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.

An interesting topic, beiren, I hope you don't get excommunicated (or shot!) as a result. You have certainly given us some homework to read before responding, which is why I have not voted yet, not having made up my mind yet - I'll wait and see what opinions come into the mix.

But then when did facts get in the way of expressing an opinion!

That remark is actually part of the background behind what I now suggest, namely that religious beliefs/fervour/fundamentalism/whatever (the whole gamut) is at least partly based on ignorance. That's a remark that could result in my being lambasted by all sorts, on both sides of the debate, so I'd better explain myself properly.

Much of today's life involves complex technology, each gadget or process requiring one to be an expert in the field to understand it properly. Take world economics for example and the current slump in trade, in confidence and resultant loss of jobs and general feeling of insecurity. That economic situation is something which is only vaguely understood by the vast majority of people (I include myself in that) who are generally "ignorant" of the matter. As a result most people who try to discuss it will, in the absence of anything truly meaningful to say, launch into a tirade about bankers or about Governments or about Global warming, in fact anything which enables them to waffle without a great deal of thought and without having to get into the economic detail about which they know zilch. Hence my reference to "ignorance".

I speculate that it is much the same with the growth of religious fundamentalism. People cannot grasp the full context of this world culture we now live in and, in the absence of being able to think lucidly about cultural difference, demographic influences, and so on, retreat instead into behavioural concepts which are much easier to grasp and which can easily be justified by the insertion of "belief" into every declaration, thus substituting beliefs for facts; better the devil you know than the weird thing they're doing in Switzerland with all that mysterious scientific equipment.

A crude example would be the declaration of damage caused by a meteor strike being an !Act of God". It is nothing of the sort but it's easier to talk about that than celestial dynamics.

I have a gut feeling that these movements are mainly a recent resurgence or extreme views widely held perhaps centuries ago - maybe a link there with the comparatively increase in complexity of our society?

I don't think is by any means just an American phenomenon; many countries have their own hangups. For example, al queda is another example, also, come to that the Taliban who espouse ignorance as part of their value system apparently. Nor is religion the only recipient of simplistic thinking, politics are another example from communism all the way to fascism and from capitalism through to the War on Woolworths or whatever it was that they called themselves; Reality television instead of Reality.

Neither you nor I can escape this type of thing; it's good, however, to be aware of the trap of simplistic thinking providing an escape from informed thought.

Theocracy is a form of government in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion. From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state, hence the term theocracy, from the Greek θεοκρατια "rule of God", a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. A theocracy may have an administrative hierarchy of the government 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

.........
Unless you have something else in mind, the U.S. is clearly not a theocracy. Does religion impact politics? Surely it does. I see it as a matter of degree.

I'm sure that my neighbor, a Baptist minister, is very concerned by the religious sentiments of people he votes for. And generally, I can't imagine an avowed atheist being elected to office anywhere here, but, then, I can't imagine an athiest interested in public office making his atheism publicly known unless he was dumber than a stump.

In fact, an off-brand religion can be a problem, and Romney could have problems as a Mormon in some areas of the country, particularly in the deep South.
.......
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf

Do you think Barack Obama is a Christian or a
Muslim, or are you not sure?
Christian.......................................................... 14%
Muslim ............................................................ 45%
Not sure .......................................................... 41%
........
PPP surveyed 656 likely Republican voters in Mississippi and 600 likely Republican primary voters in Alabama on March 10th and 11th. The margin of error for the Mississippi poll is +/-3.8% and for the Alabama poll it’s +/-4.0%.

The saving grace for any Republican candidate in the South is called Obama.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Theocracy is a form of government in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, or simply pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion. From the perspective of the theocratic government, "God himself is recognized as the head" of the state, hence the term theocracy, from the Greek θεοκρατια "rule of God", a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. A theocracy may have an administrative hierarchy of the government 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

.........
Unless you have something else in mind, the U.S. is clearly not a theocracy. Does religion impact politics? Surely it does. I see it as a matter of degree.

I'm sure that my neighbor, a Baptist minister, is very concerned by the religious sentiments of people he votes for. And generally, I can't imagine an avowed atheist being elected to office anywhere here, but, then, I can't imagine an athiest interested in public office making his atheism publicly known unless he was dumber than a stump.

In fact, an off-brand religion can be a problem, and Romney could have problems as a Mormon in some areas of the country, particularly in the deep South.

I had that definition of theocracy in mind, and by that definition it appears to me that US is indeed slipping into theocracy. See the bolded part and then keep in mind the status of atheists in US politics - the people want to be governed by pursuants of religion, in USA afaik some sect of protestantism. This might have something to do with an idea that a believer gets guidance from God. You also acknowledged that mentioning one being a atheist is a surefire political suicide.
The second bolded part is quite visible in USA. Your inauguration ends in "So help me God", motto is "In God we trust" and the flag oath has a line reading "one nation under the God". It is quite clear from political rituals and discursion in USA, that de facto head of state is God. You can see it how scarily effective questioning faith of another politician over there is - president not excluded.
Third bolded part I'm not sure of. It is at least not institualised, however like my claim goes, USA is on a slippery slope. It might happen via official way or inofficial. Church definitely has influence over individual representatives, but how deep that influence exactly is I don't know.

