So If The USA Became A Non-Secular State

Great Debates
1

How long would it be before the country imploded? Given that it seems that any time you have a country with several different religious groups running about, and one of them takes charge and begins changing laws to match their definition of what God wants, the other groups immediately take up arms and start shooting. And while I know lots of folks claim that the US would be a better country if religion ruled, I have to think that if Pat Robertson was put in charge and allowed to shape the country as he saw fit, Jerry Falwell and his followers would be none to happy about it. If you add in the athiests, agnostics, non-Christians, sane Christians (i.e. folks who realize that a secular state is better for everyone), and so on, you’re going to have a pretty large group of folks who are going to be ticked off by the state of affairs, and sooner or later, they’ll probably start shooting at one another.

So, would the country implode? Would it happily accept it’s fate, or what?

2

I think you think that Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have a heck of a lot more power than they do.

Erek

3

Uh, no. This is a hypothetical situation. And given the kind of things those guys have said without having significant influence on America (“We just assassinate him.”, etc. etc. etc.), if one of them got real power, I seriously doubt that they’d be saying things like, “Oh, just turn the other cheek.”

4

To begin with, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell get along fine.

More to the point, How do they get power? “Pat Robertson was put in charge and allowed to shape the country as he saw fit” sounds like some sort of coup/dictatorship that would be opposed by 95% of the population.

It makes as much sense as asking “what would happen if Howard Stern were made king for life?”

5

Dude! That would **sooooo **rock!!!

As for the OP…

How exactly does this come about? Seems like the constitution would have to be declared invalid, and **that **would cause an uprising before ol’ Pat could arrive in Wash DC.

6

I would (hopefully) be able to get refugee status, then!

7

Read The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood. It looks more and more relevant to the present moment every day.

8

What does it matter how it would come about? As Tuckerfan said, it’s a hypothetical. Invent your own scenario, as realistic as you can make it. The question is, would the country implode if it became non-secular?

I’d think not, at least not for at least a generation or two. Even given the will of some to impose their brand of morality on others, I can’t imagine they’d be so stupid as to go whole-hog right off the bat. There would have to be a progression of sorts, first eroding certain things commonly accepted today as rights (e.g., abortion), before imposing more far-reaching laws (e.g., religious tests for public office). Besides, the more moderate religious folk – whom I believe are much more numerous than the nutjobs – would temper the extremes. And by the time a generation or two goes by, there might be enough acclimation of the populace that not only would it be hard to change back, but the state of affairs would be accepted as normal and proper.

9

I’ve read it. Which specific policies in that work of fiction have been enacted today?

None? I thought so…

So, why is it relevant again?

10

A better fictional example would be “If This Goes On…” by Robert Heinlein. The novella deals with the Second American Revolution, this time against a religious dictatorship that had taken over the US decades before.

As long as the Latter Day Saints are around in any numbers, I don’t fear a religious dictatorship here. They are too well supplied and armed to be taken out easily, and the attempt would be a disaster for the Government of the Usurper.

11

Ancient Rome had a state religion and a diversity of religious beliefs, and didn’t have much civil unrest regarding religion.

12

No guns. Different world. Also a lot of tolerance of different religions.

If Tuckerfan’s worst case came true. There probably would be uprisings and an outward flow of Emigration. But the scenario is loose. I need more details to accurately conjecture.

Jim

13

Also polytheistic. IIRC, as long as you paid your taxes and didn’t cause trouble, the Romans didn’t care much who you worshipped. None of the religious powers in the US today are even remotely that tolerant.

Actually, if Robertson et al took over, I suspect a number of otherwise liberal people would discover previously-unseen virtues in the NRA! :smiley:

14

Ok, how’s this for a scenario?

Jerry Falwell runs for President in 2008. His party is the new “Biblical Values” party, the core of his campaign is “A Return to Traditional Morality”, and he runs a full slate of candidates.

He is swept to victory with 51% of the vote, a majority in the Electoral College, and his party wins sixty-one Senate seats and a majority of the House.

In February 2007, six Supreme Court justices die of food poisoning after the cheese dip goes bad at a party at Ruth Ginsberg’s house. Falwell nominates six new candidates, who all commit to “interpret the Constitution as a living document for a New Age”. They are all approved by acclamation in the Senate.

They instantly begin finding that there is an unenumerated right to be free from gay marriage, the fetus has a right to life, etc.

First subquestion - on what basis would you argue that the Constitution does not say that? Doesn’t the Constitution say whatever the Supremes say it says?

Second subquestion - what are you going to do about it? Secede? Rebel? Start talking about state’s rights?

Main question - how long would it last? I suspect as long as the 51% who voted them in remained loyal. And I rather doubt that such loyalty would last if Falwell wanted to cancel elections and rule as king or something like that.

Regards,
Shodan

15

Shodan – where does the “Biblical Values” party stand on the 2nd amendment? Also, what are the effects on foreign policy?

Oh, and it’s not the cheese dip that does the Justices in. Everyone knows it’s the salmon mousse! :smiley:

16

The country would not implode at all.

