Religious Minority Want a Theocracy to Force Morality on Citizens

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**d-usa**

aka: Republicans don't want you to look at dirty stuff:

From the "what exactly is your concept of limited government" department:

A Monday press release from faith-based advocacy group Morality in Media celebrates the Republican Party’s platform as now targeting all forms of pornography, not just illegal child pornography. This has been a cause among the Christian conservative right for some time now.

MIM says the platform’s “new language replaces previous platform wording, which only opposed child pornography.” According to the press release, the GOP’s new wording will explicitly state that “current laws on all forms of pornography and obscenity need to be vigorously enforced.”

“Distribution of obscene or hardcore pornography on the Internet is a violation of current federal law,” explained MIM’s President Patrick A. Trueman. “Yet, most children in America have free access to obscene pornography as soon as they learn how to use a computer. The average age of first exposure to obscene Internet pornography is now eleven.”

Trueman also suggested that under this wording, the federal government should police “obscenity,” not only in the distribution of hardcore porn on the Internet, but also on hotel or motel TVs, cable or satellite television, and in retail shops.

This anti-porn sentiment among some Republicans is nothing new. Earlier this year, several GOP presidential candidates — presumptive nominee Mitt Romney and failed candidates Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich — pledged a strict crackdown on all forms of pornography.

The Daily Caller notes that in 1992, the GOP’s party platform called for “allowing victims of pornography to seek damages from those who make or sell it” and declared that “the time has come for a national crusade against pornography.”

It shouldn’t be difficult to guess who was largely responsible for this new wording: Family Research Council president Tony Perkins. MIM thanks him saying: “We are most grateful to Tony Perkins… who led the effort to get the tough new language into the platform. Without enforcement of federal obscenity laws, pornographers have had a green light to target our children and families.”

If anything, this continues the GOP’s reluctance to adopt Republican Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels‘ social issues “truce.” Last week’s news that the platform continues the no-exceptions position on abortion and that the party is unwilling to consider even “civil unions” in their gay marriage platform shows that the party is still unwilling to revive the party’s “big tent” status and incorporate all facets of the right — including libertarians, social moderates, and Ron Paul fans who all don’t see these social “crusades” as an integral part of limited government.

In fact, many see these socially conservative positions as the antithesis of limited government

**Mannahnin**

They don't want the real Libertarians. Just the fake Tea Party ones.

**d-usa**

Mannahnin wrote:
They don't want the real Libertarians. Just the fake Tea Party ones.

That is my main beef with the Tea Party folks that I know. They scream "less government telling people what to do!" but when I asked them about gay marriage, war on drugs, pornography, building a mosque, abortion, etc they just get angry and walk away.

I just want them to be truthful and say "Less government telling me what to do while telling everybody I don't agree with what to do!"

**whembly**

meh... they've been doing this for years. Nothing new...

Never gonna happen.

FWIW: I like my pr0ns right where it's at!

**AustonT**

Could you have thought up a more flame bait title? Too much bro...too much.

**ShumaGorath**

AustonT wrote:
Could you have thought up a more flame bait title? Too much bro...too much.

It's a better thread than the drunk driveby bucket right below it.

**Mannahnin**

Theocracy is quite a strong word. That's worth questioning.

wiki wrote:Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as (or claim to be) divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.

Do the people involved in establishing these political policies claim to be divinely guided, or are their governance decisions pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion?

**d-usa**

I was just trying to embrace the hyperbole that we love so much in the OT and to channel some of the love from the "Taliban are forcing their religion on people through laws" thread.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mannahnin wrote:
Theocracy is quite a strong word. That's worth questioning.

wiki wrote:Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as (or claim to be) divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.

Do the people involved in establishing these political policies claim to be divinely guided, or are their governance decisions pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion?

Well, they are the family research council. So probably yes

.

**Ensis Ferrae**

It seems that whatever an individual "pet issue" is these days, the more vehemently opposed they are to it.

I say this not directed towards the right or left, but everyone equally...

It seems that you cannot merely be "not cool" with smoking, porn, drugs, immigration, seat belt wearing, profanity in public, drinking alcohol, etc. but if you are personally only mildly against it, you either need to be full on for it, or stark raving mad against it.

It's rather upsetting that there really seems to be no middle ground for anyone anywhere anymore.

**AegisGrimm**

Aww, man.

"Waitor! The cook spilled a bunch of religion juice all over my Government sandwich!"

It seems that lately the government employees are telling their employer, John Q. Public, far too much about what he can and can't do.

**Mannahnin**

Ensis Ferrae wrote:
It seems that you cannot merely be "not cool" with smoking, porn, drugs, immigration, seat belt wearing, profanity in public, drinking alcohol, etc. but if you are personally only mildly against it, you either need to be full on for it, or stark raving mad against it.

It's rather upsetting that there really seems to be no middle ground for anyone anywhere anymore.

I (perhaps optimistically) think that most people really are more in the middle on a lot of these issues. But extremism gets ratings and gets people excited. Excited people get news coverage and go to the polls.

