Discussion in 'Religion' started by StrangerInAStrangeLand, Jul 26, 2018.
Trying to put your faults on others will not get you anywhere.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
If I ever find myself eulogizing the genre of fiction for its innate skillful capacity to demonstrate reality, I shall certainly recall your wise counsel.
What the heck are you babbling on about?
If you've lost track, feel free to go back about 6 posts.
I have not lost track. You are babbling nonsense.
At the very least, you are doing a fine job of not returning to the points under discussion.
YOU went off the track.
I tried some to see what the heck is going on but it is no use with you.
.... feel free to take the lead
It is a dead horse.
So your horse is dead.
Actually the horse died on your lead. Interpret that anyway you will ...
Childish nonsense, trying to win points & needing the last word after I already left it to you.
I gave you the lead to get the topic back on track, since you were complaining it was diverted. You took the opportunity to take a few more ad hom digs. At the very least, it's clear where your priorities lay.
It is clear you cannot escape your fantasy.
You do not give to or take any lead from me.
Tho you did invite my interpretation of your silliness.
You do not understand ad hominem. Look it up.
I'd say 'no', if we are thinking of something like the Iranian Islamic Republic.
But the proper relationship between religion and state remains in flux in all of these countries, the US, UK, AU and CA.
Of those, England currently comes closest to a literal theocracy. It's the only one with an officially established church with the monarch as its head, its bishops approved by the prime minister and the acts of the church's synod possess the force of acts of parliament.
"On the advice of the Prime Minister The Queen appoints Archbishops, Bishops and Deans of the Church of England, who then swear an oath of allegiance and pay homage to HerMajesty. Church of England deacons and parish priests also swear an oath of allegiance to the Sovereign... The Synod meets twice annually in London or York to consider legislation for the good of the Church. The legislation is subject to Parliamentary veto and receives Royal Assent as Acts of Parliament..."
Theocracy is probably least likely in the USA, where the First Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids establishment of religion (European-style state churches as illustrated above) and where this has been interpreted by the courts in light of Thomas Jefferson's "Wall of Separation" between church and state.
Canada and Australia would seem to fall somewhere in the middle, since they are younger countries that incorporate features of both British and American origin. Australia seems to follow a weaker version of the US model.
"The Constitution of Australia prevents the Commonwealth from establishing any religion or requiring a religious test for any office... The language is derived from the United States' constitution, but has been altered. Following the usual practice of the High Court, it has been interpreted far more narrowly than the equivalent US sections and no law has ever been struck down for contravening the section. Today, the Commonwealth Government provides broad-based funding to religious schools and also funds school chaplains for public and private schools. All Australian parliaments are opened with a Christian prayer..."
Canada's policies on the matter are a totally confusing and not always consistent jumble, given Canada's French and British roots and the huge influence of the United States next door.
It can, but it would be nice to acknowledge it as such. So people don't get the wrong idea. No one is an activist against Aesop's Fables for instance.
I can see how some think it is very unlikely. I cannot say it is likely.
We seem to be making slow but steady progress in the other direction.
I do think it could happen.
Along with the people who want it, part of the problem is theists who do not want it yet can be conned into supporting things which could lead up to it.
Anyone who supports someone only or mainly because they claim to be christian is part of the problem.
Thanks for the classic hate speech.
"Even if persons of a particular creed profess a clear disinterest in political redress, one should still treat them with caution, because that creed is inherently untrustworthy and likely to stab you in the back."
It is not hate speech & you know it.
It appears that you are one who doesn't know it is.
Separate names with a comma.