holy See DID control governments and appoint the leaders. It was only after the Protestant Reformation that the people threw them off.

Wether they accept conversion after death? get fucking real. They are dead, this 'conversion' is a move to make people feel good and to boost church numbers, and they automatically assume that the dead accept, escpecially since they cant say no..they are fucking dead after all.

((Note: Once the library opens tomarrow I will go find proof of Utah being a theocracy, its closed today, and honestly it may take me a few days as I am going to find good resources, not some bullshit websites or conspiracy theorists))

[Kanastrous]

Having spent about six months working in SLC, together with a crew mostly made up of every kind of Mormon from jack to obsessive, I can report that the place sure didn't impress me as a theocracy.

Much as I was expecting it to.

[Darth Wong]

A better test of theocracy is the presence of religious rituals in government, or (especially) special treatment of religious beliefs in law. Mind you, most American states fail that test quite miserably, especially in terms of the way they treat gays. Not to mention the fact that Congress opens with a fucking public prayer.

However, in most instances involving public prayer in the US, such as the opening of Congress, at least some attempt is made to keep it non-denominational and inclusive. I realize that may not satisfy those who want no prayer at all, but since some of these bits are so non-specific that they could be uttered equally easily by any Christian or Jew, or even a Muslim, they are getting into pretty bland religion.

Oooh, Islam and both parts of Judeo-Christianity! That's so astoundingly inclusive!

A theocracy, on the other hand, would tend to be much more specific.

Likewise, an established church of a nation could insist on highly-specific prayers. If the US insists on opening things with prayers, it also insists on making them inclusive of as broad an audience as possible in recgnition that no one sect is truly a majority, although larger groupings (such as "Protestant Chrisitans") may compose one.

Bullshit. "One Nation Under God" does not mean "any kind of belief you might come up with, and not in any way intended to specifically refer to the God of Abraham", and you know it.

The founders were highly opposed to an established church, but were welcoming of religious people entering public life. I realize that is not how many people here would arrange matters, but that is how we arrived where we currently are.

And how does any of this mean the US is not theocratic? You pass laws discriminating against people because the Bible says to, for fuck's sake. All you're doing is drawing an invisible (and undefined) line in the sand that says a certain amount of theocratic behaviour is OK.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This is just more indication how Abrahamics in general and Americans in particular think non-Abrahamics are still pagans and inferior. Their "tolerance" for eastern religions is threadbare.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Having spent about six months working in SLC, together with a crew mostly made up of every kind of Mormon from jack to obsessive, I can report that the place sure didn't impress me as a theocracy.

Much as I was expecting it to.

Try going to a bar or buying sex toys etc. There are all kinds of unreasonable barriers on legal adult activities because of stupid religious paranoia and neurosis about sex.

[Broomstick]

A better test of theocracy is the presence of religious rituals in government, or (especially) special treatment of religious beliefs in law. Mind you, most American states fail that test quite miserably, especially in terms of the way they treat gays. Not to mention the fact that Congress opens with a fucking public prayer.

However, in most instances involving public prayer in the US, such as the opening of Congress, at least some attempt is made to keep it non-denominational and inclusive. I realize that may not satisfy those who want no prayer at all, but since some of these bits are so non-specific that they could be uttered equally easily by any Christian or Jew, or even a Muslim, they are getting into pretty bland religion.

Oooh, Islam and both parts of Judeo-Christianity! That's so astoundingly inclusive!

I in no way denied a religious element in US culture and government, I am stating that no one sect predominates. Can you have a theocracy when no one sect predominates? What exactly IS the definition of a theocracy? I have always thought of a it as a government dominated by one particular religion, not a government where many different religions are included.

And, given the way various religious sects have slaughtered each other over the years a country where all three major branches of the Abrahamics and their splinter groups live without serious attempts at butchering each other is something of a historical anamoly. As I stated, it will not make the pro-atheist, secular-people-only-in-government contingent happy.

A theocracy, on the other hand, would tend to be much more specific.

