theocracy? yes or no

[Kathianne]

It seems to me that rev is trying to argue that the religious references by some founders in founding documents and private writings establishes the actual establishment of government?

Contrarily I see that the founders for the main were religious/spiritual men, establishing a government that would be led by men they hoped would be likewise moral, by a secular rule government, based upon laws with limits by the instrument of establishment-The Constitution. By agreement from the Constitutional Convention, their first work of import was incorporating the Bill of Rights or the First Ten Amendments to the Constitution, which included the First-establishing the right to practice OR not one's religion and FORBIDDING the establishment of a state religion.

[revelarts]

Which theocrat was established as the head of government? Which religious governing body is the final word? By which religious tenets are we to be governed? Where can I find a listing of the laws I need to follow? Please refer further to the founding documents for my reference.

exactly.

It's not a theocracy.
And yet, the Founders -as representatives of the people- DID assume GOD as the foundational background for the rights & actions of everything they proposed. That he stood as Judge over "the world". The one who made Nature and natural Law they were appealing too.

So even when those who founded the U.S. called on God directly, in official documents for help, AND they point to God and the Bible for guiding fundamental principals that if strayed from will have negative consequences.

Somehow the U.S. is not a Theocracy.
wow, what a concept.

It's NOT promoting theocracy to promote the same thing TODAY. The assumption of God as judge & creator of the earth & all nature. That the biblical principals are STILL foundational to the IDEA of rights, & that if strayed from it will have negative consequences for the country.
That we should call on God for help as a nation.

It's not theocracy.

Even if it sounds like it to some folks, or rubs some the wrong way.

[revelarts]

It seems to me that rev is trying to argue that the religious references by some founders in founding documents and private writings establishes the actual establishment of government?
.

No, I'm not saying that.
I asked if it was.

My point from the beginning of the thread was that, calls for moves toward biblical morals, direct reference to God and even the Bible does NOT mean I'm calling for theocracy.

The Founders did all of that and we do not have a "theocracy".

What they created in this govt is one PATTERNED on a Christain Framework.
A Christian understanding of reality.
A Christain understanding about humans & human nature.
A Christian understanding of the source of and kinds of rights of men.

They did not include the details of Faith
But operated on the foundational structure.

And understood that operating on any other foundation would lead in negative directions.
However the door was left open to move wherever folks collectively wanted to go, in the light of the freedoms they understood to be the natural right that all humans have ... under God.

[fj1200]

exactly.

It's not a theocracy.
And yet, the Founders -as representatives of the people- DID assume GOD as the foundational background for the rights & actions of everything they proposed. That he stood as Judge over "the world". The one who made Nature and natural Law they were appealing too.

So even when those who founded the U.S. called on God directly, in official documents for help, AND they point to God and the Bible for guiding fundamental principals that if strayed from will have negative consequences.

Somehow the U.S. is not a Theocracy.
wow, what a concept.

It's NOT promoting theocracy to promote the same thing TODAY. The assumption of God as judge & creator of the earth & all nature. That the biblical principals are STILL foundational to the IDEA of rights, & that if strayed from it will have negative consequences for the country.
That we should call on God for help as a nation.

It's not theocracy.

Even if it sounds like it to some folks, or rubs some the wrong way.

Yeah, it's the best so far. I really have no idea which way you're trying to go or if you're trying to go a different direction than we've previously discussed but I don't think I can do better than what I posted a page ago.

Do I want laws with a biblical foundation? Maybe. It it great that atheists would like ideals based on the Bible/Christianity? Yes. Do I wish we had a society with a higher set of morality? Yes. Do I want to live in a theocracy? No. Can you mandate morality via definitions from 1828 and laws from 1970? No.

[Kathianne]

No, I'm not saying that.
I asked if it was.

My point from the beginning of the thread was that, calls for moves toward biblical morals, direct reference to God and even the Bible does NOT mean I'm calling for theocracy.

The Founders did all of that and we do not have a "theocracy".

What they created in this govt is one PATTERNED on a Christain Framework.
A Christian understanding of reality.
A Christain understanding about humans & human nature.
A Christian understanding of the source of and kinds of rights of men.

They did not include the details of Faith
But operated on the foundational structure.

And understood that operating on any other foundation would lead in negative directions.
However the door was left open to move wherever folks collectively wanted to go, in the light of the freedoms they understood to be the natural right that all humans have ... under God.

I think the rub, as it were, is that the 'under God' that you're looking at, has to be a personal decision, it cannot be forced or even earned. Like the basic tenet of our system, it's an individualistic choice. No force, no law.

[revelarts]

I think the rub, as it were, is that the 'under God' that you're looking at, has to be a personal decision, it cannot be forced or even earned. Like the basic tenet of our system, it's an individualistic choice. No force, no law.

It seems that people think that since I & others (including many founders) believe & ASSUME that everyone is in fact under God. Whether they choose to believe it or not.
That somehow I want to force others to believe it, and maybe even by law.

People don't have to believe the earth is round... or that water is wet.
But if we're going to live together in a decent & peaceful way, if we're going to act collectively in a decent & peaceful way. It's better if we coming from the same page, but people are free to believe what they want.
In general there are some knock on standards/reality most agree on, even if we don't agree on where they came from.


However if folks seriously promote OTHER views as foundational. Atheism, Atheistic/Communism, Agnostic/Capitalism, Buddhism, Islam, Scientism, Atheistic/Enlightenment, Soft Deism, fill in the blank Philosophy...
Anything other than a Christain framework You Do not have a background to talk about Human rights or even what a human is in the way most people understand it.

If God didn't create man. and man is another animal in an impersonal universe like a bacteria, then all "meaning" is just made up.
And all human actions are simply reactions, like balls on a pool table.

Folks don't have to think deeply about WHY they assume humans are valued, or why they think certain things are right or wrong.
But it's false to think that the constitution & bill of rights just sprang up out of several NON-religious ideas and can be sustained by a majority Non-religious - Anti-religious - differently religious people.

bottom line if people LIKE the constitution & Bill of Rights
and the idea that Morals are Real, that Right & Wrong do exist
that humans are valuable
that Humans have rights.
that everyone's rights are equal --rich poor male female, race, OR RELIGION etc.
that humans are more valuable than animals
that there are 2 genders
etc..

All of that & more that some folks take for granted, ONLY collectively grows out of the idea that everyone is under GOD.

But If folks do not want to believe that everyone is under GOD, of course that's their choice, but they've kicked out/ignored the foundation of the that list of concepts that flows from it.

So what I'm saying is that folks shouldn't assume those trying to promote the idea that everyone is in fact under GOD, are out to take their freedom of choice. Religious or otherwise.
It's the opposite.
It's grounding the realistic framework for the freedoms we all today assume we have.

the only people who should be very concerned about this POV are those who want to promote PURE anarchy.
Total freedom without ANY boundaries or laws.

the Christian framework promotes the MOST freedom under God's REAL WORLD fixed boundaries of Morals and the reality of fallen/flawed human nature.

[revelarts]

From someone's(not mine) twitter/x DM conversation.