The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

a reply to: xuenchen

HL's complaint was that they had "religious objections" that they didn't currently qualify for. They were petitioning the court for the right to object on religious grounds.

You do understand why this is a landmark case, don't you? Hint: It had nothing to do with contraception.

RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.”

a reply to: windword

Yes I get it.

And there will be a windfall soon enough.

I think that's why we are seeing heavy resistance on topics since last week.

This thread is displaying some of the bone tingling fear.

If you want to continue with this debate about Hobby Lobby, I suggest you author a thread and then we can consolidate all the arguments.

Wait till tomorrow if you wish.

For now, keep this thread closer to topic.

Buzzy is concerned about a new Theocracy movement.

a reply to: xuenchen

The SCOTUS ruling is right on topic. The Greens are Dominionists.

Hobby Lobby’s Steve Green launches a New Project: Public School Bible Curriculum

The writer of the piece and the poster have obviously never lived in or even near a Theocracy.
I've never lived in one either but I have a few friends who have.
OP needs to read up a bit on these things before jumping in....sigh...such hyperbole does nothing to bring folks to their side, it's just preaching to the choir. Just a bit of education could help...you really should know the actual meaning of the words you use.

originally posted by: diggindirt
The writer of the piece and the poster have obviously never lived in or even near a Theocracy.
I've never lived in one either but I have a few friends who have.
OP needs to read up a bit on these things before jumping in....sigh...such hyperbole does nothing to bring folks to their side, it's just preaching to the choir. Just a bit of education could help...you really should know the actual meaning of the words you use.

Could you try to explain what you just said?

It's like you really didn't say anything.

a reply to: Annee
Start by looking up the meaning of theocracy. Then look at examples of countries ruled by theocracies. Okay, for the lazy folk who don't want to be bothered....
the·oc·ra·cy
noun thē-ˈä-krə-sē

: a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders

: a country that is ruled by religious leaders
www.merriam-webster.com...







theocracy, government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. See also church and state; sacred kingship.
www.britannica.com...

Okay, now, as a nation we are a real mix of different religions. That is not allowed in a theocracy.
There are no atheist public figures in a theocratic government.
In a theocracy the law of the land is based on the religion's creed and all schools teach only that creed.
Citizens who do not conform to that religion are punished.

Anyone who has studied beyond world civilizations beyond 10th grade level should be aware of these definitions. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution for the United States are a reaction to living in a theocratic society. To say that because some public figures invoke the name of God or Christ in their speeches is steering us toward a Corporate Theocracy is simply hyperbole.
You can hate on corporations all you wish and blame them for a lot of the evil in the world today but to say they want a theocracy is just plain silly. It's an oxymoron.



ETA: To explain another big word....
ox·y·mo·ron
[ok-si-mawr-on, -mohr-] Show IPA
noun, plural ox·y·mo·ra [ok-si-mawr-uh, -mohr-uh] Show IPA , ox·y·mor·ons. Rhetoric .
a figure of speech by which a locution produces an incongruous, seemingly self-contradictory effect, as in “cruel kindness” or “to make haste slowly.”
Origin:
1650–60; < Late Latin oxymorum < presumed Greek *oxýmōron, neuter of *oxýmōros sharp-dull, equivalent to oxý ( s ) sharp (see oxy-1 ) + mōrós dull (see moron)

dictionary.reference.com...

a reply to: diggindirt

We're on page 24. You're late.
Arrogant smugness has already been covered.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: diggindirt

We're on page 24. You're late.
Arrogant smugness has already been covered.

He may be arrogant and smug, but he is also correct.

originally posted by: diggindirt
The writer of the piece and the poster have obviously never lived in or even near a Theocracy.
I've never lived in one either but I have a few friends who have.
OP needs to read up a bit on these things before jumping in....sigh...such hyperbole does nothing to bring folks to their side, it's just preaching to the choir. Just a bit of education could help...you really should know the actual meaning of the words you use.

True, true. Having spent a lot of time in places like Saudi Arabia, I've seen first hand what a real theocracy looks like and we ain't it.

originally posted by: TheToastmanCometh
I apologise for playing the victim card. I'll keep your thoughts in mind if i ever find myself getting pounded on by a bunch of 'Good Christians fixing a problem'. Suffice to say one of my abusers was a Navy man...

Since I'm an atheist, you don't have to worry about that, I guess. That's okay, a lot of progressives embrace the victim mentality.

a reply to: AfterInfinity

He's right about what? That I am uneducated and don't know how to use vocabulary?