From Dictionary.com:

Theocracy:

1. a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
2. a system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
3. a commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

1) Under the US Constitution the three branches of government are the "supreme leader" (power being split, at least in theory, between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches). God is not mentioned even once in that document. Laws in the US are interpreted by the courts, not by any church or other religious authorities.

2) The US government is not composed of priests (or equivalent). Although far too may lay people claim a "divine commission" that's a cultural problem, not a governmental one.

3) As neither of 1 or 2 apply, neither does 3

So, by the dictionary definition of "theocracy" the US does not qualify. That in is, in no way, a denial on my part that religion plays a heavy role in the culture. It is not a denial that religion can be a toxic element where it seeps into culture, lawmaking and other areas. There is certainly a gap between theory and practice when it comes to how the US functions. The fact that there is a heavy influence of religion on the country is undeniable. This is, however, a denial that the US can be called a "theocracy". If we are using a different definition of "theocracy" than the strict dictionary one please lay that on the table so we are defining terms in the same way.

Likewise, an established church of a nation could insist on highly-specific prayers. If the US insists on opening things with prayers, it also insists on making them inclusive of as broad an audience as possible in recognition that no one sect is truly a majority, although larger groupings (such as "Protestant Christians") may compose one.

Bullshit. "One Nation Under God" does not mean "any kind of belief you might come up with, and not in any way intended to specifically refer to the God of Abraham", and you know it.

A few points: the Pledge of Allegiance did not even exist until 1892, was not officially recognized until 1945, and originally did NOT contain the phrase "Under God" - that was added in 1954. It is a relative newcomer, and can not be held to reflect anything of importance prior to its creation and alteration. It is also despised and rejected by quite a few religious groups, including Jehovah's Witnesses, who view it as idolatry. In 2002 the Ninth Circuit Court ruled the phrase an unconstitutional endorsement of monotheism in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, In 2006 Frazier v. Alexandre (in Florida) ruled that requiring recitation of the pledge violates both the first and fourteenth amendments. However much recent government assholes have crowed about it, the pledge is not law, opposed by many, and surprisingly controversial. Thus, I do not see it as evidence of a "theocracy" in the US, but rather an example of how religious assholes like to corrupt things as part of their desire to impose their views on others.

Also, the courts have upheld that the first amendment- the freedom of religion one - does, in fact, apply to ALL religions, as well at the LACK of religion. Although the Fundies might disagree (and certainly fight it) plenty of "minority" religions have had their rights upheld in the US. The record is somewhat spotty in locations, but anything that gets to the Supreme Court is usually decided in favor of free practice of religion whether Abrahamic or not.

The Federal government currently is much more tolerant of religion or lack thereof than some of the states, which is why non-Abrahamics (including Buddists, Native Americans, Hindus, Sikhs, Wiccans, and a bunch even I have never heard of) can have the appropriate religious identifiers carved on their headstones at Arlington and other national cemeteries. If you want your mortal remains to be proudly labeled "atheist" for all eternity you have the option to make that explicit as well. Although certain individuals fail to follow instructions in religious tolerance, the US armed forces do recognize many non-Abrahimic religions, as well as atheism and has ordered it's members to tolerate such things. Although getting elected as a non-Abrahamic would be difficult, Federal employment has been a refuge for many who would otherwise feel discriminated against in religion and that has been true for decades. Likewise, there is not LEGAL bar against an atheist or non-Abrahamic being elected or appointed to high office - the weight of custom and tradition is the barrier, not any law. Then again, if you had told me ten years ago that a black man could make a serious run for a major party presidential nomination in my lifetime I would probably have told you that you were full shit - if you told me his chief opponent for the party nomination would be a woman I'd say you were REALLY full of shit. And look what we have here in 2008...

Again, this is in no way a denial that religion exists in the US, it is an argument against the US being a theocracy, that is, a nation ruled by particular religion or group of religious authorities.

The founders were highly opposed to an established church, but were welcoming of religious people entering public life. I realize that is not how many people here would arrange matters, but that is how we arrived where we currently are.

And how does any of this mean the US is not theocratic?

