Is USA becoming a Christian theocracy akin to Islamic republics?

Is USA becoming a Christian theocracy akin to Islamic republics?

Ever since inception of the neoconservative movement which brought religion into US politics in much of the same way as the islamist movement did in Middle-East, the christianity has become a major force in politics onver the Pond. From what I've followed US politics, there are apparently two ways to dismiss any argument: question your opponents patriotism and doubt your opponents faith.

This is a reflection of population, which by western standards is extremely religious. This may have in addition to tradition another reason, which is lack of proper social system & desperation due lack of future prospects, which manifests as fervent religiousity - after all, West-Europe with its thousand year longer Christian tradition but hefty social system and high social mobility is largerly secularized. Majority of Americans would view a atheist presidential candidate negatively. Then you have the curious case of supporting Israel no matter what, which is indeed rooted in religiousity and the sincere belief that jews are chosen people. Out of all countries in 2012 GOP presidential debates, Israel has been mentioned the most by far despite it being of no real importance when compared to likes of China, India, EU, Brazil, and Russia.

How do you think of this issue? It is a complicated issue which hasn't been researched in-depth yet, as this is history-in-progress, and I left the "undecided" option out of my poll on purpose because it would have been a easy way out for everyone (including me).

(a few) SOURCES
Questioning patriotism in action:
http://rightwingnews.com/republicans/did-rick-perry-question-obamas-patriotism/

Here is a Adam Curtis' documentary series tracking rise of extreme islamism, which draws parallels to rise of religious neoconservatives:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2798679275960015727

Here is a PBS documentary series which provides some background into why US population is so religious:
http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/view/

About atheists status in politics:
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/catholicism/survey-americans-prefer-muslim-president-atheist

Article about religion-based Israel obsession in USA
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/02/america_s_israel_obsession

Article about how social mobility is drastically lower in USA than in European welfare countries:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/17/want-to-get-ahead-move-to-denmark

The book I've read which presents the religion as a means of escapism and hope for the oppressed & poor is called "The Human Web" by McNeill.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

You see, by Can. 1247 it means that it was the Law, back in 1247...
No one should be exempt of common sense, Jaybro. Use it.

Nothing is more remote from common sense than religion.

See what I mean?

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

See what I mean?

Yes, a fine hat. All that multitude seems to be happy for His Holiness's gentle gesture towards their Culture and Country.

In case you don't believe me...

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

In case you don't believe me...

I not following you, I'm afraid. What's wrong with that photo?
I just can see children equal to every children in the world and a loving and caring mother carrying her baby, dressed with her traditional costume.
Aren't you wearing a traditional cap of yours and smiling? I'm sure she's smiling the same way.
Even I smile...

Comparison between American and Iranian Presidential oath

American Presidential oath:

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.[64]

Although not required, presidents have traditionally palmed a Bible while swearing the oath and have added, "So help me God!" to the end of the oath.

Iranian Presidential oath:

I, as the President, upon the Holy Qur'an and in the presence of the Iranian nation, do hereby swear in the name of Almighty God to safeguard the official Faith, the system of the Islamic republic and the Constitution of the country; to use all my talents and abilities in the discharge of responsibilities undertaken by me; to devote myself to the service of the people, glory of the country, promotion of religion and morality, support of right and propagation of justice; to refrain from being autocratic; to protect the freedom and dignity of individuals and the rights of the Nation recognized by the Constitution; to spare no efforts in safeguarding the frontiers and the political, economic and cultural freedoms of the country; to guard the power entrusted to me by the Nation as a sacred trust like an honest and faithful trustee, by seeking help from God and following the example of the Prophet of Islam and the sacred Imams, peace be upon them, and to entrust it to the one elected by the Nation after me.

Interesting differences.

Well each Monarch here on accession to the Throne takes an Oath to preserve the Faith. An interesting hive-off there from Jaybro regarding Belfrager's comment on the old white socks. Didn't know the Muslim lot were Paptists?! How did all those Mexicans find the time to get away from the mass killings, drug-wars, and utter mayhem. Great advert for a (R) Catholic nation?!

