Well, maybe. Part of the problem with saying that is that actual theocracies are pretty rare. You could point out 16th/17th century Spain. It wasn’t a theocracy, but religion played a pretty major role in society and government, and it was an economic superpower.
Closer to a theocracy would be the Abbasid Caliphate, also an economic superpower. It wasn’t exactly a theocracy, but like the name implies, the government did draw its legitimacy from a religious claim.
Then, you have Pharaonic Egypt, where the Pharaohs were actually considered to be gods. They were certainly the dominant economic superpower in Mediterranian for some time.
It says nothing about separation of church and state, except insofar as it prevents the government from interefering with church affairs or establishing any particular religion. This is a far cry from actually separating the two.
Mind you, I’m not arguing against SOCAS. However, let’s not pretend that the First Amendment actually says that church and state are to be kept completely separate. It says no such thing.
Nonsense. You’ll find very few religious people who insist that church and government should be one and the same entity. By and large, the complaints about SOCAS are that it has been intepreted so broadly as to infringe excessively on religious expression and religious freedom. Now, one might disagree with this assessment, but it’s still vastly different from insisting that church and government should be “one and the same.”
If you asked 344 people, you can’t assert anything. 344 people is not a significant statistical sample of any religion, except any religion that has around 34,400 believers, and that would only be valid if every single person you asked was of the religion with 34,400 believers. You also didn’t ask the atheists, which means that there is no control sample.
In any case, the religious people who answered that they would approve of a statue of their religion only placed on public property are not necessarily morons, just hypocrites. They might be morons, but you haven’t proven that.
Others already replied with the right information on your “muslim comment”.
But since I’m around and reading this, you make me very curious…
Where on earth did you find your source for this incredible laughable statement?
I don’t know… I’m born with only one functioning braincell but I suppose it was there before my birth and thus previous to my exposure to the dangers of religions.
Yes, I do mean religionS since my father had an other one then my mother.
But you can’t imagine how happy I 'm right now… I guess you gave me now the explanation on questions that hunt me since my braincell was old enough to start reasoning: Why oh why am I such a lunatic?
You are a miracle: You saved me. I can sleep again. Thank you so very much.
Do you have a bank account? Because since I am Muslim and the command to do good at other humans reigns, I must think now about all the other people on the globe who suffer from the Religion Disease.
From now on I’m going to fund your entire life so that you are free of every kind of financial worries that might be possible or might occur. One never knows in life, no?
You are a unique saviour.
You must be able to spend all the time you want on practicing this life saving therapy for free on all those who are desperately in need of it.
Salaam. A.
Yes other posters, I’m on my way to heaven with this immense display of brotherhood and charity…
Oh… No… there seems to be no heaven at all… Forgot… Oh well, you can’t have it all
So, the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment means that a group of Christians can march into a synagogue and put up a big old cross?
It’s always dangerous to ask for a cite showing if “even one single person” is calling for something:
I’ve been from one end of the Internet to the other. I’ve seen a lotta strange things. Too many to ever ask for a cite showing if “even one single person” has espoused a particular idea.
This thread may have to take another hop to the Pit, given that the OP asserted a survery with an error rate of +/- 2%, and I’m now very doubtful that his methodology supports that error rate. If it does not, of course, then the OP is either not smart enough to correctly figure and apply an error rate to a statistical sampling, or he is, but deliberately lied, or he is smart enough, but simply made an honest error. Two of those three alternatives are Pit-worthy.
Hmmm… "I then asked “name any religion that 1) is not yours, and 2) that you know little about?”. Religion that is NOT MINE!! I am tempted to think of the darkest, most despicable thing I can. If I am a fundy Christian I am perhaps going to think of Satanism, or fundamentalist Islam. I am now conjuring all sorts of visions of human sacrifice and bombs going off. Combine with the effects of “that you know little about”. Now we have the double whammy of the alien AND the unfamiliar. You might as well have asked them if the many-tentacled purple blob people of Zeta-Reticuli should be allowed to remodel the governor’s mansion. This “proves”, if anything, that people fear the alien and unknown and are comfortable with the familiar and well-vetted.
Okay, we’ve established that Kalt’s alleged attempt at a statisitically significant sampling methodology is screwy, to say the least. What does that tell ya?