Religion does play a big part in the US beiren but it is a warped version. We don't have the fanatical Christian Right here and nothing like it at all. The Jewish lobby reagrding the Middle East and that loose cannon, Israel, is one of the biggest in the USA and equally the oddity of the Christian Rightists is bound up with that lot too on Bibicla misusage. We find such things very odd indeed.

All religion is "warped", Rj, wherever it appears. But the two of you overemphasize the significance of religion here. As a practicing Atheist, I have no fear that the Christian militia are about to attack.

There are worse things than atheism, Rj, such as Catholicism and Presbyterianism.

Do European politicians emphasize their atheism?

It's all about family values.

Originally posted by beiren:

Is USA becoming a Christian theocracy akin to Islamic republics?

Not yet, but it could be a possibility if it was not, paradoxically or maybe not, for one quarter of the population to obey to Rome.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by beiren:

Is USA becoming a Christian theocracy akin to Islamic republics?

Not yet, but it could be a possibility if it was not, paradoxically or maybe not, for one quarter of the population to obey to Rome.

You don't understand US Catholics.

58% of all Catholics agree employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception. That slides down to 52% for Catholic voters, 50% for white Catholics. 61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say employer plans should cover contraception. 50%of white mainline Protestants want the coverage. However, for evangelical Protestants, that drops to 38%. And perhaps of greater note among election-watchers: Women are significantly more likely than men to agree that employers should be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception (62% vs. 47% respectively).

A second poll, also released today from Public Policy Polling, has similar findings. This poll, conducted at the request of Planned Parenthood, finds ...a majority of voters, including a majority of Catholics, don't believe Catholic hospitals and universities should be exempted from providing the benefit. ...Independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/Religion/post/2012/02/contraception-catholic-bishops-obama-hhs/1#.T2NdwvF5mSM

And from Salon.com:

Let’s make a couple of things clear here. Obviously, the law won’t force Catholics to use contraception. And 98 percent of Catholics already practice birth control (and not the “natural family planning” kind), according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute. It’s not as though Catholics are an endangered minority of true believers being forced to transgress a fervently held and widely practiced church rule. This battle is over a Catholic Church teaching that even Catholics ignore almost unanimously.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/02/catholics_need_to_preach_what_we_practice/

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

You don't understand US Catholics.

Maybe. What it seems is that you don't understand me.
Here you have an US Catholic that seems to understand a few things, Birth Control, Bishops and Religious Authority
Why you say that I don't understand him is a mystery to me.

Admitting that you've read my suggested link, I hope that you can now understand why I said that Catholics are the best guarantee that your country will remain relatively free from US Protestantism's influence overruling the political sphere towards what beiren called a "Christian" Theocracy.

A whimsical question:

Is the Vatican a "Christian Theocracy"?

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

You don't understand US Catholics.

Maybe. What it seems is that you don't understand me.
Here you have an US Catholic that seems to understand a few things, Birth Control, Bishops and Religious Authority
Why you say that I don't understand him is a mystery to me.

Admitting that you've read my suggested link, I hope that you can now understand why I said that Catholics are the best guarantee that your country will remain relatively free from US Protestantism's influence overruling the political sphere towards what beiren called a "Christian" Theocracy.

I didn't say that you didn't understand him, I said that you didn't understand US Catholics.

It makes no sense to say that the bishops themselves can decide this, that we should accept their religious authority because they say God has given it to them. If this were so, anyone proclaiming himself a religious authority would have to be recognized as one.

You should re-read the piece that you referred to.

Originally posted by string:

A whimsical question:

Is the Vatican a "Christian Theocracy"?

It depends on what you mean by Christian. Or Vatican. Or Theocracy. Or any combination thereof.

Ask Belfrager.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I didn't say that you didn't understand him, I said that you didn't understand US Catholics.

He's an US Catholic.
Maybe you are the one who thinks that Catholics are guided by the populace just as Protestants and Atheists are. We are not.*

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

You should re-read the piece that you referred to.

No, you are the one who should be able to think instead keeping accusing me of being an idiot. Re-read my posts until you can understand them.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Originally posted by string:
A whimsical question:Is the Vatican a "Christian Theocracy"? It depends on what you mean by Christian. Or Vatican. Or Theocracy. Or any combination thereof.Ask Belfrager.

That's a simple one.