Must say Jaybro loves his high falutin' attachment to pontificating (groan, a Papal touch?!) about religion not being a common-sense thing. We can say the same about much of the high flying scientific wondermen who claim all sorts of things about space without proof. When it gets to the nitty-gritty you find surprise, surprise many things are strong "theories". Maybe we could bring common sense into Atheism? However it will not stop me from being a Glasgow Presbyterian, be a stalwart of the Protestant cause (and support it's football team in dire times), even agreeing with Belfrager sometimes whilst he puzzles that one into his glass of wine. Get thee behind me Michiganian.......

No, the US isn't, but the state of Mississippi has become one.

Never thought I would request this, but we need an invasion of Freethinkers in this state! (Yes Yanks, that means y'all too. )

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Interesting differences.

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

All countries are theocracies.
The only difference is between using earthly Gods - "demo", a God in the skies - "Theo" or some nuances between the two.
Power is always theocratic, as the early anarchists were perfectly aware.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

All countries are theocracies.The only difference is between using earthly Gods - "demo", a God in the skies - "Theo" or some nuances between the two.Power is always theocratic, as the early anarchists were perfectly aware.

I'm sorry, but what? Democracy doesn't make humans into gods. I think you mean 'autocracy' - if not, I haven't the faintest idea what you mean.

No, I don't mean "autocracy" but it's indifferent in this regard be it demo, auto or theo.
What matters it's the nature of power, not its source. If you take any of the earthly gods such as People, Constitution, Consuetudinary Law, King or if you prefer the Almighty God, its the same thing, the legitimacy of Power is always theocratic, in other words, sacred.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

What matters it's the nature of power, not its source. If you take any of the earthly gods such as People, Constitution, Consuetudinary Law, King or if you prefer the Almighty God, its the same thing, the legitimacy of Power is always theocratic, in other words, sacred.

Nonsense. You can point at people and say, "they made this law". You can point at the King and say, "the King made this law". (Unless, of course, the law in question forbids you from pointing at the King.) The best you can do in a theocracy is point to the High Priest and say, "the High Priest says that this law has existed since the moment God created the Universe, and to think otherwise is morally wrong". In a theocracy, there is no accountability, no way of overturning the decision, no way to disagree. You cannot disagree with God like you can with people.

The power may be vested in the same people, but the source of it matters.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Nonsense. You can point at people and say, "they made this law". You can point at the King and say, "the King made this law". (Unless, of course, the law in question forbids you from pointing at the King.) The best you can do in a theocracy is point to the High Priest and say, "the High Priest says that this law has existed since the moment God created the Universe". In a theocracy, there is no accountability, no way of overturning the decision, no way to disagree. You cannot disagree with God like you can with people.

Irrelevant.
You aren't addressing the issue, just making propaganda for democracy's self alleged "advantages" to people.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Irrelevant. You aren't addressing the issue, just making propaganda for democracy's self alleged "advantages" to people.

No, I'm not even interested in that discussion. I'm pointing out the fallacy in your conflation - there is a fundamental difference between theocracy and other forms of government.

Regardless of what system you think is best, democracies can be rewritten, monarchies and dictatorships can be overthrown - theocracies will always assert supreme moral authority. Even if they change their interpretations to suit their whims.

The only non-theocratic country so dedicated to preserving their sense of moral superiority because of the existence of an ancient document is the USA.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I'm pointing out the fallacy in your conflation - there is a fundamental difference between theocracy and other forms of government.

Not regarding the nature of power. Just regarding the source. As I said, Gods in the Sky and Gods in Earth.
What people wants that countries as Iran to do, it's to substitute an heavenly God by some earthly one. Then they will be satisfied...

Theocracies changes exactly the same way other forms of regime. Theocracies needs theologians, those that interpret the will of God, the same way constitutional democracy needs "constitutionalists" that makes (or interpret) the constitution.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

The only non-theocratic country so dedicated to preserving their sense of moral superiority because of the existence of an ancient document is the USA.

Moral authority and moral superiority aren't exactly the same thing.
But let's see what Americans have to say about it...

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

No, the US isn't, but the state of Mississippi has become one.

