Fundi polygamist cults at it again.

[Darth Wong]

Delusional?

While Christianity predominates, the Christian element is a collection of squabbling sub-divisions ...

Irrelevant. Christianity is still a single religion. The fact that it has many sects doesn't change the fact that they all worship the same God. So do the Jews and the Muslims; they all worship the God of Abraham.

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)

You'll probably want to ask a historian, but in any case, it's not relevant to the concept of a theocracy.

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

Wrong. It's a non source, because it isn't actually a dictionary. It's just a lookup. It's like calling Google a source.

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)

That's not much different from mine. People ruling in the name of a deity. Isn't that what Bush does? Or are you hung up on the use of the culturally specific word "priest"?

American Heritage Dictionary:
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed....

Also applicable to the present-day US, informally if not formally. After all, as stated before, every leader has to publicly declare fealty to Jesus Christ in order to get elected. Just how likely do you think a non-Christian president is?

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

Also applicable to the present-day US. The Cambridge one actually implies that any nation not ruled by atheists is a theocracy; I wouldn't go that far.

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.

So? This is not a popularity contest. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all worship the same god. Therefore, they are all merely sects of the same religion. If you have a problem with that logic, then FIND ONE. Don't appeal to popularity.

Moreover, this whole line of reasoning (that America is not theocratic because it is equally open to Jews, Muslims, and Christians) is not even true anyway, regardless of the questionable assumptions therein. You know perfectly well that only Christians are allowed to run for president.

How are we defining "taking divine guidance"?

How about publicly claiming to do so? Something that Bush does, and something that all three leading candidates in this election also do. That's all it takes to be doing things in the name of God; publicly claiming to be doing so.

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

I don't care how they see it. They all worship the same god. The fact that they fight each other or reject some of each others' specific doctrines makes them different sects, not different religions.

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?

When presented with a menu, you chose the most specific definition you could find, while trying to argue that the US does not qualify as a theocracy. It was so specific that it excluded polytheistic religions entirely: a weakness you acknowledged yourself later.

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?

Ethical beliefs grounded in material concerns are applicable to government of a pluralistic society, because the material world's existence is not contingent upon any religious belief. Ethical beliefs grounded in religion are not so broadly applicable. Do you honestly not understand the distinction?

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"?

Pat Robertson? Is that you?

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 do realize that many religions don't necessarily have "priests", right? As long as you have people who claim to receive divine guidance, you have a theocracy. In the ancient period, anyone who claimed to be receiving divine guidance was considered a prophet; there was no accreditation process or certificate you needed to hang on your wall. The fact that the word "priest" is found in certain dictionary definitions only reflects a cultural bias.

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.

But not when they file their federal income taxes. Gays are discriminated against EVERYWHERE in the USA, only in varying degrees.

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.

DOMA.

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"?

All that really matters is that the leaders claim divine guidance, which all leaders in the US are expected to do nowadays. The question of what the populace wants is indirectly reflected in the fact that the leaders must do this, but it's not really required. A theocratic dictatorship could totally ignore what the people want, and it would still be a theocracy.

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Regarding Western monotheism basically consisting of three branches of the same religion, the moderate Muslims I know here in the U.S. say this word for word, and so do some more liberal Christians. Now, right now Muslims say this because they want acceptance from their politically ascendant monotheist cousins, and would probably be more assertive and divisive if power were concentrated in the hands of Muslim institutions. Nevertheless, they see a necessity in an alliance of the three monotheistic religions in order to circumvent the really unacceptable people, polytheists and atheists.

[Mayabird]

Huh, looks like the sky was blue, then.

Does that answer the mystery of the missing 16 year old, then? I had been worried that she'd been killed and incinerated to silence her, as the church's leadership was trying to build big ovens to "destroy DNA evidence."

[Siege]

And now for your daily dose of fundy unpleasantry:

Texas sect girls 'mostly mothers'

More than half of the teenage girls removed from a polygamist sect in Eldorado, Texas, are either mothers or currently pregnant, US officials say.

All 463 children on the Yearning For Zion Ranch were taken into care after allegations of sexual abuse prompted police to raid the ranch this month.

Officials from the sect deny that any children were abused at the ranch.