Vatican City State was founded following the signing of the Lateran Pacts between the Holy See and Italy on February 11th 1929. These were ratified on June 7th 1929. Its nature as a sovereign State distinct from the Holy See is universally recognized under international law.
[...]
Vatican City State has the singular characteristic of being an instrument of the independence of the Holy See, and of the Catholic Church, from any earthly power.

Is string's whimsical curiosity satisfied?

* there's a lot of interesting discussion about this issue. But it would not happen while you'll keep your actual attitude of persecuting Catholics for fun.

There are worse things than the crazy fringe of Protestantism as illustrated in America (our Prtestantism is more normal). Leaving Edinburgh aside for now in the worse stakes there is a long history of Roman Catholicism trying to rule the world. Even the outrages title claims by old red socks in the Vatican who claims the whole world on false foundations. Very often one can find atheists who are as rabid as the warped relion matters in the ex-Colonies. Naybe Jaybro in his usual bash the lot mood mught reflect that his country was founded by Protestants? No Surrender!

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

I didn't say that you didn't understand him, I said that you didn't understand US Catholics.

He's an US Catholic.
Maybe you are the one who thinks that Catholics are guided by the populace just as Protestants and Atheists are. We are not.*

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

You should re-read the piece that you referred to.

No, you are the one who should be able to think instead keeping accusing me of being idiot.

* there's a lot of interesting discussion about this issue. But it would not happen while you'll keep your actual attitude of persecuting Catholics for fun.

He is a US Catholic, one of almost 78,000,000, and they vary in practice and belief widely. There is no shoe that fits all of them.

"98 percent of sexually active American Catholic women practice birth control, and 78 percent of Catholics think a “good Catholic” can reject the bishops’ teaching on birth control.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/birth-control-and-the-challenge-to-divine-authority/"

Persecute Catholics? I grew up a Catholic, all of my very many family members are Catholics, my wife and children are Catholics. Only I escaped.

I don't think you an idiot; on the contrary, I'm certain you're a very bright person.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

He is a US Catholic, one of almost 78,000,000, and they vary in practice and belief widely. There is no shoe that fits all of them.

Exactly. But those 78 millions also have many things in common, enough things to be called Catholics and differentiate from all others. What I say is that what they have in common is an extraordinary resistance against the possibility we are discussing in this thread.

Now, regarding the article about birth control, Bishops and religious authority, I've recommend it not because what it says is so damn obvious but because the final conclusion of the article, that the relationship between Catholics and some Bishop's declarations is not exempt of interrogation. Meaning that many American makes an huge error if thinking that because a Bishop says an absurd, Catholics will blindly follow his words.

In theory, Bishops should represent Rome but in practice Bishops have a very large degree of personal opinion. Only the Pope is infallible, not the Bishops

I don't know if I'm glad you escaped Catholicism... but, hey, that's your life and God made you free

Originally posted by Belfrager:

I don't know if I'm glad you escaped Catholicism... but, hey, that's your life and God made you free

That's another issue, but I'm not going there!

Didn't know Jaybro was once a Pope's man?

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

That's another issue, but I'm not going there!

I think that you have already been there for the most part. You see, there's only three social occasions when a Catholic needs to be present at the Mass.
When you are born, for Baptism; when you get married (just the first time, the other times you don't need it...); and when you die. Being dead it doesn't costs too much, does it?

Makes it a very sparse thing then and not much depth.........

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_SouthernSwing_312.pdf

I read a critique of that poll that shows it's problems, which it shares with other polls. The PPP uses an autodialer that makes it easy for a Republican to choose the Muslim option out of overall disdain for the president, not because they really believe him to be a Muslim. It's a little like how some Liberals called GWB a Fascist, even though they didn't literally believe him to be one.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

That's another issue, but I'm not going there!

Now Rick Santorum is and he's become more Catholic than old Ratty himself. Funny thing, though. Apparently, it's not the Catholics that are voting for him; it's the Protestants.

I guess he's just too bat shit crazy for most american catholics.

Originally posted by string:

A whimsical question:

Is the Vatican a "Christian Theocracy"?

I will delay my response to the original post. But for this question, the answer is easy: yes. Basic word definition.
(Whew, it's a relief to have some questions that are easy. Most of them have all sorts of complexities.)

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Makes it a very sparse thing then and not much depth.........

That's the difference between "practicing" and "non practicing" Catholics.
There's also "Cafeteria Catholicism".

Originally posted by John Paul II:

It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error that challenges the teaching of the Bishops in the United States and elsewhere."

Interesting, eh?
At the other hand, there's also Traditionalist Catholics that finds Papacy too much "liberal".

(But don't let appearances to fool you, rjhowie. Whenever needed, all Catholics stands at the same side and "your lot" it's just an excellent catalyst for that. )

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Apparently, it's not the Catholics that are voting for him; it's the Protestants.

yes, that's my opinion. It doesn't surprises me, in fact nothing from the US surprises me anymore...

Originally posted by beiren:

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

I like the Curtis documentaries, even though I don't necessarily agree with them, gave a review of sorts earlier. The problem with said documentary is that it gave the similarities between the neocons and the islamicists too much credence, a documentary of either separately would be better.

And while I think there is some room for saying that the religious right has been seen as tools by the neocons, as Curtis did, and there is some common interest, these are different groups. And while there have been some, umm, theocratic voices in the US before the beginning, and they have at times had influence, they are not shaping US policies in the main. In e.g. a fight between God and the dollar my money would be on the green.

Kinda remind me of Hitler but actually a great speech

Wait a sec...at 0:40 he said "I'm tired of people saying those words.." Erm, you just said them,Big Guy...just sayin'

What is tiresome are Christians playing the victim card.

"We don't believe that kinda crazy! We believe THIS kinda crazy!"

Nothing he said is "American". People have been coming here since before it was a country to escape nutters like him.

("There's only one god and his name is Jesus!" Boy that makes perfect sense, if you don't think about it.)

Originally posted by Sanguinemoon:

Wait a sec...at 0:40 he said "I'm tired of people saying those words."

Then try these.

Melalui kampanye Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang, kita semua berharap dunia wisata di Pandeglang, khususnya, dan Indonesia umumnya semakin berkembang. Tentunya, memajukan dunia wisata di Indonesia, bukan saja menjadi tanggung jawab www.cintapandegalang.com, tetapi juga kita semua. Setiap orang, dapat berpartisipasi dengan caranya masing-masing. Para blogger, dapat berpartisipasi dengan membuat review tentang berbagai objek wisata di Pandeglang dan memuatnya dib log masing-masing.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Melalui kampanye Kenali dan Kunjungi Objek Wisata di Pandeglang, kita semua berharap dunia wisata di Pandeglang, khususnya, dan Indonesia umumnya semakin berkembang. Tentunya, memajukan dunia wisata di Indonesia, bukan saja menjadi tanggung jawab www.cintapandegalang.com, tetapi juga kita semua. Setiap orang, dapat berpartisipasi dengan caranya masing-masing. Para blogger, dapat berpartisipasi dengan membuat review tentang berbagai objek wisata di Pandeglang dan memuatnya dib log masing-masing

Or this:

:swat:

Originally posted by beiren:

Is USA becoming a Christian theocracy akin to Islamic republics?

Can't tell about the USA but

In answer to the original question, the answer is "no".
In the U.S.A., only SOME of the people are wild-eyed, illiterate, ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic, madmen with inferiority complexes.

Well I can partly go along with that but the "some" judging by one side of the present election joke campaign runs into a hang of a big number and more than some which would suggest a handful.

I find this video funny:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pwwvBygoFA

Originally posted by Krake:

Originally posted by beiren:

Is USA becoming a Christian theocracy akin to Islamic republics?

Can't tell about the USA but

... and the ruling party has 'christian' in its name as well.

Doesn't get away from the basic truth that things like religion and race still have big hands to play in ex-Colonies elections.

Originally posted by tt92:

In answer to the original question, the answer is "no".
In the U.S.A., only SOME of the people are wild-eyed, illiterate, ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic, madmen with inferiority complexes.

Did you check my source list before making your one word claim? I don't really understand what you are trying to imply with your second sentence about wild-eyed & ignorant madmen. Are you implying all religious people are such? I hope not. Fervent religiousity in USA is the norm and expected behaviour, much to the difference from other 1st world countries. Check my sources and the reconsider changing your answer, or elaborate why you think I'm having false assumptions.

Originally posted by Macallan:

... and the ruling party has 'christian' in its name as well.

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:

Christian democracy is a political ideology that seeks to apply Christian principles to public policy. It emerged in nineteenth-century Europe under the influence of conservatism and Catholic social teaching.[1] It continues to be influential in Europe and Latin America, though in a number of countries its Christian ethos has been diluted by secularisation.

In practice, Christian democracy is often considered conservative on cultural, social and moral issues (social conservatism) and advocates a social market economy in the economic field (crossing over with social democratic economics but based on the family). In Europe, where their opponents have traditionally been secularist socialists, Christian democratic parties are moderately conservative overall, whereas in the very different cultural and political environment of Latin America they tend to lean to the left.

Examples of Christian democratic parties include the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the Christian Democrat Party of Chile, the Christian Democratic People's Party of Switzerland, the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) in the Netherlands and the historical Christian Democracy in Italy.

Christian Democracy seems to me to be the only possible political answer from Europe to all sorts of fundamentalisms in the world.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Insinuating that Christian Democracy pretends to be some form of theocracy similar to fundamentalist Muslim countries is a total delirium.

I was with you this far, and then you posted content that completely contradicted your point.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

I was with you this far, and then you posted content that completely contradicted your point.

All genius are contradictory to normal people's eyes... my next user name will be BelDali. It will function as a kind of disclaimer.

Now, you say the content contradicts my initial words. There's only two other contents at my post, the wikipedia quoting, as an information for those that never heard about Christian Democracy and my final sentence.
I suppose that you refer to my conclusion. In that case you can disagree with it but there's absolutely no contradiction in my words.

By the way, wikipedia description sucks, as usual and expected from such a political charged website.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Now, you say the content contradicts my initial words. There's only two other contents at my post, the wikipedia quoting, as an information for those that never heard about Christian Democracy and my final sentence. I suppose that you refer to my conclusion. In that case you can disagree with it but there's absolutely no contradiction in my words.

No, I meant the passage you quoted, I hadn't realised it was from Wikipedia, not that that really matters.

To illustrate my point, here's another Wikipedia reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia_law#Spectrum_of_Muslim_legal_systems

Muslim states with blended sources of law: Muslim countries including Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, Egypt, Sudan, Morocco and Malaysia have legal systems strongly influenced by sharia, but also cede ultimate authority to their constitutions and the rule of law. These countries conduct democratic elections, although some are also under the influence of authoritarian leaders. In these countries, politicians and jurists make law, rather than religious scholars. Most of these countries have modernized their laws and now have legal systems with significant differences when compared to classical sharia.[47]

This approach, of secular laws and lawmakers otherwise strongly influenced by Muslim religious law, is comparable to what you're describing. I'm not pretending they're the same, but the comparison is far from 'delerium'.

Many in the U.S. are terrified at the thought of Sharia thinking being used to influence their lawmaking, and that this is the first step towards Muslim theocracy.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

This approach, of secular laws and lawmakers otherwise strongly influenced by Muslim religious law, is comparable to what you're describing. I'm not pretending they're the same, but the comparison is far from 'delerium'.

So, in your opinion, Aldo Moro is not exactly the same than Ayatollah Khomeini but comparing both perfectly natural...
Your rage against anything that vaguely remembers you religion is affecting your judgment.

Originally posted by johnnysaucepn:

Many in the U.S. are terrified at the thought of Sharia thinking being used to influence their lawmaking, and that this is the first step towards Muslim theocracy.

There's the wikipedia definition on Sharia

Sharia law, (Arabic: شريعة‎ šarīʿah, IPA: [ʃaˈriːʕa], "legislation"; sp. shariah, sharīʿah;[1] also Islamic law, قانون إسلامي qānūn ʾIslāmī ) is the moral code and religious law of Islam. Sharia deals with many topics addressed by secular law, including crime, politics and economics, as well as personal matters such as sexual intercourse, hygiene, diet, prayer, and fasting. Though interpretations of sharia vary between cultures, in its strictest definition it is considered the infallible law of God—as opposed to the human interpretation of the law (fiqh).

There's nothing, but absolutely nothing similar to this in the Christian World.

It's natural that the several different christian religions have their opinion in many of these topics but those opinions don't constitute the Law. There's no first step towards nothing.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Your rage against anything that vaguely remembers you religion is affecting your judgment.

Quite the contrary. I have no rage against religion. I'm about as moderate as you can get.

On the other hand, it is useful to be able to view religion from a detached perspective.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

There's nothing, but absolutely nothing similar to this in the Christian World.

Oh, really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Moses#Content_of_the_Law

You missed my point, that most countries vary in the level to which Sharia applies to national government, however many people adhere strictly within their own communities. While people still use the Old Testament to justify social policies on marriage, sexuality, or even the right way to celebrate Christmas, the parallel will continue to exist.

Originally posted by Belfrager:

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

That's another issue, but I'm not going there!

I think that you have already been there for the most part. You see, there's only three social occasions when a Catholic needs to be present at the Mass.
When you are born, for Baptism; when you get married (just the first time, the other times you don't need it...); and when you die. Being dead it doesn't costs too much, does it?

Shucks, I don't make the rules, I just find the sources. In this case, the Code of Canon Law. Are the Portuguese folks exempt?

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and aVairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4N.HTM

Try these on for size, Mr. Belfrager...a trainload of thou shalt nots! Took the breath out of me.

A thorough listing and description of grave sins:

The First Commandment, "You shall Worship the Lord Your God and him only Shall You Serve" Idolatry—Idolatry is the worship, veneration or belief in false gods. Because it is a direct rejection of God, it is a grave sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Idolatry includes worship of images (This does not mean that we cannot venerate religious images. Veneration of images such as a crucifix is veneration of the person depicted, and not the actual image in and of itself.) Divination, magic and sorcery—This is a grave sin which includes attempting to command the powers of the occult, control or speak to demons or spirits (especially Satan), attempting to divine the future, and the use of magic charms (CCC 2116). Deuteronomy 18:10-11 speaks against this grave sin. Sacrilege—The sin of sacrilege is a grave sin that consists of profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and liturgical actions of the Church as well as things consecrated to God (CCC 2120). Atheism—Because atheistic humanism falsely seeks man and human glory and rejects God, atheism is a grave sin (CCC 2125). It is a sin against the virtue of religion. St. Paul tells us, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all unholiness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice" (Romans 1:18).