See above definition of "theocracy". If you would like to use a different definition please state that definition explicitly.

You pass laws discriminating against people because the Bible says to, for fuck's sake. All you're doing is drawing an invisible (and undefined) line in the sand that says a certain amount of theocratic behaviour is OK.

I didn't say it was OK, I said it didn't qualify the US as a theocracy - stating that is neither approval nor disapproval.

Yes, there are laws that are passed due to religious influence. Well, people do have a right to believe in whatever religion they want to, or to not believe in religion at all. However, it is also not unusual for religion-based laws to be overturned by the courts.

Holding up, say, a Texas law against selling sex toys or a Georgia anti-sodomy law is not representative of the US as a whole. If the US was a theocracy these things would not be hit or miss, they'd be much more uniform across the country. I could see someone arguing that Georgia is a theocracy, or Alabama, or Texas based on such laws, but not the entire Untied States for the simple reason that vibrators and dildos are easily obtainable outside of those locations either retail or by mail order, and many localities have specific legal bars against discriminating against homosexuals or have nothing regulating the sexual conduct of consenting adults.

Are there anti-homosexual bias, hate crime attacks, etc? Yes. Note the word "crime" in the prior statement. Religion can not be used as an excuse to harm others, particularly those outside one's little cult. The fact such wrong-doing occurs does not prove the US is a theocracy, either.

[Darth Wong]

I in no way denied a religious element in US culture and government, I am stating that no one sect predominates.

Ah, I see. You're delusional. How silly of me to think that it might be possible to identify one dominant religion in the US.

Can you have a theocracy when no one sect predominates?

Yes.

What exactly IS the definition of a theocracy?

From Merriam-Webster as opposed to dictionary.com, which isn't even a real source:

theocracy:
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

As long as every candidate for the presidency is required to demonstrate to the populace that he takes guidance from his religion (which is most definitely the case at the moment), the US is a theocracy. Like it or not, there is a religious test for office: the fact that it is applied by the media and the people rather than the courts may mean it does not violate the constitution, but it does mean that the country is theocratic. Hell, you can't run for office without practically whoring yourself to religion, and telling everyone how devout you are.

I have always thought of a it as a government dominated by one particular religion, not a government where many different religions are included.

Your idea of "different" religions is clearly incompatible with mine, since Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are nothing more than different branches of a single belief system, all believing in the same God.

And, given the way various religious sects have slaughtered each other over the years a country where all three major branches of the Abrahamics and their splinter groups live without serious attempts at butchering each other is something of a historical anamoly. As I stated, it will not make the pro-atheist, secular-people-only-in-government contingent happy.

Nice strawman, moron. Never did I say that you have to get rid of all religious people in government. But they must NOT claim to be taking divine guidance in their governing, which is not the case as long as every candidate for president must first convince the population that he is strongly guided by his religious beliefs.

So, by the dictionary definition of "theocracy" the US does not qualify.

No, that's only true by the particular definition you chose to cherry-pick from dictionary.com, which isn't even a real dictionary site but rather, a meta-lookup of other sites.

Bullshit. "One Nation Under God" does not mean "any kind of belief you might come up with, and not in any way intended to specifically refer to the God of Abraham", and you know it.

A few points: the Pledge of Allegiance did not even exist until 1892, was not officially recognized until 1945, and originally did NOT contain the phrase "Under God" - that was added in 1954.

So? I'm talking about whether the US should be considered a theocracy right now.

Also, the courts have upheld that the first amendment- the freedom of religion one - does, in fact, apply to ALL religions, as well at the LACK of religion.

So? Your leader still claims to be taking divine guidance. All three of the mainstream candidates for the presidency claim to be guided by their religious beliefs. All three of them must face questioning on the strength of those beliefs. Candidates actually face questions like "How do you feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life?"

You pass laws discriminating against people because the Bible says to, for fuck's sake. All you're doing is drawing an invisible (and undefined) line in the sand that says a certain amount of theocratic behaviour is OK.