I have already stated that the article's title was overblown. I don't see how insulting me is relevant.
I presented it for ATS to discuss. It apparently was of interest to enough people that it's still alive...
what is the point to coming in just to be insulting?

This group exists - and they admittedly WANT a theocracy.

No - I've never lived in one. And I don't want to - that is the point. That anyone wants me to is a problem. Preaching to the choir? How is that even relevant? What does this participant offer that serves to REMEDY the potential situation?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Having spent a lot of time in places like Saudi Arabia, I've seen first hand what a real theocracy looks like and we ain't it.

OBVIOUSLY we ain't it! NOT YET!

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: tsingtao
end up with the eloi and morlocks.

That works. So every now and then some Blue Collar worker drags some wealthy business owner down on to the factory floor and they all eat him.

What's the problem with that???

LOL. Ironic post is ironic. It's amusing how leftists fight hate and intolerance by being hateful and intolerant.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NavyDoc

Having spent a lot of time in places like Saudi Arabia, I've seen first hand what a real theocracy looks like and we ain't it.

OBVIOUSLY we ain't it! NOT YET!

Not even close and nowhere near and not even heading in that direction--and that's a good thing.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes, it's a good thing; happily we know the faction that would have us become one is out there, so it can be nipped.

originally posted by: LDragonFire
The citizens united ruling and the recent hobby lobby ruling among others rulings by the supreme court add validity to what the op is asserting.

Only if you failed logic in university. How is a private entity not being forced to pay for 4 out of 20 types of birth control imposing anything on anyone? Were they forbidden from using birth control? Were they forbidden to go buy it on their own? Were they forced to worship or pray or go to church? No. None of that. They just didn't get as much free stuff as they wanted.

Only a progressive thinks that someone else not forced into providing them with free stuff is an infringement on their rights.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Doc, I am feeling quite frustrated by your posts.

I have AGREED that the title was overblown - a clear hyperbolic exaggeration.
The person who COMPOSED the title was not me. Since page 1, we members have discussed the FACT that these people WANT TO CREATE A theocracy. That they are in government already.

Many of you dismiss it as a pipe-dream of their's that will never happen. Fine - I hope you are all correct.
You HELPED me to realize it was exaggerated "doom porn". And now I'm being ridiculed for bringing it up?

THESE PEOPLE EXIST. THAT is the point - not the stupid, poorly worded, sensationalist title.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: AfterInfinity

He's right about what? That I am uneducated and don't know how to use vocabulary?

No, that we clearly are not a theocracy, and clearly are not headed that way.

I have already stated that the article's title was overblown. I don't see how insulting me is relevant.
I presented it for ATS to discuss. It apparently was of interest to enough people that it's still alive...
what is the point to coming in just to be insulting?

I'd be slightly impatient as well if a thread had lasted for 24 pages and still demonstrated a significant lack of comprehension regarding what a theocracy actually is.

This group exists - and they admittedly WANT a theocracy.

The Nazis are still alive and well today. Does that mean we have to be on the lookout for another Hitler?

No - I've never lived in one. And I don't want to - that is the point. That anyone wants me to is a problem. Preaching to the choir? How is that even relevant? What does this participant offer that serves to REMEDY the potential situation?

What is your solution, then? What do you propose as a means of averting this disaster you foresee?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”

How do you interpret it?

The way I see it, this law says the government CAN substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion as long as they have a compelling interest.

And it would be unconstitutional. No amendment in the Bill of RIghts has the caveat "except for compelling interest" (which translates into whatever the government wants essentially). "Compelling interest" is a dangerous slippery slope for the government. Freedom of speech? Not if WE decide we have a "compelling interest." Freedom from illegal search and seizure? Not if WE decide we have a "compelling interest." Can you see where this train of thought leads? I know that many people want the government to squash religion and religious freedoms because they hate Christians, but that IMHO is very short sighted because you are giving the government the power to squash you eventually too.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I have AGREED that the title was overblown - a clear hyperbolic exaggeration.
The person who COMPOSED the title was not me. Since page 1, we members have discussed the FACT that these people WANT TO CREATE A theocracy. That they are in government already.

It was, however, your choice to use the title rather than adjust the yellow hue of its sensational nature. And if we had not allowed them into government, would that not qualify as discrimination on religious grounds?

Many of you dismiss it as a pipe-dream of their's that will never happen. Fine - I hope you are all correct.
You HELPED me to realize it was exaggerated "doom porn". And now I'm being ridiculed for bringing it up?

THESE PEOPLE EXIST. THAT is the point - not the stupid, poorly worded, sensationalist title.

Much to my disappointment, Nazis also exist today.