Separation of Church and State

But a definition of run is Therefore, since the clergy and their representitives would be in charge in defining the codes and laws of the religion, they would in effect be directing the government.It's fun to look up words on the internet and post their meaning, as if it added to the debate.

I am having a difficult time figuring out how you take my words to prove that a theocracy must be run by the clergy. I clearly said that the definition of the word theocracy does not require that members of the government be clergy. While it can be the case, it is not required.Some definitions require clergy, some do not. I hold, and several definitions agree with me as do several others in this thread, if the government is based on religious law and principles, it is a theocracy.Can you name one theocracy that did not opress its people? Christianity has a long history of doing exactly that.

They may be involved directing a small part of the government by appealing to the authorities to write the rules as they want, but they are not the ones in power. It's time we just were honest on this and quit politicizing definitions.A theocracy is different than a regular kingdom. Nearly every empire and kingdom in the history of man until recent times enforced religious laws, but that doesn't make Pharoah's regime a theocracy, nor the German princes of medieval times, nor the Roman Empire, etc,..

Was the Pharoah a living God?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

if a priest were elected to be a president would that be any different from electing a president that hears directions from god?

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Are you trying to say we live in a theocracy now?

would we be if a priest were elected?what I am showing you is that your definition is not correct.what distinquishes a theocracy from a non-theocracy is the enforcement of religious elements by the government and which have no real secular value. like not saying certain words ("under god"?) and being punished for it.and yes, I think we are dangerously close to one now, closer than ever before as a nation, and cheered on by a most dangerous core cadre, one that will subvert this nation from within, one that does want to make and enforce such religious laws.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

George Washington was strongly aware of God's guiding hand on his leadership of the Revolutionary War and its outcome and throughout his life, so what makes Bush's dependence on God any different? Woodrow Wilson believed that he was in office in fulfillment of God's will. What makes Bush's beliefs any different?

In this case it appears God told Bush to lie to the Nation and be willfully ignorant. God must have said to disregard the evidence and just do what the corporations wanted.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

RAZD, that is a difficult question and I do not pretend to have a valid answer. I supose it would depend on how said president conducted him or herself and how she or he made their decisions.The core question seems to be, what set of rules take precedence. If the president makes his decision based on what god would want, then it seems we would have a theocracy. It would not matter all that much if the person were clergy or not. In that sense, we now have a theocracy.However, there are strong checks to that theocratic president. The constitution provides legal boundries beyond which that president cannot step. (at least without repercussion) The president does not have free reign to rule according to god. Neither does the congress or the judical.Although I have not served on a jury, I have great confidence that the jury is instructed to make their decisions specifically based on our written law. While probably unstated, the clear implication is that the decision is not to be based on god's law. This is a clear restraint to theocratic leadership.BTW: Just to stir the pot a bit, I sometimes think that this president is not nearly as true a believer as he claims. I often think he lies about his religious beliefs to get the vote and support of those that want a religious president in office.In my ongoing attempt to keeps posts short and to the point, I will stop here for interjection by others.

Exactly. The difference is not in who is ruling the country but in the laws that are being enforced.If laws being enforced are religious laws, then it is a theocracy - no matter who is in charge.If no laws being enforced are religious laws, then it is not a theocracy.The line is simple. The only variable in a theocracy is how many religious laws are enforced and the extent of the enforcement involved.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hmmm....just having a president pray is enough, eh? darn theocrats!

Faith, it's hopeless. Just being a Christian is enough to disqualify a man and endanger our great secular state and drive it to theocracy.Didn't you get the memo?

So I take it until the founding of the United States, all other governments in history were theocracies? Is that your claim? They all had religious laws, to my knowledge, and they all enforced religion to some extent.

Being a YEC should certainly be more than enough reason for prohibiting a person from being President or holding any decision making position in my humble opinion.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion