Theocratic Christian society vs. Secular Society

[SmithSmith]

Theocratic Christian society versus a secular society: This should be the title is there anyway to change the thread title?

Conservatives want a theocratic Christian society and liberals want a secular society. Each side believes they are right, their way is the right way, and the other is wrong. Each side feels threaten by the other and believes their way and belief is superior. Each side feels the other is pushing their views down their throats.

They hate secular America because it lacks Christian morality and believe America is a Christian nation. So far, the Christian evangelicals are winning; they hold high positions everywhere to force change. They are popping up everywhere.

The president of America is leading the way:
Bush to anti-abortion activists: 'We will prevail'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060123/ts_nm/abortion_bush_dc

Bush "aligns with Sudan, China, Iran and Zimbabwe" against gays
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/200...5/iran12535.htm

Bearing in mind history and America’s diversity a secular society, I conclude is best.

Which is better?

[VonClausewitz]

It depends on how strong you would want the country to be, politically and in general. A theocratic autocracy should be, by definition, one of the strongest forms of government there is; it would ignore international treaties because they don't match with their God.

A truly secular type of government would not have any religious types in any kind of power-position, and would regulate a lot of things according to international laws etc, but could lead to a lot of wrangling over how to solve certain problems unique to itself.

[Hegemonicretribution]

There is a large theoretical difference between the groups, but little in practice. This is not about the expansion of one group's rights, it is about the limitation of the other's.

In theory the liberal's would just protect everyone's rights, including the fundamentalist's, the same could not be argued the other way around. However in practice expansion of rights is not even a "liberal's" concern any longer, both groups arguing reduction of liberty for a higher cause.

The religious nuts do have more to lose here though, they have grounding that presents religion as something other than a choice, and if society is truly accepting, it can never be more than a choice. Unfortunately this grounding will be protected, so although a truly secular society would be more benificial, it is unlikely.

A secular society would also allow for reflection on economic, material matters, rather than vague metaphysic speculation. With the illussion of a higher power removed, focus could shift to the state and ruling class (Incidentally linked to the higher power).

[James]

This is a crude generalisation.
Some Republicans, as well as Democrats, may want a theocratic "christian" society.
I don't think "true conservatives" would want such a thing. When i say conservative, i mean traditional liberal: limited government, free market, small state etc. Such individuals may personally approve of "christian values", or "jewish values" etc, but if they are of the liberal tradition, they will not seek to put such values onto others.

I would say secular nations are more my cup of tea. Whether the Us should be secular... section 8 of the constitution seems to suggest so, as does the first amendment. The constitution allows people to be christian. It doesn't disalow you to be christian. It also allows others to be not christian. Forcing one and all to be christian, or making the state religious, is exactly the general sort of thing that the founding fathers hated.

Forcing others to be christian is hardly christian in itself.



I think this is more of a political forum thread.

[ItalianCommie]

Theocracy is a very populist kind of government, therefore it can be very strong. Because popular superstition and prejudice are some of the most difficult faults to remove from the human mind, such a tendency towards theocracy is only very difficultly reversed.

I also believe conservatism is a very populist kind of government. Can anybody object?

[James]

depends on how you define conservatism.
If you mean limited government, then it may be popular, but i would disagree that it is populism like with religion.
With a theocracy the "general will" or whatever becomes the law. With a limited, liberal conservative society, laws exist as a frame work. In theory, what you do with your time is up to you, as long as you don't directly interfer with another (say, by trying to get them to do what you do).

Thus an argument can be made that such a form of government is anti-populist: it acts as a road block to forms of populism which attempt to interfer with the "rights" of others.

[ItalianCommie]

Hmm. You do have a good point.

But very often conservatism in order to survive embraces popular prejudice. Like anti-immigration policies. Plus conservatism does go hand in hand with religion.

Also it depends what kind of "rights" somebody values most. For example:

1.But very often conservatism in order to survive embraces popular prejudice. Like anti-immigration policies. Plus conservatism does go hand in hand with religion.
2. In Italy many neofascist people in the governing coalition advocate the right to "dignity", "law" and "order" or to being a "nationalist".
3. Many conservative localist parties have formed and spread, advocating the "right" to speaking the local dilect and direct the regional taxing system.

I think these "rights" are populistic, levering on the prejudices of the common person to gain power. Isn't that the definition of populism?

[James]

thats not conservatism/liberalism.

That is right wing/nationalism.

Liberialism is the liberty of the individual. Thus by definition, not collectivist/populist.

Of course politicians will always embrace what is popular with the electorate. To get elected.