Authorities believe that of the 53 girls aged between 14 and 17, 29 are already mothers and two are pregnant.

"It shows you a pretty distinct pattern, that it was pretty pervasive," said Darrell Azar, a spokesman for the Texas Child Protective Services.

'Largest case'

Detectives raided the ranch after a 16-year-old girl called an abuse hotline saying she had been beaten and raped by her 50-year-old husband.

As a result of the raid, all children on the ranch aged between six months and 17 years of age were placed in emergency state custody.

Texas law states that if sexual abuse is happening in a home and a parent does not put a stop to it, then the parent can lose custody of the child.

The Yearning for Zion ranch belongs to a breakaway Mormon sect called the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS).

Three wives

The sect is led by polygamist Warren Jeffs, who is currently in jail as an accomplice to rape after he forced a 14-year-old girl to marry her cousin.

The self-proclaimed prophet is currently awaiting trial in Arizona on charges of being an accomplice to four counts of incest and sexual conduct with a minor stemming from two arranged marriages.

The 10,000-strong sect, which dominates the towns of Colorado City in Arizona, and Hildale, Utah, split from the mainstream Mormon church more than a century ago.

Members believe a man must marry at least three wives in order to ascend to heaven.

Women are meanwhile taught that their path to heaven depends on being subservient to their husband.

[Broomstick]

Delusional?

While Christianity predominates, the Christian element is a collection of squabbling sub-divisions ...

Irrelevant. Christianity is still a single religion. The fact that it has many sects doesn't change the fact that they all worship the same God. So do the Jews and the Muslims; they all worship the God of Abraham.

Honestly, this thread is the very first time I have ever heard the Big Three Abrahamics described as the same religion. As I said before, I can follow the line of reasoning, it's just that I've never encountered that reasoning before. Usually I see adamant statements that they are not the same religion even if they have the same God.

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

Wrong. It's a non source, because it isn't actually a dictionary. It's just a lookup. It's like calling Google a source.

Fine. You don't like it, even though it returns a quick definition or groups of same. I'll make note of it for future debates with you.

So? This is not a popularity contest. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity all worship the same god. Therefore, they are all merely sects of the same religion. If you have a problem with that logic, then FIND ONE. Don't appeal to popularity.

As I said, I can follow the reasoning and logic you use just fine - but until this thread I have never encountered it before. While some facts are not subject to vote cultural items certainly can be. If 90% of the world defines a religion or religions in a particular way that's the way it is, your dissent will mean nothing to them. Now, I don't know if your view is, globally, a world-wide view or not. It is the opposite of what the people around me during my lifetime had adamantly maintained.

You know perfectly well that only Christians are allowed to run for president.

Untrue. ANYONE can run for president - the question is whether or not they'll get elected.

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?

When presented with a menu, you chose the most specific definition you could find, while trying to argue that the US does not qualify as a theocracy.

No, I did not "cherry-pick", I demonstrated that there was more than one definition and asked you which one we were using in order to be arguing from the same basis. You are trying to make my request for clarification into part of the argument, which is bullshit. I wanted you to explicitly choose one definition, clearly and unambiguously, and all you have wanted to do it nitpick the "menu".

And yes, I did see where you made it clear which one you were using, thank you. Maybe we should have spat that out at the very beginning of the argument.

It was so specific that it excluded polytheistic religions entirely: a weakness you acknowledged yourself later.

Yes, to make the point that there were some significant difference between the various definitions. THAT one was obviously flawed, I was pretty sure neither of us would us that one.

You do realize that many religions don't necessarily have "priests"

Correct. However, most definitions of theocracy use the term. Cultural bias and all that.

As long as you have people who claim to receive divine guidance, you have a theocracy. In the ancient period, anyone who claimed to be receiving divine guidance was considered a prophet; there was no accreditation process or certificate you needed to hang on your wall.

So if, (very) hypothetically, out of the 535 members of Congress, the President, and the 9 Supreme Court Justices we had 544 atheists and 1 religious person claiming "divine guidance" that would make the entire nation a theocracy? Unless a nation is 100% run by atheists it's a theocracy? That seems a rather extreme position.

