THEOCRACY WATCH: Miers picked because of her religion

[nbcrusader]

You have no idea what it is to live in a theocracy

 

[melon]

You have no idea what it is to live in a theocracy

But Bush is certainly trying to make us like Iran. I don't think most conservatives know what it is like to be in a theocracy either, so all they have are these stereotypes of Middle Eastern countries with arms being chopped off.

In fact, in the scheme of things, Iran is a very progressive country when compared to the entire Muslim world. The people of Iran have a very high education level. But the "theocracy" ensures that you're never ever able to overthrow the religious component of their nation. Have elections all you want, but if it isn't the clerics, it's the judiciary that is completely stacked with hard-line supporters of the clerics.

And whether fundamentalist Christians are smart enough to know it, that's the kind of country that they're trying to create here. "Freedom" and "elections" with the undertones that you're never able to get rid of their particularly reactionary version of Christianity in law. And now they're trying to stack the judiciary with hard-line supporters to ensure that no matter who is in office, they'll be in control for at least another generation or two.

Melon

 

[financeguy]

And whether fundamentalist Christians are smart enough to know it, that's the kind of country that they're trying to create here. "Freedom" and "elections" with the undertones that you're never able to get rid of their particularly reactionary version of Christianity in law. And now they're trying to stack the judiciary with hard-line supporters to ensure that no matter who is in office, they'll be in control for at least another generation or two.

Melon

Theocracy lite maybe, but not a full scale one (speaking as an outsider, I admit).

Do US religious conservatives wish to introduce be-headings, stonings, jail sentences for gays, etc, etc? For the most part, I think not. And also, a lot of prominent neo-conservatives are Jewish, so they wouldn't be having it.

I honestly think that Ireland in the 1950's, was closer to being a theocracy than the US is in 2005. Actually Spain under Franco probably was too, now that I think of it.

As an aside, on the gay marriage issue, how many countries have legalised it? 3, 4, a handful? Are all the countries that haven't legalised it, theocracies? Does the US non-legalisation of gay marriage to date make it a theocracy, or is it not the case that there is a strong movement to legalise gay marriage in the US, indicate precisely the opposite?

 

[Irvine511]

You have no idea what it is to live in a theocracy

would you be able to recognize a theocracy?

but, hey, it's not like you're rights are going to be trampled on, so why worry?

 

[Irvine511]

Theocracy lite maybe, but not a full scale one (speaking as an outsider, I admit).

Do US religious conservatives wish to introduce be-headings, stonings, jail sentences for gays, etc, etc? For the most part, I think not. And also, a lot of prominent neo-conservatives are Jewish, so they wouldn't be having it.

I honestly think that Ireland in the 1950's, was closer to being a theocracy than the US is in 2005. Actually Spain under Franco probably was too, now that I think of it.

Incidentally on the gay marriage issue, how many countries have legalised it? 3, 4, a handful? Are all the countries that haven't legalised it, theocracies?

firstly, the "we became a theocracy" was more of an ironic statement than a literal one.

i agree, there are far worse places to live.

however, as someone who cherishes secularism, any infrigement upon these rights must be battled, tooth-and-nail.

the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

 

[melon]

Theocracy lite maybe, but not a full scale one (speaking as an outsider, I admit).

Do US religious conservatives wish to introduce be-headings, stonings, jail sentences for gays, etc, etc? For the most part, I think not. And also, a lot of prominent neo-conservatives are Jewish, so they wouldn't be having it.

I honestly think that Ireland in the 1950's, was closer to being a theocracy than the US is in 2005. Actually Spain under Franco probably was too, now that I think of it.

First off, we're in the process of a theocracy; I don't think we're there yet.

Secondly, Ireland, as a theocracy, didn't stone or behead gays, as far as I know, but did everything probably to deny any rights at all for them. Here in Michigan, we have conservatives whining about gays getting health benefits. That shows that it has never been about "marriage." It's always been about legislating their hatred.

We may never become Saudi Arabia, but we're trying to become Ireland. Or Franco's Spain. Or Quebec under Maurice Duplessis. And, in all these instances, religious fanaticism is wrong. All the more hypocritical, considering how Bush lectures Islamic theocracies about religious freedom. But again, it isn't about true religious freedom. It's about letting Christian evangelists (and Bush supporters) inside. Fuck everyone else.