Never thought I would request this, but we need an invasion of Freethinkers in this state! (Yes Yanks, that means y'all too. )

You might be fresh out of luck if my friends and I show up. We'll probably set up a tent and have a revival meeting. Y'all come on down and get saved, y'hear?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Not regarding the nature of power. Just regarding the source. As I said, Gods in the Sky and Gods in Earth.What people wants that countries as Iran to do, it's to substitute an heavenly God by some earthly one. Then they will be satisfied...Theocracies changes exactly the same way other forms of regime. Theocracies needs theologians, those that interpret the will of God, the same way constitutional democracy needs "constitutionalists" that makes (or interpret) the constitution.

Sorry, let's get this straight - are you actually now arguing that there is no basic difference between a democratic government and a theocratic one?

Or are you arguing that theocracies are as man-made and false as non-theocracies? Either way, you've reversed your position from:

Insinuating that Christian Democracy pretends to be some form of theocracy similar to fundamentalist Muslim countries is a total delirium. And you know it perfectly well but since others don't, there you have it:

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Not regarding the nature of power. Just regarding the source. As I said, Gods in the Sky and Gods in Earth.What people wants that countries as Iran to do, it's to substitute an heavenly God by some earthly one. Then they will be satisfied...Theocracies changes exactly the same way other forms of regime. Theocracies needs theologians, those that interpret the will of God, the same way constitutional democracy needs "constitutionalists" that makes (or interpret) the constitution.

Sorry, let's get this straight - are you actually now arguing that there is no basic difference between a democratic government and a theocratic one?

Yes, I am.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Or are you arguing that theocracies are as man-made and false as non-theocracies?

It's the same thing. Both man made, both false, both with the same intention - legitimate political Power.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Either way, you've reversed your position from:

Insinuating that Christian Democracy pretends to be some form of theocracy similar to fundamentalist Muslim countries is a total delirium. And you know it perfectly well but since others don't, there you have it:

I haven't reversed my position. Then I was doing one thing, now I'm doing another. Then I was playing the game, now I'm talking about the game rules.

Doesn't that Scout Law also include serving the Queen/King, johnnysaucepn? Not that I am too fazed having been a boy and officer (rising to Captain) In The Boys' Brigade! (first uniformed organisation for Boys - and campers long before the Scout lot)

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Doesn't that Scout Law also include serving the Queen/King, johnnysaucepn? Not that I am too fazed having been a boy and officer (rising to Captain) In The Boys' Brigade! (first uniformed organisation for Boys - and campers long before the Scout lot)

Nope... no queens / kings in the US Boy Scouts. And yes, I was a Boy Scout of America...

Boy Scout Oath or Promise

On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy Scout Law

A Scout is:
•Trustworthy,
•Loyal,
•Helpful,
•Friendly,
•Courteous,
•Kind,
•Obedient,
•Cheerful,
•Thrifty,
•Brave,
•Clean,
•and Reverent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy Scout Motto

Be Prepared!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boy Scout Slogan

Do a Good Turn Daily!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Outdoor Code

As an American, I will do my best to -
•Be clean in my outdoor manners
•Be careful with fire
•Be considerate in the outdoors, and
•Be conservation minded.

Originally posted by mjmsprt40:

You might be fresh out of luck if my friends and I show up. We'll probably set up a tent and have a revival meeting. Y'all come on down and get saved, y'hear?

Methinks you would like the local Pentacostals here in Oxford.

Well it might come as a surprise to you Wikipedian but there are Scouts elsewhere in the world. And here they do include the Monarch in their promise. What they do in semi-democracies is something else. We breed men here in Scotia and we didn't go around rubbing sticks together instead BB (Boys' Brigade ) campers rubbed two Scouts together instead.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well each Monarch here on accession to the Throne takes an Oath to preserve the Faith. An interesting hive-off there from Jaybro regarding Belfrager's comment on the old white socks. Didn't know the Muslim lot were Paptists?! How did all those Mexicans find the time to get away from the mass killings, drug-wars, and utter mayhem. Great advert for a (R) Catholic nation?!

Must say Jaybro loves his high falutin' attachment to pontificating (groan, a Papal touch?!) about religion not being a common-sense thing. We can say the same about much of the high flying scientific wondermen who claim all sorts of things about space without proof. When it gets to the nitty-gritty you find surprise, surprise many things are strong "theories". Maybe we could bring common sense into Atheism? However it will not stop me from being a Glasgow Presbyterian, be a stalwart of the Protestant cause (and support it's football team in dire times), even agreeing with Belfrager sometimes whilst he puzzles that one into his glass of wine. Get thee behind me Michiganian.......