And in the bad old days, you'd better be an accurate prophet, or able to get results, otherwise you'd be a "false profit" and be stoned or burned or whatever, which is a pretty fucking harsh "accreditation" process. Maybe we should reinstitute it - it would definitely cut down on the fakes and poseurs.

The fact that the word "priest" is found in certain dictionary definitions only reflects a cultural bias.

No argument there - perhaps you should tell them they're full of shit and send them the correct definition.

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.

DOMA.

The constitution trumps ANY Federal law - the DOMA is unconstitutional and needs to be brought before the SCotUS for challenge. Something the Fundies are shitting bricks while hoping it never happens. A legal marriage in Massaschusetts is legal in all other states under the constitution. This is hardly the first time an unconstitutional law has been passed.

All that really matters is that the leaders claim divine guidance, which all leaders in the US are expected to do nowadays. The question of what the populace wants is indirectly reflected in the fact that the leaders must do this, but it's not really required. A theocratic dictatorship could totally ignore what the people want, and it would still be a theocracy.

See my above question about the 1 religious person in an otherwise atheist government. How "pure", in the sense of non-religious people, must the government be to be a NON-theocracy?

[Broomstick]

Officials from the sect deny that any children were abused at the ranch.

No, because making still-growing girls pregnant and forcing them to bear child after child while denying them education and choices isn't "abuse" [/sarcasm] These fucknuggets are obviously so convinced of their own righteousness that they ARE a danger to others - after all, whatever their Magical Sky Pixie tells them is right is right even if it's wrong.

Authorities believe that of the 53 girls aged between 14 and 17, 29 are already mothers and two are pregnant.

That's at least 53 counts of statutory rape right there.

Texas law states that if sexual abuse is happening in a home and a parent does not put a stop to it, then the parent can lose custody of the child.

Congrats on the authorities actually having the balls to act.

The sect is trying to put weeping mothers on the TV going on and on about losing their children, missing their children, worrying about their children because just after that Short Creek Raid that worked - it got their children back. But they've been in their own world so long they don't understand the world has changed and those tactics aren't as effective as they used to be.

Members believe a man must marry at least three wives in order to ascend to heaven.

Their MSP must be lousy at math - assuming no fucking around with ratios of males to females born (no doubt forbidden) that condemns 2/3 of men not to marry at all, meaning they're damned to hell.

Women are meanwhile taught that their path to heaven depends on being subservient to their husband.

In other words, the women are sex slaves who just happen to be married to their masters. Oh, and wombs with legs. Brood mares.

[xerex]

Their MSP must be lousy at math - assuming no fucking around with ratios of males to females born (no doubt forbidden) that condemns 2/3 of men not to marry at all, meaning they're damned to hell.

well they do exile boys who reached puberty in order to maintain the heavenly ratio.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/ju ... lianborger

Up to 1,000 teenage boys have been separated from their parents and thrown out of their communities by a polygamous sect to make more young women available for older men, Utah officials claim.
Many of these "Lost Boys", some as young as 13, have simply been dumped on the side of the road in Arizona and Utah, by the leaders of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (FLDS), and told they will never see their families again or go to heaven.

[xerex]

and they are damned to hell by the sect.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/artic ... ew/?page=2

''He told me I wasn't welcome," Steed said. ''And on the way out he said: 'Just to let you know, when the final devastation comes, you will be destroyed.' I believed it completely. If you are told your whole life the Earth is flat, what else would you believe?"

Once children are expelled, the FLDS forbids parents from visiting them, and violating the rule can result in eviction from their church-owned homes, say state authorities and former town residents. Many parents sever all ties to their sons.

[Darth Wong]

Honestly, this thread is the very first time I have ever heard the Big Three Abrahamics described as the same religion. As I said before, I can follow the line of reasoning, it's just that I've never encountered that reasoning before. Usually I see adamant statements that they are not the same religion even if they have the same God.

That's because you have clearly spent too much time dealing with adherents to one of those sects. To an outsider who has shed himself of the propaganda, the inter-sect hostility is no different than the hostility between Protestants and Catholics.

You know perfectly well that only Christians are allowed to run for president.

Untrue. ANYONE can run for president - the question is whether or not they'll get elected.

Legally, yes. Realistically, no.

