Roy Moore and the belief in a Theocratic America

[Danmark]

Roy Moore is now the GOP candidate for a U.S. Senate seat from Alabama. Moore believes the United States should be a theocracy and that Christians should by law have advantages over other religions and that the Constitution should be subservient to his idea of the Christian God. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore
Moore thinks homosexuality should be criminalized and has twice been removed as a judge for refusing to follow the Constitution and insisting that the Ten Commandments should be in the courthouse.

I'm wondering if there are any DCR members who agree with him. The question for debate is whether beliefs like Moore's are appropriate in the United States and whether his beliefs are good or bad for Christianity and for the country.

[Neatras]

The answer is no. The outcome of increased religiousness in law is ultimately more harmful. Secularism has been at the forefront of modern transitions to peaceful social climates. Cultist ideologies are inherently divisive and destructive, and we can see examples of this in the New Lysenkoists and theocratic opportunists who invested all of their personal identity into their faith and so think that validates their grab for power.

[Furrowed Brow]

Certain ideologies have no internal constraints. A good sign is when the follower of an ideology believes not just their ideology is true or best but that every alternative is evil. An ideology that says criminalise homosexuality must by definition also think that a society that accepts homosexuality is an evil society. If people like Roy Moore were able to take over American politics it would not end there. Pragmatism and compromise would be out the window. A form of religious extremism would be unleashed that seeks out ever more extreme doctrine. Increasingly extreme leadership will claim their purer more holy vision is the truest. The old list of targets to hate will be refreshed - Jews, Muslims, academics, atheists being near the top of the list. Welcome to the Handmaid's tale where everyone jostles to show they are more "pious" than the person they're stood next to. So let's hope the likes of Roy Moore remains a local concern.

Of course the nightmare scenario does not have to be but when I look at the timbre of people like Moore it sends a shiver down my spine.

[JP Cusick]

Roy Moore is now the GOP candidate for a U.S. Senate seat from Alabama. Moore believes the United States should be a theocracy and that Christians should by law have advantages over other religions and that the Constitution should be subservient to his idea of the Christian God.

I agree that he has the right idea, and yet it would be difficult to implement, but I agree with the fundamental idea.

The US first Amendment was a big mistake, and the "Bill of Rights" was not in the original constitution, and it has hurt the USA ever after.

There really does need to be a State recognized official religion in the USA, to have some real speaker for morality in the USA, and by not having this then the USA is severely damaged and inferior, and thereby the USA is doomed to deeper and deeper debauchery and filth.

I would not really like the conservative Evangelical religion of Roy Moore, but still he has the right idea.

[ttruscott]

Off the top I'd have to say that now I no more would like a Christian in charge of lawmaking based upon his INTERPRETATION of the Bible than I would like to be forced to be under Shariah law.

[brianbbs67]

Well, Danmark, any beliefs are. Doesn't mean they are correct. Or right. People are free to think as they wish. Any change to that, enslaves us all.

[brianbbs67]

As to whether they hurt or not, anything can hurt, but most can ignore the extremist because most aren't extreme.

[Danmark]

Roy Moore is now the GOP candidate for a U.S. Senate seat from Alabama. Moore believes the United States should be a theocracy and that Christians should by law have advantages over other religions and that the Constitution should be subservient to his idea of the Christian God.

I agree that he has the right idea, and yet it would be difficult to implement, but I agree with the fundamental idea.

The US first Amendment was a big mistake, and the "Bill of Rights" was not in the original constitution, and it has hurt the USA ever after.

There really does need to be a State recognized official religion in the USA, to have some real speaker for morality in the USA, and by not having this then the USA is severely damaged and inferior, and thereby the USA is doomed to deeper and deeper debauchery and filth.

I would not really like the conservative Evangelical religion of Roy Moore, but still he has the right idea.

Was that meant as satire? You really, sincerely don't like free speech and freedom of thought? You really want someone imposing his religion on the rest of us? Have you considered that these beliefs you've shared would go over perfectly in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran and other theocratic States?