I didn't say it was OK, I said it didn't qualify the US as a theocracy - stating that is neither approval nor disapproval.

Yeah, by cherry-picking a definition you liked from dictionary.com, which is nothing more than a meta-lookup of many different dictionaries.

Yes, there are laws that are passed due to religious influence. Well, people do have a right to believe in whatever religion they want to, or to not believe in religion at all. However, it is also not unusual for religion-based laws to be overturned by the courts.

Holding up, say, a Texas law against selling sex toys or a Georgia anti-sodomy law is not representative of the US as a whole.

And how about the federal refusal to recognize gay marriages? Does that apply to the US as a whole?

[Broomstick]

I in no way denied a religious element in US culture and government, I am stating that no one sect predominates.

Ah, I see. You're delusional. How silly of me to think that it might be possible to identify one dominant religion in the US.

Delusional?

While Christianity predominates, the Christian element is a collection of squabbling sub-divisions that, if they got their wish of a truly "Christian" nation, would probably immediately go to war with each other. Perhaps you regard, say, Roman and Orthodox Catholicism as one religion but they do not. Mormons say they're Christians - most other Christians maintain they are not. Many Baptists maintain that Catholics (of either sort) are polytheists and damned to hell as unbelievers.

There is no one religion that makes up a majority in the US, although locally a particular group may dominate. Unless, of course, you do maintain that the group of "everyone who says they're Christian" is truly one and only one religion - which they maintain they are not. Historically, Christians have been quite willing to slaughter each other over doctrinal differences as well, which, although not concrete proof, tends to argue against them being one unitary whole. Nor do these Christians agree on who is the Earthly authority for doctrinal questions or sources. So no, I don't regard them as one cohesive whole, one religion.

Can you have a theocracy when no one sect predominates?

Yes.

Can you give examples other than the US? Can you give historical examples? (Those two questions based on curiosity and not as a debate tactic here)

What exactly IS the definition of a theocracy?

From Merriam-Webster as opposed to dictionary.com, which isn't even a real source:

I can see you arguing that it is a poor source, but not a "non" source.

theocracy:
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

What about the Oxford English Dictionary?

theocracy
• noun (pl. theocracies) a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god.

(Which, I hasten to point out, is heavily biased in favor of monotheism and ignores polytheist theocracies such as ancient Sumer, Babylon, Egypt, the Aztecs, Incas, and a shitload of others)

American Heritage Dictionary:

1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed....

Cambridge Dictionary:

1 [C] a country that is ruled by religious leaders
2 when a country is ruled by religious leaders

I am well aware that there is some difference in how the word is defined, hence why I asked for clarification for which definition we are using. If we aren't starting from the same definitions we can't possibly have a reasonable discussion, can we? I'm not even arguing which is the more proper definition here, I simply asked which one we were using for purposes of this thread, for clarification.

Or, to put it another way, I don't care if the playing field is marked in meters or yards so long as we all agree to use the same measuring tool consistently.

As long as every candidate for the presidency is required to demonstrate to the populace that he takes guidance from his religion (which is most definitely the case at the moment), the US is a theocracy. Like it or not, there is a religious test for office: the fact that it is applied by the media and the people rather than the courts may mean it does not violate the constitution, but it does mean that the country is theocratic.

Actually ANY religious test of office is unconstitutional, regardless of who is imposing it - the sole exception to that being in the mind of the individual voter who can decide to vote for toenail fungus if he or she so desires. There is, after all, no intelligence or sanity test for voting. Having the media impose a religious test does not make it OK, and I really wish they'd drag that shit into court at some point.

I have always thought of a it as a government dominated by one particular religion, not a government where many different religions are included.

Your idea of "different" religions is clearly incompatible with mine, since Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are nothing more than different branches of a single belief system, all believing in the same God.

Well, Mike, I will be one of the first to stand up and defend your right to believe what you want, but here you are at odds with vast majority of humanity. While Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are, indeed, related they are NOT considered "nothing more than different branches of a single belief system", particularly by the practitioners of those different branches. By YOUR view of the situation they may be, but here your view is the minority (and, even though I do not agree with it either I probably could make some arguments to support your view, if I were so inclined.)