And yes, I did see where you made it clear which one you were using, thank you. Maybe we should have spat that out at the very beginning of the argument.

Probably. Misunderstandings do happen on the Internet.

So if, (very) hypothetically, out of the 535 members of Congress, the President, and the 9 Supreme Court Justices we had 544 atheists and 1 religious person claiming "divine guidance" that would make the entire nation a theocracy? Unless a nation is 100% run by atheists it's a theocracy? That seems a rather extreme position.

It's also nothing remotely resembling what I said. If I make a generalization about the leaders of the country claiming to represent divine interests, it is obvious that a very strong majority are required in order to make that generalization (or any generalization for that matter) valid. One out of 545 people is obviously not enough to make a generalization, and you are just being pedantic with this argument. Moreover, the higher you go in the power structure nowadays, the more likely people are to wear religion on their sleeves. Not for nothing did I specifically discuss the president and all three presidential candidates in this election. Treating every single member of government as if they are on an equal level is a little silly, isn't it?

And in the bad old days, you'd better be an accurate prophet, or able to get results, otherwise you'd be a "false profit" and be stoned or burned or whatever, which is a pretty fucking harsh "accreditation" process. Maybe we should reinstitute it - it would definitely cut down on the fakes and poseurs.

Prophets back then just used vague wording and trickery, the same way any huckster does today. As I said, if you claim to be speaking or acting in the name of a deity, then you qualify. It doesn't matter whether it's "true" in any sense, or whether there's some kind of accreditation process. George W. Bush has every bit as much of a legitimate claim on divine guidance as the Pope does.

The constitution trumps ANY Federal law - the DOMA is unconstitutional and needs to be brought before the SCotUS for challenge.

Fair enough, but until someone does so, it's still being applied. Gay married couples still can't file federal tax returns as married couples. The fact is that I can generalize about religious rules being applied to all Americans.

[Qwerty 42]

You know perfectly well that only Christians are allowed to run for president.

Untrue. ANYONE can run for president - the question is whether or not they'll get elected.

Legally, yes. Realistically, no.

I think that this upcoming race would be an indicator of whether or not that's true any longer. If the american public can put a decent man of one minority into office, I wouldn't be surprised if, say, Senator Feingold would have been able to do it.

I don't think we'd be able to wedge in a man of Islamic or atheistic faith yet, but the window of eligible people is expanding. That was apparent with Kennedy, the first Catholic president. One positive side effect of the Obama and Clinton campaigns is that minorities are now more viable political options.

[Darth Wong]

One positive side effect of the Obama and Clinton campaigns is that minorities are now more viable political options.

Yeah, sure. Two more Christians. That's really some compelling evidence of religious diversity in the top ranks.

[Broomstick]

Untrue. ANYONE can run for president - the question is whether or not they'll get elected.

Legally, yes. Realistically, no.

I think that this upcoming race would be an indicator of whether or not that's true any longer. If the american public can put a decent man of one minority into office, I wouldn't be surprised if, say, Senator Feingold would have been able to do it.

Or if this presidential race puts a woman in the White House that would also mark a significant change in who is eligible in a real sense. The US isn't perfect, but I won't complain about improvements.

Politics is opening up MUCH more than it used to be - isn't the governor of one of the Southern states (Louisiana?) of East Indian descent? THAT's a huge departure for that area, and indicative that there are a number of white Christians willing to elect someone visibly and cultural different than themselves to high office. If that trend keeps up there will be a change.

Hell, I remember the uproar when the first woman was nominated to the Supreme Court. Holy shit, you'd think people were spitting on crosses and fornicating on the front lawn of city halls across the nation the way some carried on, now it's "meh - no big deal".

Cultural shifts do occur, and it's not unusual for them to be reactions to extreme conservative periods. (There are, of course, many factors at work in these instances).

I don't think we'd be able to wedge in a man of Islamic or atheistic faith yet, but the window of eligible people is expanding. That was apparent with Kennedy, the first Catholic president. One positive side effect of the Obama and Clinton campaigns is that minorities are now more viable political options.

True - throughout the 20th Century were candidates were openly laughed at, as were minorities. Maybe the Bush years have taught people that the "Good Ol' Boys" network of white males doesn't give a fuck about poor or middle class white Christians any more than they give a fuck about anyone not in their little club of old money.