BTW, you are essentially wrong about the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments were sent to the States for ratification September 25, 1789, which was even before the Constitution was ratified May 29, 1790. As Amendments they ARE the Constitution every bit as much as the rest of the Constitution. Those ten amendments were always part of the thinking of the founding fathers and they are the only things that stand between the protection of the individual against the tyranny of government.

[JP Cusick]

Was that meant as satire? You really, sincerely don't like free speech and freedom of thought? You really want someone imposing his religion on the rest of us? Have you considered that these beliefs you've shared would go over perfectly in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran and other theocratic States?

Yes I meant it sincerely - and I would never post satire, as it would ruin my reputation.

Every person has the God given ability to speak freely as possible and that does not come from any Constitution or human right, just as is the ability of thought, but making it as a government enforced right is to make filth and hatred into a legalized speech and that is all that was accomplished.

People might think that they can speak nicely because the Gov gives them freedom to speak and that is not accurate, because the only right given by "free speech" is the rights to speak evil and hateful and filthy.

BTW, you are essentially wrong about the Bill of Rights. The first ten amendments were sent to the States for ratification September 25, 1789, which was even before the Constitution was ratified May 29, 1790. As Amendments they ARE the Constitution every bit as much as the rest of the Constitution. Those ten amendments were always part of the thinking of the founding fathers and they are the only things that stand between the protection of the individual against the tyranny of government.

I really meant the original draft - so you are correct that the "rights" were in the original ratification.

But I maintain the bigger point that it was a big mistake to include that garbage.

And people already had a right to guns and to a jury trial and etc etc, so they were not given by the US Constitution.

I would applaud the 13th and 14th amendments which came long later around 1865 as the Civil War ended.

And it is noteworthy that when God gave the ten commandments then at least 2 of the commands directly limit speech, as in not using the name in vain, and do not bear false witness, and at least 5 other commands imply a limit on speech. See Link to the 10 HERE.

[Danmark]

Every person has the God given ability to speak freely as possible and that does not come from any Constitution or human right, just as is the ability of thought....

Your error here is in confusing "ability" with a legal "right." These are completely different concepts yet you appear to use them interchangeably. A person has the ability to speak freely, but not necessarily the right to do so. In theocracies, your preferred form of government, the individual does not have the right to speak freely.

"Speech, the press and other forms of communicative media, including television and radio broadcasting and Internet reception, are actively censored by the [Saudi] government to prevent political dissent and anything deemed... offensive to the Wahhabi culture or Islamic morality.
....
Online social media has increasingly come under government scrutiny for dealing with the "forbidden" topics. In 2010 a Saudi man was fined and given jail time for his sexually suggestive YouTube video production. That same year another man was also jailed and ordered to pay a fine for boasting about his sex life on television."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rig ... munication

I assume you applaud the Saudi system and would like to substitute it for that of the United States because it allows the government to punish 'filth.' But there is another, more fundamental problem with your objection to the 1st Amendment and substituting a theocratic system. The problem is that even if we suppose a God who is good and wise, it is humans who administer God's justice. Humans decide who and what their god is and what 'He' thinks is 'filth,' the expression of which should be punished.

You are, in essence, asking for a return to the 'Christian' Spanish inquisition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition

But I maintain the bigger point that it was a big mistake to include that garbage.

The problem with throwing out the 'garbage,' as you call the right to free speech, is that without that right the government can decide anything you say is 'filth,' and you won't even be allowed to argue they are wrong.

And people already had a right to guns and to a jury trial and etc etc, so they were not given by the US Constitution.

This suggests a complete misunderstanding of the very concept of legal rights. Rights don't 'give' anything. They preserve and protect. Without specifically enumerated rights the government can and most likely would revoke those rights whenever it wants. Our founding fathers thought those rights were of such great importance they enshrined them early in our history, knowing that the history of government is to erode personal liberty and maximize the power of the State against the individual. It both surprises and frightens me that this s precisely what you are advocating: the subjugation and control of the citizen by enhancing the power of the State.