is the US sliding into Fascism? Evidence for and against

IMO, the US government lacks all 5 conditions, but conditions 2 and 3 are most easily refuted. For this condition to hold, we would need to observe systematic and regular use of police authority to imprision, exile, or eliminate political opponents and media expressing opposing viewpoints to the government.Unless I'm missing something, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi continue to serve in Congress without police interference. Howard Dean is still DNC chairman. The Nation, Mother Jones, and the Village Voice are still publishing. Liberal talk radio has been a relative market failure, but has not been interfered with by the state. Various liberal blogs and Internet sites are fully operational.Evidently, condition 2 fails. There is no state-sponsored paramilitary political youth organization in which participation is mandatory for ages 12-18.There is no system of mandatory political indoctrination or paramilitary training of adults.There isn't even military conscription.And we're just getting started on essential elements of historically fascist states which are lacking.Evidently, condition 3 fails.The likelihood of the US becoming fascist is approximately equivalent to the likelihood of the US becoming a state in which Christians are persecuted.In other words, both of the above are ideas of reference of the fringe elements of the political left and right, respectively, unsupported by empirical evidence.

Opposition to abortion and gay marriage is hardly limited to Christianity. Orthodox Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Buddhism, and the Bahai all oppose abortion and gay marriage at least to some degree. There are secularists who oppose these as well (albeit a minority).If you want to make the case that the government is sliding toward Christian theocracy, you'll need to pick different issues than these.

I'll decline your proffered snack of red herring - I'm sure I could carefully select a quote from an extreme leftist politician from some other constituency regarding some other piece of equally poor legislation. What is your evidence that Mr. Allen's views are on the verge of nationwide enactment ? Has this bill even passed in Alabama ? According to your own link, it didn't even make it to committee.What is more germane to the discussion is your apparent assertion that the religious views of a constituency must never be allowed to
influence legislation, even indirectly.The first problem with this is that initiatives you undoubtedly support, such as the abolitionist and civil rights movement, and the abolition of child labor, were significantly influenced by individuals and groups that drew significant motivation from religious principles.The second probnlem is that the Left applies this standard selectively. When Bill Clinton visited inner-city churches, or ordained ministers such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were Predidential primary candidates, no cries of incipient thocracy were heard.The third problem is, even if we were to grant your proposition that secular law must only be influenced by secular principles, we are still left with scope for vigorous disagreement. For instance, we would have to decide to base economic policy on a range of views from Ayn Rand to Marx. This is only one of many examples.

I don't miss the distinction at all. I consider myself an example of the former, and opposed to the latter. Your Kennedy and Goldwater quotes are expressive of my views.It's your and Schraf's belief that the extremists such as G. Allen are on the verge of achieving absolute nationwide power that I find unsupported by evidence.Once again: Mr. Allen's bill did not pass. It did not make it to a floor vote or even a comittee vote. In Alabama. Did you not consider that this may indicate it was too over the top even in a very red state such as Alabama? I don't recall Schwarzenegger, or Giuliani, or McCain, or Hagel, or even Hastert doing it either. Certainly DeLay has...but he's self-destructing.

What is your point here ? Of course Mr. Allen is an elected member of the Alabama legislature. His district is in all likelihood populated by a large number of fundamentalists who agree with his views.Are these people not entitled to representation?Do the views of people in this district generalize to the entire nation?Is it possible that Mr.Allen's colleagues in the Alabama legislature
may share some of his religious views, but nevertheless believe that his piece of legislation was a bad idea, unenforceable, and likely to be overturned on First Amendment grounds?Weren't you and Schraf arguing that fascism and/or theocracy were on the verge of being enacted nationwide ?How is the representative of one district in Alabama relevant to that discussion ?It would be like arguing that the existence of Bernard Sanders (I-VT) (and there is your answer, Schraf) is evidence that socialism is on the verge of being enacted nationwide. Yup. And there has been since at least the time of the Scopes trial. And there are conservatives who oppose this agenda. I may be the only one on this board, but I'm not the only one out there.And couching the counterargument in terms "it's bad science" is far more likely to succeed with the nationwide majority of people who are at least nominal monotheists, than "it ruins our chance to be intellectually fulfilled atheists".You seem to want to see the conservative Christian community as a monolithic entity, an army of clones with identical views.This is contrary to the evidence.

Yes, but until 1994 the Democrats controlled at least one house of Congress and usually both.

What evidence have you that this right has been abridged in a general sense, as opposed to in the case of illegal combatants, for which there is a specific legal definition?

Do your own homework.You asserted habeas corpus has been abolished in a general sense.Provide evidence.