Fanatical Wrote:You'll actually find situations like this in many Islamic countries. When the state does not declare itself to be Islamic there is a state court system, and there is an Islamic court system. Of course, the Islamic court system only applies to cases that involve one or more Muslims. Typically the Islamic court ruling is only recognized if the parties agree beforehand.

and in Theocrat states like Iran, which is basically a Sharia governed police state. Gay's are killed and women that do not cover themselves in a burka are beat to a bloody pulp.

there are some democratic Islamic countries like Turkey, Malaysia...but they have other issues. atleast they don't have despots supporting terror groups

GGniner Wrote:there are some democratic Islamic countries like Turkey, Malaysia...but they have other issues. atleast they don't have despots supporting terror groups

I believe Turkey's been having some signs of Islam rising to increased power, recently. It's been a while since I've heard anything on it, though.

GGniner Wrote:this also shows how complicated American Politics have gotten thanks to the modern age of media and technology. Politicians use to go to one set of people and say one thing, and another and say something else, pandering, and get away with it.

I think the difference is that when someone says that "Huckabee said such-and-such in front of so-and-so", in many cases technology allows us to verify whether that claim is true or not. But, Thomas Jefferson paid a heavy price for something he didn't say but was alleged to have said.

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:there are some democratic Islamic countries like Turkey, Malaysia...but they have other issues. atleast they don't have despots supporting terror groups

I believe Turkey's been having some signs of Islam rising to increased power, recently. It's been a while since I've heard anything on it, though.

This is cyclical. The Turkish military periodically deposes the elected government because they don't adhere to the prohibition of religious involvement in the government. This dates back to Ataturk, who is a fascinating figure - admirable in many ways. What I would fear most is that those opposed to the Islamists become complacent and the military can't or won't intervene. I think they've had Islamist governments elected and deposed before (1950s?, 1970s).

GGniner Wrote:did you click this link? they are Paul fans, notice the big "Ron Paul revolution" poll on the side. As they should be given they are Secessionist, something Paul endorses. Here is a link to the guy that runs that thing's blog: http://prolibertate.us/index.php?blog=6

nothing about the Huckster on there, plenty on Paul who he supports.

taking over SC and Seceeding has about as much chance as the Free Staters in NH and the Socialist in Vermont who have same goals....it ain't gonna happen.

It's a poll, which of course we Paul supporters destroy no matter where they are :) Make no mistake -- they're big Huckabee fans. There was a piece on them and their support for Huckabee in the Spartanburg Herald Journal. There's also a MASSIVE difference between seceding from the nation (Christian Exodus in SC, Socialists in VT) and using the electoral system to your advantage by having like minded people all move to the same area so as to be a real electoral force (Free State Project in NH).

blah Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:[quote=blah]

Quote:On the flip side, I don't hear any U.S. citizens (there are obviously a lot of Muslim states) clamoring for a national religion or disbanding the government in return for a theocracy. I really feel you are using the slippery slope fallacy of reasoning to make the jump from law on gay marriage or abortion to a religious state.

It is hard to find someone of substance who does advocate for out and out theocracy, mostly because it'll get you dismissed out of hand, but you can find people who do advocate for biblical law to be implemented. There are others, so maybe you don't hear from these people, but their ideas are all over the place in politics.

I guess my point was that you do hear people clamoring for a theocracy in other countries and any other thoughts are absurd. I just don't see that here in the U.S. People here may want to see more morality, but I don't see the vast majority looking for their religion to run all things like there is in many Middle Eastern countries today.

But you don't need a lot of people to do the change. You just need the right people in the right positions and do it slowly over time(can't do it overnight or people will catch on and stop it before it gets going) like say a president or 2 in a row. That could potentially be 16 years of slow process toward their ultimate goal. I feel that is exactly what is going on with Bush. He puts his guys in the national parks which now order creationism books for the bookstores. It doesn't sound like much but it sure is promoting a religion. Most people don't hear about it but these are the the little things that change our country over time. Then there are the religous charities who are now recieving tax payer money for doing their work. How about the push for tax payer money being put toward vouchers which can be used for religous schools(mostly Christian or Catholic)? All these things change the landscape but people for the most part don't see it as a threat until all these things come together.

The issue of secession was determined by the loss of many American lives. It was called the Civil War. And it is not an option. People get all misty eyed about secession, but for those involved it would be a royal pain. If for example Vermont seceeded, they would need to fund an entire diplomatic corps for all of the countries they did business with. They would need treaties with the US and Canada to provide safe passage for their goods (since they would be landlocked). Otherwise the US and Canada could decide - try and get any food, drugs or goods into your country. Any Vermont Citizen would be considered a seditionist under US law and would not be allowed to enter the United States (except perhaps to seek sanctuary). This is the practical side of life with secession. Now who wants in?

EastStang Wrote:The issue of secession was determined by the loss of many American lives. It was called the Civil War. And it is not an option.

This is the practical side of life with secession. Now who wants in?

Two points:

• It's just South Carolina
• What, are you nuts? Did you miss the part where they are leaving Texas?
  

That's all.

GGniner Wrote:

Bourgeois_Rage Wrote:

GGniner Wrote:He's not talking about a "Theocracy", he's talking about a Constitutional Amendment(something that is constitutional). I beleive on the issue's of life and probably marriage. Not a national religion

What part is unclear about "And that's what we need to do -- to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards"? I don't think Huckabee is going to come in and set a national religion. What he seemingly is saying is that he'll change the constitution so that it doesn't have to mention God because all of God's laws will be in it.

"God's standards" = Life and marriage issues. i.e. "Life starts and conception" and Marriage is 1 man and 1 woman, defined. atleast thats what I beleive he's referring to.

you don't have to be a Christian to beleive in that, or to recognize their judeo-christian orgins. That's not really a "theocracy". Just like many of the 10 commandments are in our laws and Constitution...........Now if he wants to admend the Constitution to outlaw Adultery, then there's something there. But I think he's talking about the 2 hot button Social Con. issues, Abortion and Gay Marriage, whether or not they are federal issues is another debate.


I also think the Hucksters larger point here, is directed towards Christians, obviously, which was his audience and is saying that you can't change the word of the living God as much as the world wants to(and liberal theology does), and comparing to the Constitution which allows for amendments.

as a sidenote, many of the "theonomist" that I know(Theonomy = God's Law) don't support Huckabee. I don't either and would prefer a more federalist candidate, though would vote for him if nominated.

Federalist....and statist..yep...Hamiltonian....Thank you Aaron Burr

EastStang Wrote:The issue of secession was determined by the loss of many American lives. It was called the Civil War. And it is not an option. People get all misty eyed about secession, but for those involved it would be a royal pain. If for example Vermont seceeded, they would need to fund an entire diplomatic corps for all of the countries they did business with. They would need treaties with the US and Canada to provide safe passage for their goods (since they would be landlocked). Otherwise the US and Canada could decide - try and get any food, drugs or goods into your country. Any Vermont Citizen would be considered a seditionist under US law and would not be allowed to enter the United States (except perhaps to seek sanctuary). This is the practical side of life with secession. Now who wants in?

Dishonest Abe caused the war...not secession.
The states freely entered into the union and should be able to freely leave.

I think your view is quite seated in the past....No one is going to roll in tanks into Vermont...Any such attempt would be instantly seen on every TV in the world and the outcry would stop them.

If Vermont or NH or any of the other 13 states that have these movements actually do attempt to leave the union....The snowball will start rolling...right over Washington.....COUNT ME IN !!!!