[Broomstick]

One positive side effect of the Obama and Clinton campaigns is that minorities are now more viable political options.

Yeah, sure. Two more Christians. That's really some compelling evidence of religious diversity in the top ranks.

Up until now, only white Christian males were viable candidates. If people can accept white Christian women or black Christian men it's an indication that attitudes are changing. Will that include religious diversity? I don't know, only time will tell. Given that there are people who'd choose a man of any sort over a woman, or a white person of any sort over a non-white, there is the possibility that a white non-Christian man could get a foot in the door, which will open up the possibility of other combinations later on down the line. A Jewish man is mostly likely, although many would not vote for a Jewish man for president for fear it would really fuck us over in dealing with the Middle East.

I'd love to be able to wave a magic wand and make everyone rational and unbigoted but, alas, I don't have that power.

[Darth Servo]

Mormon "influence" on government.

The only issue that the LDS church has actively pushed in politics in recent history was the gay rights issue, for which feel free to slam them as fundies.

Other issues between church and state?

ID got bitch slapped in Utah.

Alcohol, tobacco and other drug laws are easily justifiable from a secular standpoint as well as a religious one. How well they work is a matter for debate and is a separate issue.

10 commandments and other religious icons on government property: the University of Utah removed the statue of Brigham Young from campus decades ago (even though it could be argued its there due to him being the founder of the territory and school, rather than being a religious leader). People at BYU have insisted that was the U's "fall from grace" but thats another story. The main administration building does have a mural featuring Moses with the tablets on it but the mural also contains depictions of Hammurabi and other ancient law makers. Its not an endorsement of Judeo-Christian rules but rather of law in and of itself.

Feel free to mention any other common church-state separation issues.

[Kanastrous]

Mormon "influence" on government.

While I was working in SLC there was an argument going on over the symbol on the Utah quarter's reverse - one of the symbols on the slate was a beehive, which pissed off some people in the state, who claimed that the beehive was historically a specifically Mormon symbol, and that promises had been made that it would not be an option.

[Darth Servo]

Mormon "influence" on government.

While I was working in SLC there was an argument going on over the symbol on the Utah quarter's reverse - one of the symbols on the slate was a beehive, which pissed off some people in the state, who claimed that the beehive was historically a specifically Mormon symbol, and that promises had been made that it would not be an option.

Given the state nickname is "Beehive state" thats a bit of a stretch. A symbol can easily be both religious and non-religious. Its not exactly like putting the Salt Lake Temple on the quarter, even though its the most famous state landmark.

However, the golden spike image that was chosen is just as fitting.

[Kanastrous]

Given the state nickname is "Beehive state" thats a bit of a stretch.

Didn't it acquire that nickname from its Mormon settlers? Isn't there an association between the Mormons of the period, and the symbolism of the beehive as an ordered, productive society ruled from the top down...?

I think the argument was mostly over the strength of the association, not whether or not it was there.

[Warsie]

Didn't it acquire that nickname from its Mormon settlers? Isn't there an association between the Mormons of the period, and the symbolism of the beehive as an ordered, productive society ruled from the top down...?

It was I think based of Deseret, a word used in the book of Mormon to mean 'honeybee'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_%2 ... _Mormon%29

[Darth Servo]

Isn't there an association between the Mormons of the period, and the symbolism of the beehive as an ordered, productive society ruled from the top down...?

The Book of Mormon contains the term "deseret" which is supposedly an ancient word for "honey bee" (please, no debate on the historical (in)accuracy of the book, thats a completely different issue). Deseret is the name the mormon settlers chose for the territory and was the name they initially wanted when they applied for statehood.

Every source I've been able to find thus far lists it as a symbol of industry and cooperation, not top-down leadership.

http://www.shgresources.com/ut/symbols/emblem/

[Darth Servo]

But why are we even arguing this. The beehive was NOT choses for the state quarter. The gold spike completing transcontinental railroad was what was chosen. Nothing religious about that.

[Kanastrous]

But why are we even arguing this.

I had just brought it up as a possible instance of religious intrusion.

Which I think you've pretty well addressed.