The Second Commandment, "You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain" Blasphemy—This grave sin is the uttering of hatred, reproach, defiance or speaking ill of God. Blasphemy against the Church, the saints and sacred things is also a grave sin (CCC 2148). It fails to give love and respect to our Creator. St. James speaks against sinners who "blaspheme the good name that is invoked upon you" (James 2:7). Perjury and False Oaths—Those who take an oath in the name of the Lord and fail to keep it, or break the oath at a later date, show a grave lack of respect for the Lord of all speech (CCC 2152). Pledging oneself to commit an evil deed is also sinful. During his Sermon on the Mount, Jesus speaks against sinners who give false oaths (Matthew 5:33-34).

The Third Commandment, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" Deliberate failure of the Sunday obligation—The Christian Sunday (the Lord’s Day) celebrates the new life of the world born in Christ’s Resurrection. All humans have a duty, to praise God and give him thanks. Thus all Christians are bound to participate in the Mass, and must partake of the Eucharist at least on holy days of obligation. Deliberate failure to do this constitutes a grave sin (CCC 2181).

The Fifth Commandment, "You shall not kill" Murder (intentional homicide)—Direct and intentional killing is gravely sinful (CCC 2268). It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance, much like the murder of Abel at the hands of Cain. Indirect homicide can also be of grave nature (such as refusing to help a person in danger). However, the Church teaches that self-defense is permissible for the preservation of a one’s life. If the attacker is mortally wounded or killed, then the death of the attacker is not a sin. Those who use unnecessary aggression in self-defense can sin mortally, if the attacker is killed or gravely injured. Abortion—Human life begins at conception in the mother’s womb. For God tells us, "Before I formed you in the womb I knew thee, and before you were born I consecrated you" (Jeremiah 1:5). Abortion is therefore murder. The oldest Christian book (besides parts of the Bible) is the Didache, a book composed by the twelve apostles or their disciples. The Didache proclaims the ancient teaching of the Catholic Church, "You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish" (Didache 2,2). All Catholics who procure a completed abortion or participate in execution of an abortion are automatically excommunicated from the Catholic Church (CCC 2272 and CIC Canon 1314). Euthanasia—The direct killing of the sick, handicapped, or dying, regardless of motive, is a grave sin. The will and action taken to cause a person’s death is an act of murder (CCC 2277). Those who are suffering and are nearing death must be allowed to die (or recover, which is sometimes a possibility) naturally. Administration of painkillers is permissible, provided the drugs are not willed as an end or a means to precipitate death. "Discontinuing medical procedures that are burdensome, dangerous, extraordinary, or disproportionate to the expected outcome can be legitimate; it is the refusal of ‘overzealous treatment" (CCC 2278). In this case death is not willed, but is merely accepted as inevitable and cannot be impeded. Suicide—Suicide is murder of the self. It is contrary to the love of God, self, family, friends and neighbors (CCC 2281). It is of especially grave nature, if it is intended to set an example for others to follow. Voluntary cooperation in a suicide is also contrary to the moral law. However, the responsibility of and gravity of suicide can be diminished in the cases of grave psychological disturbances, anguish, grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture. But this does not make it morally permissible, and it is the judgement of God that will measure the gravity or responsibility of the sin. Scandal—Scandal is an attitude or behavior that leads another to do evil. If someone is deliberately lead into a grave offense, that person’s tempter commits a grave sin (CCC 2284 and 2285). Jesus said, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believes in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea" (Matthew 18:6). Drug abuse—Drug abuse does grave damage to health and life and is a grave offense. Only legitimate therapeutic use is acceptable (CCC 2290). Gluttony—Gluttony is an excessive love for food, and is a disordered passion for wordly appetites. Because it is contrary to the virtue of temperance, it can constitute a grave sin. Gluttony is also a capital sin (CCC 1866, 2290) Alcohol Abuse—Alcohol abuse can also be excessively dangerous and harmful to the body, and sometimes to neighbors (CCC 2290).. Because it is also contrary to temperance and is a disordered passion, it is a grave sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Terrorism—Terrorism that threatens, wounds and kills indiscriminately is of grave matter (CCC 2297). Other forms of bodily violence (kidnapping, hostage taking, non-medical amputations, mutilations and sterilization) are also contrary to the moral law. Extreme Anger—"Anger is a desire for revenge. If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin (CCC 2302). Christ speaks against anger saying, "Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgement (Matthew 5:22)." Hatred—Hatred of a neighbor is to deliberately wish him evil, and is thus a grave sin (CCC 2303 and Galatians 5:19-20). Extortion—Extortion is to obtain something from another by coercion or intimidation. It is an act of violence and theft, and is condemned by 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

