Obviously christianity has been the majority religion in America since European settlers came here, but until now there has been a careful division between religion and the government. The line has been crossed before, and in some local areas the line doesn’t exist at all, but I think we’re closer now to a national establishment of religion than ever before.
Presidents have pursued religious agendas before, and so have congresses. Even the Supreme Court has done the same, but as far as I know, all three major branches of government have never pursued a conservative Christian agenda together at once. Can anyone prove otherwise?
Bush has been given a pretty obvious mandate, judging by the popular vote. He’s never been afraid to tell us that he had no problem mixing his Christian religion with his duties as the president, and now he has the even more firmly conservative House and Senate in full support of him. Soon, he will be able to appoint a Supreme Court justice that will tip the balance of power in our judicial system as well.
What defense do we have against the possibility of a national establishment of religion now? The Constitution, supposedly, but with the Supreme Court, the Congress, the President, and overwhelming voter support all apparently in agreement, I don’t trust in the strength of the document to prevent theocracy.
No. Never have been, never will be. Several of the Founding Fathers like Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Paine were all Deists. Evangelicals dispute this but I still believe it true.
Reagan was just as much or even more beloved by the religious right.
His mandate was far, far larger than W’s.
I’d expect, therefore, we return to the same sort of fascist theocracy we had in the mid-80s, with Members-only burquas and mandatory synth-band calls to prayer.
Do you really want someone to pull this thread up in a couple years to laugh at the hysteria?
You apparently have a lot of time on your hands to cook up conspiracy theories. Why don’t you outline for us the process by which the constitution will be jetisoned and a theocracy will arise.
Here is an interesting passage from the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed by the second President and passed the Congress unanimously Nov. 4, 1796. Specifically, Article 11:
No question. I just received a letter saying that I would not get my tax return this year unless I converted to Christianity, and my daughter narrowly avoided a roving young Christian press gang on her way to school this morning.
Wait, I hear on the radio that Bush just issued a fatwa against Al Sharpton as an apostate; gotta run and check out the news.
I got the impression that Franklin wasn’t a deist. There’s a part in his autobiography where he mentions that some of the most immoral people he knew were Deists- and so he comes to the conclusion that deism is an ineffective religion. I don’t have a copy of the book to double check that though
I don’t know- I guess you could still call him a Deist despite his misgivings. His focus on results however seem to foreshadow the pragmatist movement more than anything else.
I don’t think we’re going to become a “convert-or-die” theocracy by any means, but what does concern me is the manner in which Bush seems to want to trump what normally would be considered states-rights issues with federal/constitutional laws, even though the general thought is that conservatism is about lessening the influence of government. And that these issues all seem to be “morality-based”, or religious-based, or sin-based, if you will.
For instance:
Stem-cell research: Will he/can he have a reaction to the California vote? He’s already denied federal funding.
Abortion: repeal of Roe v Wade
Marijuana laws: all the trouble given to states that pass lenient/medical use laws
Gay marriage: constitutional amendment (!)
General breaking down the wall of SCOTAS: Will we start seeing the Ten Commandments allowed in judicial buildings etc, without appropriate or necessary recognition of other religions’ “commandments”?
I’m not well-read on any of the above issues, it’s more of a gut instinct type thing. Nor am I saying it’s going to happen, just that if it does than although we’re not on the road to theocracy, we are on the road to being Christian-dominated with governmental approval, so to speak.
Not really. Have you ever seen the Supreme Court Building? The words “Thou shalt have no other gods than me” aren’t there. Moses, as one of many historical lawgivers, is shown in several places, along with such historical lawgivers as Solon, Confucius, and Muhammad. This page from the Supreme Court’s website has links to a number of PDF files describing different aspects of the building’s architecture; note especially the north and south friezes (PDF file) in the Supreme Court chamber, where the Biblical figures Moses and Solomon share equal billing with Menes (legendary first king of Egypt), Hammurabi, Lycurgus (formulator of the Spartan law code), Solon, Draco (hey, his laws were proverbially “Draconian”, but they were laws), Confucius, Octavian (the Emperor Augustus), Justinian, Muhammad (a shout out to sharia as one of the world’s notable law codes from the Supreme Court), Charlemagne, King John (for letting the Magna Carta be extorted from him), Louis IX, Hugo Grotius, Blackstone, John Marshall, and Napoleon (for the Code Napoleon, of course, not for trying to invade Russia in the winter). Moses also appears on the east pediment (PDF file), along with Confucius and Solon again. (The tablets Moses are holding here are blank. The tablets on the frieze in the interior of the building do have some Hebrew characters which I am told do spell out part of the Ten Commandments, although I have heard that the part which is visible doesn’t include any of the “No other gods before me” part; i.e., none of what Protestants normally consider to be the first four commandments dealing with man’s relationship with God.) The “significant events in the evolution of justice in the Western tradition” illustrated on the building’s bronze doors (PDF file) don’t include any Biblical stories. In other words, a celebration of law, not religious faith, and most certainly including “appropriate or necessary recognition of other religions’ commandments”.