Nor could I see an argument that this unified "Abrahamic religion" is ruling the country when so many of the Christian Fundies would rather die than vote for a Muslim or Jew or even a Catholic (who is cladistically a much closer relation) even though, according to you, they are one big happy family. Really, it's like arguing that horses, donkeys, and zebras are really all one species because they had a common ancestor, despite objective differences between them.

And, given the way various religious sects have slaughtered each other over the years a country where all three major branches of the Abrahamics and their splinter groups live without serious attempts at butchering each other is something of a historical anamoly. As I stated, it will not make the pro-atheist, secular-people-only-in-government contingent happy.

Nice strawman, moron. Never did I say that you have to get rid of all religious people in government. But they must NOT claim to be taking divine guidance in their governing, which is not the case as long as every candidate for president must first convince the population that he is strongly guided by his religious beliefs.

How are we defining "taking divine guidance"? If you are proposing that every elected official believes him/herself a prophet with a hotline to god and divinely inspired wisdom (which I think unlikely, as you are not typically given to such extremes) then no, that is not a true statement. If you are saying that their religious beliefs impact their actions, well, yeah, that probably IS true but how would that be different than saying your actions are influenced by your atheism and rational beliefs? There are too many instances of, say, Catholic elected officials taking a pro-choice stand, or otherwise bucking the trend of their church, to say that these people are taking their marching orders from religious authorities. Ditto for people of other denominations.

This also gets back to how many religions are there - if you're maintaining the Abrahamics are one big religion then arguably you are correct, but they don't see it that way, there are many conflicting beliefs and practices (as one minor example - Jews and Christians both require wine in religious ceremonies (except for a few subdivision that don't) whereas Islam forbids all alcohol. There's the differences in dietary laws. Not to mention they can't even agree which one day of the week is holy to their one god). How do you reconcile that Islam allows abortion for 40 days post-conception, Catholicism forbids it entirely even to save the life of the mother, and while Jews usually are against in some circumstances it is considered permissible?

So, by the dictionary definition of "theocracy" the US does not qualify.

No, that's only true by the particular definition you chose to cherry-pick from dictionary.com, which isn't even a real dictionary site but rather, a meta-lookup of other sites.

Strictly speaking, I didn't "cherry-pick" it, I offered it up as what I was using and specifically asked that if you preferred another one to give it. Which you did. In no way did I pledge allegiance to the definition I was using, I was asking for clarification of terms. I realize that go-for-the-throat bloodlust is popular around here, but can we save it for when I'm actually prodding the beast with a pointy-stick?

So? Your leader still claims to be taking divine guidance.

So? Our current leader is an imbecile, which fact is sadly apparent to the entire fucking planet save his own sorry self. Even by the rather lax standards of American elected officials he's fucking sorry piece of shit and not typical of the ilk.

All three of the mainstream candidates for the presidency claim to be guided by their religious beliefs.

Are you not guided by your ethical beliefs which, since you are an atheist, are grounded (I would hope) in reason and logic? Or would you prefer them to say "I reject everything I was ever taught in religion, including that it was wrong to steal, murder, and rape, and forget that peace on Earth, goodwill towards men bullshit"?

If someone IS influenced by their religious beliefs, frankly, I'd rather know that up front. More importantly, I'd like to know in what ways and how strongly they have been uninfluenced. I do not feel religion in an inherently bad thing, although I do feel the combination of religion and politics is frequently toxic.

All three of them must face questioning on the strength of those beliefs. Candidates actually face questions like "How do you feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life?"

And such routine questioning by the media is wrong, unconstitutional, and has really only arisen since Carter, accelerating through the latter half of the 20th Century. We are certainly closer to a theocracy, but I don't see priests dictating laws (yet).

You pass laws discriminating against people because the Bible says to, for fuck's sake. All you're doing is drawing an invisible (and undefined) line in the sand that says a certain amount of theocratic behaviour is OK.