The Sixth Commandment, "You shall not commit adultery" Adultery—Adultery is marital infidelity. A married person who has sexual relations with anyone but their lawful spouse, even transient sexual relations, commits adultery (CCC 2380). Divorce—The grave sin of divorce condemns those who divorce and remarry (Matthew 5:32) and those who divorce in the civil sense (except by grave dispensation). Hence divorce between two baptized Christians is a mortal sin (CCC 2384). Fornication—Fornication is carnal union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman and is a grave sin (CCC 2353). St. Paul condemns fornication in his epistle 1 Corinthians 6:18. All aspects of intimate contact associated with the marriage act also constitute fornication for Jesus said, "I say to you, everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 9:28). If lustful looks are adulterous, how much worse is lustful physical contact? Pornography—Pornography is the display of intimate real or simulated sexual acts to a third party. Because it removes the marriage act from within the sacramental sanctity of marriage, and perverts sex, it is gravely contrary to charity (CCC 2354). The display of pornography to children and other parties is especially gravely sinful because it is gravely scandalous. Prostitution—Prostitution reduces a person to an instrument of sexual pleasure and lust. It is gravely contrary to charity and chastity and defiles the body, the temple of the Holy Spirit. However, destitution, blackmail or social pressure can reduce the gravity of the sin. Still, prostitution is always a sin (CCC 2355). Rape—A person who commits rape violates the respect, freedom, physical and moral integrity of the victim. It is a brutal crime of violence that can physically and psychologically scar a person for life. It is thus a grave sin (CCC 2356). Homosexual acts—Although it remains to be determined if homosexuality is a genetic, social or personal stigma, homosexual acts are condemned by God and can NEVER be approved by the Church (1 Corinthians 6:9-10, Genesis 19:1-29, Romans 1:24-27 and CCC 2357). If homosexuals are born with the condition, then they are called to live a life of Christian purity and chastity for the greater love of Christ. Such people can experience a life of trial, which all others must treat with compassion and sensitivity. Incest—"Incest is intimate relations between relatives or in-laws within a degree that prohibits marriage between them" (CCC 2388). St. Paul condemns incest in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Corinthians 5:1,4-5). Masturbation—"Masturbation is the deliberate stimulation of the sexual organs in order to derive sexual pleasure" (CCC 2352). The Church teaches that sex has two main purposes that must be sought in the marriage act: sex is for reproduction of children within a valid marriage, and it is a loving, unifying act between husband and wife. Masturbation violates both aspects of the natural law and is thus a grave sin.

The Seventh Commandment—"You shall not steal" Theft—All persons have a right to lawful private property obtained by legitimate work, inheritance or gift. To violate a person’s right to property by theft is a grave sin, especially if the loss of the property will severely hurt the victim (CCC 2408). The gravity of theft is determined by the harm it does to the victim. A poor beggar who steals a loaf of bread commits a less grave sin than a rich man who steals the savings of a destitute person. St. Paul tells us that thieves shall not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). Cheating –A cheater defrauds his victim of their property. It is morally of grave matter unless the damage to the victim is unusually light (CCC 2413). Defrauding a worker of his wages—This is one of the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance. Defrauding a worker of his wages withholds and impedes his ability to sustain basic needs for himself and his family. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867). Unfair wagers—Unfair wagers in games of chance are of grave matter if they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others (CCC 2413). Taking advantage of the poor—The economic or social exploitation of the poor for profit harms the dignity and natural rights of the victim. It is a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance (CCC 1867).

The Eighth Commandment—"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbors" False witness and perjury—False witness is a public statement in court contrary to the truth. Perjury is false witness under oath. Both acts are gravely sinful when they condemn the innocent, exonerate the guilty or increase punishment of the accused. They are of grave matter because they contradict justice (CCC 2476). Adulation—Adulation is verbal speech or an attitude that encourages or confirms another in malicious acts and perverse conduct. It is a grave sin if it makes one an accomplice in another’s vices or grave sins (CCC 2480). Lying—Lying is the most direct offense against the truth. It is gravely sinful when it significantly degrades the truth. The gravity of this sin is measured by the truth it perverts, the circumstances, intentions of the liar and harm done to the victims (CCC 2484). Lying is a sin that originates from the devil, Satan, who is "the father of all lies" (John 8:44).