Melon

 

[Irvine511]

As an aside, on the gay marriage issue, how many countries have legalised it? 3, 4, a handful? Are all the countries that haven't legalised it, theocracies? Does the US non-legalisation of gay marriage to date make it a theocracy, or is it not the case that there is a strong movement to legalise gay marriage in the US, indicate precisely the opposite?

no. this goes way beyond gay marriage.

i am quite capable of thinking beyond my own immediate rights; i personally find the religiosity in the language of the president and of many members of the Republican party offensive, and i'm not an atheist.

 

[melon]

but, hey, it's not like you're rights are going to be trampled on, so why worry?

Even Hitler was popular with the German majority when he was in power, so it often shows how very little the majority cares about whether minorities are trampled on or not. It's all about "me."

Melon

 

[financeguy]

Secondly, Ireland, as a theocracy, didn't stone or behead gays, as far as I know, but did everything probably to deny any rights at all for them.

A blind eye was turned, in a lot of cases. Suspected homosexuals faced social ostracism certainly, but actual prosecutions were relatively rare as far as I know (as in the UK during that era.)

The theocracy elements I am thinking of were probably more to do not so much with denying rights to gays, but with issues such as non-Catholics not being made to feel particularly welcome in rural areas, Catholic Bishops interfering in politics whenever it suited them to do so, the prohibition on divorce (not lifted until 1995, believe it or not), and censoring of books deemed immoral (which basically included anything remotely sexual).

The Irish playwright of that era Brendan Behan who is generally assumed to have been bi-sexual wrote about underground gay bars in Dublin during that era. There was a well known (male) actor of that period, whose name escapes me, who was in a long term relationship with a (male) theatre director. This was known of at government level, and tolerated. They were never prosecuted or hassled by police, as far I am aware. But of course if he hadn't been a public figure, it might have been a different story.

The expression 'living in sin' tended to refer to heterosexual couples co-habiting, which was frowned upon.

But anyway, I digress.

 

[Irvine511]

the eloquent Peggy Noonan, a Reagan speechwriter and, to my mind, easily one of the best voices the conservatives have, has this to say regarding the original topic of this thread:

And next time perhaps the White House, in announcing and presenting the arguments for a new nominee to the high court, will remember a certain tradition with regard to how we do it in America. We don't say, "We've nominated Joe because he's a Catholic!" A better and more traditional approach is, "Nominee Joe is a longtime practitioner of the law with considerable experience, impressive credentials, and a lively and penetrating intellect. Any questions? Yes, he is a member of the Catholic church. Any other questions?"

That's sort of how we do it. We put the horse and then the cart. The arguments for the person and then the facts attendant to the person. You don't say, "Vote for this gal because she's an Evangelical!" That shows a carelessness, an inability to think it through, to strategize, to respectfully approach serious facts--failings that, if they weren't typical of the White House the past few months, might be called downright sexist.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/

 

[BVS]

^Why can't there be more conservatives like that...?

 

[yolland]

i personally find the religiosity in the language of the president and of many members of the Republican party offensive, and i'm not an atheist.

What do you think about religious progressives like Cornel West, Jim Wallis and Michael Lerner?

 

[Irvine511]

What do you think about religious progressives like Cornel West, Jim Wallis and Michael Lerner?

since they're not politicians, and i've both heard and met Cornel West, i have to say i enjoy them and they make me reconsider my agnosticism -- if we can view religion, or, better, spirituality, as a method of acknowleding the fact that we all come from the same "source" and that our different positions and stations here on earth are only worldly distinctions and that, ultimately, we are all connected to something incomprehensibly vast that makes us both utterly insiginficant yet incredibly precious at the same time, then a believer i might become.

but as it's currently framed, and obsessed with rules and subservience to this greater power and politicized, i really couldn't in good conscious either call myself a believer -- as my honest demands me to be agnostic -- or align myself with those who say they believe more than anyone else. it's not the message, i don't think, it's those that follow the message who are my problem.