I didn't say it was OK, I said it didn't qualify the US as a theocracy - stating that is neither approval nor disapproval.

Yeah, by cherry-picking a definition you liked from dictionary.com, which is nothing more than a meta-lookup of many different dictionaries.

Oh, please - I had the courtesy to give what definition I was using and asked that if we were to use a different one please say so. That's NOT cherry-picking, that's asking for clarification.

And how about the federal refusal to recognize gay marriages? Does that apply to the US as a whole?

Good example.

The answer: undetermined. Effectively, if a state (such as Massachusetts) decides homosexuals can marry (or have a "civil union") and the State in question recognizes such then it's legal until overturned by the courts within that state. The constitution leaves matters of marriage to the States, not the Federal government (thus, one applies for a marriage license through one's state or local government, NOT the Feds). This is how we get such items as marriage to a first cousin legal in one state and not another, 50 different sets of divorce laws (which historically have ranged from "no divorce" to "divorce at will"), ages of consent differing from state to state, and so forth. The "full faith and credit" clause, which states that a marriage valid in one state is valid in all, is really the only Federal word on the matter. This, by the way, is one reason Utah was not admitted to the Union until after the mainstream Mormons renounced polygamy - because a legal polygamous marriage in one state would, constitutionally, have to be legal in all states. (Yes, this was a decision influenced by religion and yes, it would be a fact in favor of "the US is a theocracy" side). This, frankly, scares the hell out of the Fundies (although plenty of other more liberal religious people either couldn't care less, or are in favor of such marriages), or at least the Christian Fundies - Muslims, after all, have no problems with up to four wives per man. This is also the reason why so much fury is spent over the terms "marriage" or "civil union" - the former must be recognized by all states but arguably the latter does not.

So... no way to be sure until this either gets in front of the Supreme Court, or a constitutional amendment is enacted to clarify the issue one way or another. Either prospect is terrifying to the Fundies - the Supremes, particularly the strict constructionists, might well decide such bans are unconstitutional, and if they try for an amendment and fail... well, then they've really lost.

But, lest I be accused of dodgeing a question, let us return to your chosen defintiion of "theocracy":

theocracy:
1 : government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided
2 : a state governed by a theocracy

I'd have to say that under that particular definition an argument could be made the US is a theocracy, in that some of our elected officials feel they themselves are divinely guided, and certainly some of their constituents think so.

Question: does it matter if the majority of the populace believe that, or is a minority sub-set of such people sufficient to declare a nation a "theocracy"?

[Adrian Laguna]

Historically, Christians have been quite willing to slaughter each other over doctrinal differences as well, which, although not concrete proof, tends to argue against them being one unitary whole.

"Slaughter" is the right word, consider the The Thirty Years War. While eventually it derailed into geo-polical manoeuvring, it started as a conflict between Protestant German princes and Catholic German princes. At the end of it, the German States had lost 30% of their population, and in the hardest hit areas as many as two thirds of the populace died. The Swedish armies alone destroyed 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages and 1,500 towns in Germany.

[Cecelia5578]

The Federal government currently is much more tolerant of religion or lack thereof than some of the states, which is why non-Abrahamics (including Buddists, Native Americans, Hindus, Sikhs, Wiccans, and a bunch even I have never heard of) can have the appropriate religious identifiers carved on their headstones at Arlington and other national cemeteries. If you want your mortal remains to be proudly labeled "atheist" for all eternity you have the option to make that explicit as well. Although certain individuals fail to follow instructions in religious tolerance, the US armed forces do recognize many non-Abrahimic religions, as well as atheism and has ordered it's members to tolerate such things.

My experience of the Army was that quite a few chaplains were fundies, and I think they crossed the line on numerous occasions. But then again I was a free-thinking, socialist, college educated transsexual soldier. I just wish people would stop pointing out all the supposed "tolerance" or whatnot in the military.

The Army chaplaincy (and I'd guess other branches as well) has been tending fundie for quite a while. There is a great deal of indifference among soldiers, but among chaplains...that's another story.