The Ninth Commandment—"You shall not covet…your neighbor’s wife" Lust—Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. It is disordered because sexual pleasure must not be isolated from its true, natural place: within the Sacrament of Matrimony that is ordered to procreation of children and a unifying love between husband and wife (CCC 2351). Lust, a sin and vice of the flesh, is often a difficult vice to overcome. Human weakness of will and lack of conformity to God is a result of the fall of mankind that causes a disorder between soul and body (called concupiscence) which is often manifested in lust. Yet, lust is a sin that can be overcome through prayer and grace through the Christian sacraments. Christ wills that we overcome lust and replace it with Christian love and purity of heart (Matthew 9:28). "Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God" (Matthew 5:8).

The Tenth Commandment—"You shall not covet…anything that is your neighbors" Avarice—Avarice is greed and the desire to amass earthly goods without limit. It is a passion for riches and luxury. Those who seek temporal happiness at the expense of spiritual duties, risk the grave sin of avarice. Avarice is one of the deadly vices (CCC 2536). Envy—Envy, another capital sin, is sadness at the sight of another’s goods and the immoderate desire to acquire them for oneself. Envy can lead to grave consequences and can harm neighbors. If envy leads to grave harm to a neighbor, it is surely a grave sin. Offenses Against Faith Voluntary doubt of faith—Voluntary doubt of faith is disregarding the revealed truth of God and his Church (CCC 2088). Those who do this risk spiritual blindness and loss of faith. Incredulity, heresy, apostasy, schism—Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or willful refusal to assent to it. Heresy is obstinate post-baptismal denial of a truth that must be believed with divine and catholic faith. Apostasy is total repudiation of the Christian faith. Schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or communion with the members of the Church (CCC 2089). These sins strain or break the bonds of unity with the offender and the Catholic Church. Offenses Against Hope Despair in hope—Those who despair in hope, cease to hope in salvation from God or help in attaining forgiveness of sin (CCC 2090). Christian hope sustains a believer’s faith and dependence on God, and should not be neglected or rejected. Presumption—The Church teaches of two types of sinful presumption: the presumption that man can save himself without help from God and the presumption that God’s power or his mercy will merit him forgiveness without repentance and conversion (CCC 2092). Offenses Against Charity Indifference—This grave sin entails neglect or refusal on divine charity (a.k.a. divine love). Those who sin in indifference fail to consider the goodness of charity, and deny its power (CCC 2094). Ingratitude—An ungrateful sinner fails or refuses to acknowledge and return the love and charity of God (CCC 2094). Lukewarmness—Lukewarmness is negligence in response to God’s charity. It can also mean the refusal to give oneself to the prompting of charity (CCC 2094). Acedia (spiritual sloth)—Spiritual sloth, a capital sin, is the refusal of joy that comes from God. An sinner who indulges in acedia may even be repelled by divine goodness (CCC 2094). Hatred of God—This grave sin is born of pride and is contrary to the love of God. A sinner who hates God willfully rejects him. Hatred of God refuses to acknowledge and praise God’s goodness and obedience (CCC 2094). Of course we must realize that this is certainly not a complete list of sins. The sins that are listed above are those of grave matter that can become mortal sins if they are done willfully and with full knowledge of their nature. Other sins are of venial nature, and are less grave than the ones listed above. What is venial sin? As stated before, venial sin is a sin of lesser matter than grave sin. It can also be a sin of grave matter in which the sinner did not fully consent to the sin or did not have knowledge that his actions where sinful. Venial sins will not destroy grace in the soul, and will not directly cause a person who dies in the state of venial sin to lose the promise of heaven. Yet, venial sin weakens a person’s will to avoid evil and thus may indirectly lead to mortal sin. Regardless, all sin is an offense against God and should be avoided.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Didn't know Jaybro was once a Pope's man?

I was never a Pope's man...I was a child of Catholic parents and the Catholic school system that they lovingly inflicted on me. Once free of all that blather, I reverted to my nascent state of blessed Atheism, where I happily remain, free of the ignorance and violence that all to often attends being one of God's people, present company excepted, of course.

Originally posted by rjhowie:

Didn't know Jaybro was once a Pope's man?

We rarely get to know much about each other in this venue.

I was never a Pope's man...I was a child of Catholic parents and the Catholic school system that they lovingly inflicted on me. Once free of all that blather, I reverted to my nascent state of blessed Atheism, where I happily remain, free of the ignorance and violence that all to often attend being one of God's people, present company excepted, of course.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Shucks, I don't make the rules, I just find the sources. In this case, the Code of Canon Law. Are the Portuguese folks exempt?

Can. 1247 On Sundays and other holy days of obligation, the faithful are obliged to participate in the Mass. Moreover, they are to abstain from those works and aVairs which hinder the worship to be rendered to God, the joy proper to the Lord’s day, or the suitable relaxation of mind and body.http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P4N.HTM

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.

Originally posted by jbrothernew37:

Try these on for size, Mr. Belfrager...a trainload of thou shalt nots! Took the breath out of me.

I know the Ten Commandments, thank you.
There's also a famous cinematographic version by Cecil B. DeMille... not my kind of movie anyway.