If someone like Pat Robertson was able to completely change the United States into a non-secular state, he’d have to have wide ranging support from the rest of the public.

We’re talking serious support from many state legislatures, huge mandate from the electorate, a commanding domination of the Senate (enough absolute follower Senators who will do exactly what he say.)

If he had the ability to curry that much favor across the country, then the country would already be DRASTICALLY behind him. So already, we aren’t talking about the America we know today. But an America where most people are radical fundamentalists.

Let’s assume however, that Shodan’s scenario is actually possible (it isn’t.)

Eh, the country still wouldn’t implode.

As long as people are comfortable, as long as they are fed, most people will not take up arms. The people that do will be too small and ineffective to affect change, and they will quickly be stamped out.

The more time that passes, the more “normal” the situation becomes and the more the willpower of those that are in opposition to the government begins to erode.

Let’s try something a bit more realistic. Let’s say the following things happen over a 20 year period:

-Abortion is made illegal in virtually all cases in every State.

-School prayer is reintroduced

These are huge issues for most people. But how many of you here would actually take up arms about it? How many of you would actually move out of the country over this? I’m actually pretty sure a good chunk of you will claim you’d leave the country, or claim that you would take up arms. But it’s a lot harder to actually do those things than it is to type that you will do them on a message board.

Sadly I don’t have much faith in the American public. Unless we’re starving, unless we have little to live for, Americans as a people won’t rebel against their government no matter what it does.

17

The question makes no sense, because the US couldn’t become a theocracy unless a majority of our citizens wanted the US to become a theocracy. Or perhaps a large and determined minority in the face of an apathetic majority.

But if most people in the US don’t want a theocracy and are willing to fight to prevent it then the US cannot become a theocracy. If the dissention against theocracy was strong enough to make the country “implode” then it couldn’t be imposed in the first place. And if opposition to theocracy was so weak that theocracy was imposed by acclimation then the weak opposition isn’t going to be strong enough to make the country “implode”.

18

I agree that it is highly unlikely, to the point of implausibility. I am trying to find a balance between overwhelming popular support for the takeover, which would render moot questions about how long it would be before a rebellion, and a takeover by a minority, which would last (in my opinion) - well, it’s like the old joke.

If you see my point.

“This is most embarassing”. :smiley: Not as good as Life of Brian or The Holy Grail, but still.

I suspect the attitude of the BV Party will change towards the Second Amendment. They start out supporting it, and then as their support wanes and the resistance grows, perhaps they will come to regret it. :wink:

I bet the foreign policy will change surprisingly little. Support for Israel continues, to say the least, and a much smaller role for the UN. I bet trade will be almost unaffected. Maybe rogue states like Iran or North Korea will be more frightened of us, based on a belief that the US is more unpredictable now. Remember the fuss over Reagan triggering a nuclear war to hasten the Second Coming?

al-Queda and other Islamic terrorist groups will present us as a theocracy, but they do that anyway. I doubt anything like a Crusade being launched by the US, but in as unlikely a scenario as a theocratic US, anything is possible.

I don’t see people currently having trouble dealing with current theocracies like Saudi Arabia, although a Christian theocracy might be different. Although in theory, I don’t see why it would be.

What do you see as the biggest threat to a theocratic US? External invasion, internal rebellion, or simple social collapse? Or a swing back to a secular society?

Regards,
Shodan

19

[The Critic]

And now, The Cockroach King, staring Howard Stern.

“Yeah, that’s right, I’m your king! Whadaya think of that? Hey baby, show me your thorax!”

[/The Critic]

20

Shodan’s description is actually pretty close to what I had in mind (Boy, did I compose a piss-poor OP or what?), but I don’t think you’d need to go quite that far to see some nasty effects. Take what happened with Harriet Meiers nomination. The Far Right came out against her almost from the get-go because they felt she wasn’t conservative enough. This is a woman, who once answered “yes” to the question if she’d support a constitutional amendment banning abortion except when the mother’s life was in danger. Which would mean that rape victims would be forced (unless they wanted to travel outside the country, and then might be subject to persecution upon their return) to carry the child to term.

If you’ll recall when Clinton was elected President, there were at least a few liberal organizations screaming that he wasn’t going far enough with his policies. Now, one thing that happens, no matter who gets elected, is that the more extreme members of their party, begin pushing for their goals (which might not suit the majority of the party), when you get someone in office who leans more to the extreme sides of the party, the far flung members start screaming louder and can have more influence. Put some extremist radical in charge of the country, and you open a real can of worms, IMHO. It wouldn’t, I think, take an elimination of the Constitution for things to get ugly.

If Roberston (or whomever) became President, what mechanism is there to prevent him from pardoning Eric Rudolph? And while I’d hope that this would upset all Americans, the fact is that it’s likely he had help when he was on the lamb.

We all know how well the anti-war protests worked at keeping us out of Iraq, and while I’d hope that a President who pardoned Rudolph would quickly realize that he’d gone way too far, such an act would likely cause very heated debate in America, and sooner or later, one side or the other would probably take violent action against the other side. Do things quickly settle down as both sides come to their senses? Or do they get even uglier?