Not even close. What Church has any real power? Yes, it’s true that being religious does garner a few votes, but again, we have shown that the US Senate has around 13 Jewish members, a couple of Unitarian, and one unspecified.
We have also shown that quite a few US Presidents were hardly what one would call “strongly religious”.
Here’s a definition of “Western”: wiki The exact scope of the Western world is somewhat subjective in nature, depending on whether cultural, economic, spiritual or political criteria are employed. In general however these definitions always include the following countries: the countries of Western Europe, South America, North America, Israel, Australia and New Zealand. These are Western European or Western European-derived nations which enjoy relatively strong economies and stable governments, allow freedom of religion, have chosen democracy as a form of governance, favor capitalism and international trade, are heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian values, and have some form of political and military alliance or cooperation.
Israel is much closer to being a Theocracy. And in South America, the RC Church has a great deal of power, much more than any other single church in the USA.
So, you’re wrong.
And- can we quit this hijack, or continue it in GD?
The USA is in no way a Christin Theocracy- no one Church has any real power- if we were a Christian Theocracy, there wouldn’t be so many Jewish in positions of high power. (There are some aspects of Dominionism )
Seriously, though, I’d say you’re wrong there. The Church has as much or more influence in many South American states as “Judeo-Christian tradition” does in the US, and that influence is not spread among numerous sects but concentrated in Catholicism.
I don’t know enough about the South American cultures to comment (I’d also argue against them being what most people would consider “western”, though I can see the point being argued either way).
I’d say there is enough cooperation (and agreement on policy) between the different christian sects in modern-day America for them to be considered an established religion. Additionally the modern Christian political movement is very pro Jewish (in a very weird apocalyptic kind of way, that if I was Jewish I would not be 100% happy with, though I guess it beats being blamed for killing Jesus). Witness the uproar about the signing in of Keith Ellison.
Its a complete hijack, and a totally arbitrary definition anyway. But I suspect the majority indigenous population of Bolivia or Peru, who are descendants of Incas (and other Meso-American cultures) and still speak an Incan dialect, would not think of themselves as “Western”.
Likewise personally I don’t think of a country at the heart of the middle east as “Western”.
wiki "Although it is inaccurate to do so, the term “Western world” is often interchangeable with the term First World stressing the difference between First World and the Third World or developing countries. "
One of my close friends is from Argentina, another from Paraguay. They said it’s either Catholic or Commie, no politico ever tries running for power without publicly embracing one or the other.
I think it’s a mistake to think that because so many US officials are some form of Christian that it really means anything theocratically. Bart Simpson may have once said “It’s all Christianity, people! The little stupid differences are nothing next to the big stupid similarities!” but in reality, the little stupid differences are pretty important to people. I can’t see any big theocratic potential in a government where you’ve got Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, etc. etc. etc. all sitting alongside each other.
I would think there’s a big difference between “the church running the state” and “the state running the church.” So, no, the example above of the Church of England is not the very definition of a theocracy.
Another thing to remember about the Christian politicians in the United States is that they come from quite a few different denominations, denominations with sometimes profound theological differences.
It’s a pretty big issue, though, if you’re the parent of a non-Catholic child and you can’t get your kid into that school. If Anahita is still around she might have a few other things to say on the subject (as a non-Catholic teacher in the national school system).
Only at primary level. They’ve been denied the right to establish any secondary schools, despite heavy demand in some areas, because the state insists that kids in those areas are perfectly well-served by the denominational secondary schools.
It’s also worth noting that the first truly publicly-run “non-denominational” school opened recently and who was it named after? A Catholic saint :smack: These people really don’t get it …
Not high enough to elect even a single pro-choice party to the Dáil though, as I mentioned in another thread yesterday …
This may well be reflective of the bizarre nature of the Irish debate on abortion. Most of those who support its legalisation can readily access abortion in the UK or further afield. It is more difficult than getting home access but not insurmountable for the majority of those wishing to have one. I support legalisation but am not particularly passionate about it, Anti-Choice activists are much more strident in my experience.
The definition of a theocracy on Wikipedia is, “a form of government in which a god or deity is recognized as the state’s supreme civil ruler, or in a broader sense, a form of government in which a state is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided.”
Saudi Arabia and Brunei are both Islamic absolute monarchies - monarchies where an Islamic king has complete power and is not bound by the constitution - so I guess that comes pretty close to theocracy. Oman and Qatar also have absolute monarchies which, while not by definition being Islamic, have in practice always been Islamic. There’s actually not that many though, that I can think of anyway.
However, I’d argue that definition brings both the US and the UK very close to technically having some ‘theocratic tendencies’ - the UK because the Church of England has seats in the House of Lords and can issue measures that cannot be amended and can be approved as the law of the land; and the US because, while in theory it’s about as un-theocratic as a country can get, in practice the President probably needs to profess Christianity to be elected and a President like George Bush would refer to being “guided by God” in making decisions. (Tony Blair also said he felt he was guided by God in making his decision to invade Iraq).
That’s all true, but it’s also true that Ireland is quite exceptional, in terms of Western and European countries, in the level of opposition to abortion even among the left. To my knowledge Malta is the only other EU country where even the left-wing parties (excluding the micro-left) are anti-choice. The only explanation I can come up with for this is the near-total control the Church has traditionally had over the debate in this country. That’s obviously starting to change, but there are still majorities against actual legalisation - as opposed to relaxation in certain circumstances - in every poll I’ve seen on the subject.
Well you can take a ferry. Anyway flights these days from Ireland to UK aren’t much more expensive than a long taxi ride in Dublin, nor an intercity rail ticket in Ireland.