Science...one more thing you apparently know little about. Theories in science aren't the same thing as Joe Blow's, "I have a theory about that."

Not only isn't religion not a matter of common sense, it's an absurdity...Presbyterian, Papist or Mormon. Mysticism of every flavor made sense when cavemen toted their women around by their hair, but it makes no sense today.

Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an anodyne to nonsense.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an anodyne to nonsense.

Not an antidote for sure.
But you are, in certain sense, very right. It can, and surely will, lethargy you from any form of spiritual existence. What a good life, a life without existential concern and search...

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Atheism isn't a belief system, it's an anodyne to nonsense.

Not an antidote for sure.
But you are, in certain sense, very right. It can, and surely will, lethargy you from any form of spiritual existence. What a good life, a life without existential concern and search...

You know virtually nothing about me, and vice versa.

Be well, sir.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

It can, and surely will, lethargy you from any form of spiritual existence. What a good life, a life without existential concern and search...

Or free you from your spiritual shackles, so you can fly.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

You know virtually nothing about me, and vice versa.Be well, sir.

Course not, I just know about what you say and then how you run away from discussion after saying it.
Be well.
Sir it's deserved, in my usage, for another kind of persons different from you.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Or free you from your spiritual shackles, so you can fly.

How do you express something that is crawling on four legs, in your language? that's your mental disposition.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

How do you express something that is crawling on four legs, in your language? that's your mental disposition.

Maybe - but at least we're crawling forwards.

Americans, unlike the British, which do have a national church (Church of England whose head is the queen but the prime minister is also involved), declares itself free from any religion. It also promises to seperate religion and the state. But if you look everywhere, there is reference to God. One have to only look as far as your coins, on which is stamped the slogan "In God We Trust." Also, in the Pledge of Allience, people swear to God. Even the Boy Scout Oath has reference to God and scouts have swear to do their duty to "God and the Country."

The fact that Santorum has significant support is evidence that the U.S of A. is on the way to ... to ... nasty self-destruction. I just can't understand how such an anti-American ass can be seriously considered for a presidential candidate.

On the whole, it makes me turn to music like Nine Inch Nails's "head like a hole" and "piggy".

NIN http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSB4ogrs4Rg&feature=related

His head is like a hole.

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Americans, unlike the British, which do have a national church (Church of England whose head is the queen but the prime minister is also involved), declares itself free from any religion. It also promises to seperate religion and the state. But if you look everywhere, there is reference to God. One have to only look as far as your coins, on which is stamped the slogan "In God We Trust." Also, in the Pledge of Allience, people swear to God. Even the Boy Scout Oath has reference to God and scouts have swear to do their duty to "God and the Country."

In the referenced book "The Human Web", the authors provide pretty clear view into nature of religion as a tool for power: traditionally the mundane rulers have allied with some religion. This has benefited both church and rulers, but in order to maintain balance of power, the religion had to be tweaked to conform to mundane leadership & support it. In return of obedience the governments then provide protection & special rights for church. It is a striking observation, that those countries with strong church-state bonding have much more secular population than those who don't. All Nordic countries have official state church, as does Russia, Britain, Netherlands & Germany (to give few examples). The Confucianism influenced Buddhism and Shinto are also quite tightly bound to state, but in a different, more ideological way. Now concider this: protestantism in Europe was really marked by ending the separation of church & state! Formely the catholic church had existed as a completely separate entity with its own landings, farms & diplomats. Then rulers seized the assets of assets of Vatican within their territory on clause that church should only handle heavenly matters. No wonder this brought upon over 30 years of warfare. Fast-forward to this day and churches in protestant Europe are still kept in check by governments. Then check the documentary series "God in America" I mentioned in the first post: the reason quakers & other extremists went to North-America was BECAUSE religion was "tainted" by earthly powers.