**AustonT**

d-usa wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
They don't want the real Libertarians. Just the fake Tea Party ones.

That is my main beef with the Tea Party folks that I know. They scream "less government telling people what to do!" but when I asked them about gay marriage, war on drugs, pornography, building a mosque, abortion, etc they just get angry and walk away.

I just want them to be truthful and say "Less government telling me what to do while telling everybody I don't agree with what to do!"

My main beef with them is that they have no idea what they want. They just. Ore for anyone that claims to agree with them. If more Dems would chuckle, smile and claim to be Tea Party the movement would have to clarify itself and it's distinctly anti Lbertarian views would be exposed

Mannahnin wrote:Theocracy is quite a strong word. That's worth questioning.

wiki wrote:Theocracy is a form of government in which official policy is governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as (or claim to be) divinely guided, or is pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion or religious group.

Do the people involved in establishing these political policies claim to be divinely guided, or are their governance decisions pursuant to the doctrine of a particular religion?

There isn't any danger of the us becoming a theocracy, nor is the GOP a theocracy because it has added a plank in its platform to oppose pornography. It's not like the Republicans went on TV and said Goe revealed it to them. This is an article about a religious organization cheering the GOP for championing a cause they agree with. Dianne Fienstein and Amy Klobuchar support enforcing or strengthening porn laws too; are THEY theocrats?
But "Religious Lobby like GOP anti-porn plank" just isn't as catchy.

**hotsauceman1**

Imagine is they came ut on national televison and said they would ban it. Massive outcry and loss of vote.

**Mannahnin**

It's not just the religious lobby cheering them on, though. It's the religious lobby actively changing the party's plank, to better suit their religious beliefs.

There are also (from what I can see) an increasing number of candidates pandering to this lobby by claiming that god told them to run, and that their decisions are based on god's will.

Obviously the US isn't becoming a theocracy. Some degree of religious motivation has always been involved in our legislation. We've always had a lot of religious people, and many of them have the evangelistic streak.

But one definition (the first couple of sentences of the wiki article) is the one I quoted above. Which does seem to match this behavior as a form of theocracy.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:
They don't want the real Libertarians. Just the fake Tea Party ones.

That is my main beef with the Tea Party folks that I know. They scream "less government telling people what to do!" but when I asked them about gay marriage, war on drugs, pornography, building a mosque, abortion, etc they just get angry and walk away.

I just want them to be truthful and say "Less government telling me what to do while telling everybody I don't agree with what to do!"

yep.

**Mr Nobody**

When people want less government control, it's just so they can have control. It's just history repeating itself.

**CT GAMER**

Do the people involved... claim to be divinely guided.

Indeed some do.

Of course the voices in their heads do not atually belong to any divine being...

**djphranq**

The title of the thread seems a bit off/misleading.

**d-usa**

djphranq wrote:
The title of the thread seems a bit off/misleading.

Not any more misleading than the majority of thread titles that are political in the OT. But I changed it to this:

Religious Minority Want a Theocracy to Force Morality on Citizens

**daedalus-templarius**

Less government... except for what they want to control.

Can't have that Sharia law taking over now! but Christian law, that's fine.

**Jihadin**

Of course the voices in their heads do not atually belong to any divine being...

How do you really really know?

Back in the day the mentaly impaired were considered "touch" by God.......

**Ma55ter_fett**

Jihadin wrote:
Of course the voices in their heads do not atually belong to any divine being...

How do you really really know? Back in the day the mentaly impaired were considered "touch" by God.......

Now they are just "touched" by priests.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/07/08/vatican-reportedly-cracking-priests-abused-mentally-impaired/

**Jihadin**

Now they are just "touched" by priests.

Can see the jokes rolling now

**Frazzled**

I remember that. I was revered!

**Jihadin**

I remember that. I was revered!

Whatever happens in Texas....stays in Texas Frazz......

**LoneLictor**

CT GAMER wrote:

Do the people involved... claim to be divinely guided.

Indeed some do.

Of course the voices in their heads do not atually belong to any divine being...

If you say, "The voices in my head told me homosexuality is wrong" then you're crazy.

If you say, "The voice in my head of the magical sky man told me homosexuality is wrong" then you're an upstanding American.

**Jihadin**

If you say, "The voice in my head of the magical sky man told me homosexuality is wrong" then you're an upstanding American.

Space Wolf player Lictor?

**Lynata**

Jihadin wrote:
I remember that. I was revered!

Whatever happens in Texas....stays in Texas Frazz......

That really was some brilliant timing there.

**Frazzled**

Jihadin wrote:
I remember that. I was revered!

Whatever happens in Texas....stays in Texas Frazz......

People people be calm. Once the Frazzled enlightenment occurs, all will have their place in the Realm of the Great Wiener Dog. Peace will be for all, every believer will have their own sofa, pillow, and favorite ball. All will drink their fill from the communal waterbowl. And steak! Every night!*

*Not cats though. I'm afraid its going to be your ass.

**Melissia**

AustonT wrote:
Could you have thought up a more flame bait title? Too much bro...too much.

It's funny, because despite being baiting, it's also true