It should be noted, that golden age of Islam coincidenced with kaliphate which was essentially earlier version of King Henry's England: they simultaneously claimed to be protectors of Islam, while making sure the religion didn't step on their toes. The religious split between sunni & shiite stems from this secularisation of religion.

Well Wikipedian, I have said repeatedly on these Forums that America for all it's boasting about not having a national or "State Church" is full of religion so you are with me on that one. As a point of passing interest you forget that Great Britain doesn't have a National Church meaning one but has 2! North of the Border the Church of Scotland is the national Church. However being Presbyterian and no hierachy the situation is different. The Queen is NOT head of the Church of Scotland there isn't one. here and when the General Assembly of the Kirk is held annually in Edinburgh she sends a representative theHigh Commissioner. But he or she is not allowed to sit with the delegates but must sit up in the gallery as our Church is independent of any State control whatsover. As John Knox one of the founding fathers told that dangerous woman, Mary Queen of Scot in the 16th centurys. "There are two Kings and two Kingdoms." Meaning simply one spiritual and one political. Unlike in England where the Reformation was started due to King Henry 8th not being granted a divorce by the Pope of Rome. In Scotland the Reformation was from the ordinary people and it virtually wiped out Romanism at the time as Presbyterianism was very independent.

None of the National Churches that exist in Europe are similar at all to the Islamic fervour sweeping about with hordes going spiritually bananas and wanting to have fun with warlike noises. It is bemusing for Americans to try and be consitutionally smug when religion pays more of a political role there than it does in countries like Britain with National Churches. This seems to be lost on many.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well Wikipedian, I have said repeatedly on these Forums that America for all it's boasting about not having a national or "State Church" is full of religion so you are with me on that one. As a point of passing interest you forget that Great Britain doesn't have a National Church meaning one but has 2! North of the Border the Church of Scotland is the national Church. However being Presbyterian and no hierachy the situation is different. The Queen is NOT head of the Church of Scotland there isn't one. here and when the General Assembly of the Kirk is held annually in Edinburgh she sends a representative theHigh Commissioner. But he or she is not allowed to sit with the delegates but must sit up in the gallery as our Church is independent of any State control whatsover. As John Knox one of the founding fathers told that dangerous woman, Mary Queen of Scot in the 16th centurys. "There are two Kings and two Kingdoms." Meaning simply one spiritual and one political. Unlike in England where the Reformation was started due to King Henry 8th not being granted a divorce by the Pope of Rome. In Scotland the Reformation was from the ordinary people and it virtually wiped out Romanism at the time as Presbyterianism was very independent.

None of the National Churches that exist in Europe are similar at all to the Islamic fervour sweeping about with hordes going spiritually bananas and wanting to have fun with warlike noises. It is bemusing for Americans to try and be consitutionally smug when religion pays more of a political role there than it does in countries like Britain with National Churches. This seems to be lost on many.

How about the Archbishop of Canterbury? Where does he come in? Also, in the United States, there are many many churches, the most religious and aggressive seems to be the Jehovah Witness. Also, many scouts group are run by churches. In fact, the scout group I went to in American Samoa is linked to Church of the Latter Day Saints (Mormon church) and they had prayers BEFORE every meal. Even though I am NOT a Christian, I played along (I'm a buddist, but I'm leaning towards atheism).

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Also, in the United States, there are many many churches, the most religious and regressive seems to be the Jehovah Witness.

Disagree, and I do so vehemently.
You've not seen regressive and backwards until you've spoken with a Southern Baptist.
The JW's are, in the very least, amusing as whenever they come to the door, I can at least have fun with them.

-JW's: Hello Sir, have the you heard the good news?
-Me: They've abolished sin taxes?
-JW's: No Sir, It's actually.....
-Me: (interrupts) Oh, Fox News has been taken off the air?
-JW's: No Sir, what we were actually meaning was.....
-Me: Ah, in that case, you must be meaning that Richard Dawkins is coming to give a lecture at the 3 major university campuses in this state?
-JW's: (looking perturbed) No Sir.....What we were actually trying to tell you is that Jesus Christ has died for you, so you can live for an eternity in bliss with him if only you repent of your sins and declare him your savior!
-Me: Ah, I see. Well, if that's the case, y'all can run along then. I don't believe in any of that. Plus, why would I follow a zombie vampire who says I should drink his proverbial blood once a month?
-JW's: (looking alarmed now) Well Sir, thank you for your time. We'll be praying for you.

I always do enjoy when they make their rounds.

Oops typo. Meant to say aggressive.

Proactive perhaps, but certainly not aggressive.

Well you miss the point to a degree Wikipedian. The Archbishop of Canterbury plays zilch in Scotland. Nor is he some kind of Episcopal Pope either. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian and the Church of England is Anglican. The State has no authority over the Kirk whatsover and it has a rather unique status.

And anyway as I pointed out even with 2 National Churches here, religion is less strident that it is in the USA where you rather mawishly proclaim this independence. It often decides who a Head of State is! As has been said here, "God bless America" and "So help me God" as well as the deep influence and often control by religion in the State is not seen here. So it is a bit of an own goal laddie. For a nation that sticks the chest out on no National Church your religious tradition has more involvement than our National ones do! Indeed your stance has been a rather pointless fig-leaf in view of the practice. So there is no comfort in your claims over there and we are not in the same mould and far less detached from your ways. In supporting my own kirk I say thank goodness for that.

I used to love it when those American missionaries from the Mormon sect would come round at I would take them on in the slightly tetchy way thedawgfan did with the Watchtower mob. Like that other other odd ex-Colonies creation the JW they don't make much of an inroad here.

I think the reason America is so religous is because one of it's earliest founders were the Puritans, who have the UK Oliver Cromwell who tried to ban everything, even Christmas. Also, this religiousness led to the bloody Salem Witch Trials.

Originally posted by thedawgfan:

-JW's: Hello Sir, have the you heard the good news?
-Me: They've abolished sin taxes?
-JW's: No Sir, It's actually.....
-Me: (interrupts) Oh, Fox News has been taken off the air?
-JW's: No Sir, what we were actually meaning was.....
-Me: Ah, in that case, you must be meaning that Richard Dawkins is coming to give a lecture at the 3 major university campuses in this state?
-JW's: (looking perturbed) No Sir.....What we were actually trying to tell you is that Jesus Christ has died for you, so you can live for an eternity in bliss with him if only you repent of your sins and declare him your savior!
-Me: Ah, I see. Well, if that's the case, y'all can run along then. I don't believe in any of that. Plus, why would I follow a zombie vampire who says I should drink his proverbial blood once a month?
-JW's: (looking alarmed now) Well Sir, thank you for your time. We'll be praying for you.

I always do enjoy when they make their rounds.

Blasphemy! You probably going to hell for calling Christ a zombie .

Originally posted by wikipedian:

Blasphemy! You probably going to hell for calling Christ a zombie .

What would you call a corpse that gets up and walks again?

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Well you miss the point to a degree Wikipedian. The Archbishop of Canterbury plays zilch in Scotland. Nor is he some kind of Episcopal Pope either. The Church of Scotland is Presbyterian and the Church of England is Anglican. The State has no authority over the Kirk whatsover and it has a rather unique status.

And anyway as I pointed out even with 2 National Churches here, religion is less strident that it is in the USA where you rather mawishly proclaim this independence. It often decides who a Head of State is! As has been said here, "God bless America" and "So help me God" as well as the deep influence and often control by religion in the State is not seen here. So it is a bit of an own goal laddie. For a nation that sticks the chest out on no National Church your religious tradition has more involvement than our National ones do! Indeed your stance has been a rather pointless fig-leaf in view of the practice. So there is no comfort in your claims over there and we are not in the same mould and far less detached from your ways. In supporting my own kirk I say thank goodness for that.

I used to love it when those American missionaries from the Mormon sect would come round at I would take them on in the slightly tetchy way thedawgfan did with the Watchtower mob. Like that other other odd ex-Colonies creation the JW they don't make much of an inroad here.

On and on it goes. They're all packs of charlatans and boogeymen.

Owwwwwwwww....get ready! Jesus is a coomin' back! In a rat's ass..there's reason to believe he never existed.

One of my classmates was a Jehovah's Witness. One of the funniest guys I ever met. It was good when they were doing the rounds, because they would just come to the door and have a little chat and a cup of tea, didn't even bring up religion.