theocracy? yes or no

[revelarts]

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks to Frank Turek author of “I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” about the collapse of the New Atheist movement; Richard Dawkins admitting that religion may be necessary for a flourishing society; the failure of atheism in providing a sense of purpose and meaning; what prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris overlooked; how only religions like Christianity and Judaism can protect a society from the worst elements of radical Islam; the spreading of social justice and woke culture in America’s churches; the case for intelligent design as a part of the story of evolution; how morality always ends up being legislated; Jordan Peterson’s utilitarian view of religion; and much more.

[Gunny]

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks to Frank Turek author of “I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist” about the collapse of the New Atheist movement; Richard Dawkins admitting that religion may be necessary for a flourishing society; the failure of atheism in providing a sense of purpose and meaning; what prominent atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris overlooked; how only religions like Christianity and Judaism can protect a society from the worst elements of radical Islam; the spreading of social justice and woke culture in America’s churches; the case for intelligent design as a part of the story of evolution; how morality always ends up being legislated; Jordan Peterson’s utilitarian view of religion; and much more.

What does this have to with theocracy? People having religion and government run by religion are not the same things.

[revelarts]

What does this have to with theocracy? People having religion and government run by religion are not the same things.

bingo.

[Gunny]

bingo.

I'm assuming somewhere between the video and the "bingo" there's a point?

[revelarts]

I'm assuming somewhere between the video and the "bingo" there's a point?

In another thread with similar topic.
You were accusing me of wanting theocracy.

Originally Posted by Gunny
"Not your objective? Then why pages of derailing this thread? Your objective which appears to be trying to convince yourself and everyone else your are right and yours is the way appears no better than those you cite as examples.

You want a theocracy based on YOUR religious beliefs. The Ayatollah has one of those. How's that worked for Iran?

When an idea is what's best for all and doesn't infringe on your right to believe what you want, being a naysayer just because you can does nothing positive for you nor anyone else."
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?78364-MASS-PSYCHOSIS-How-an-Entire-Population-Becomes-MENTALLY-ILL

the gentleman in the video is saying nearly exactly what I said in the other thread.
but here you clearly recognize the difference in theocracy and people living with an understanding of Christian principals creating THE BEST civil society & gov't.

Originally Posted by Gunny
"People having religion and government run by religion are not the same things."

Which I'm guessing that maybe you understood anyway,
Since you never answered my questions about specific religious policies I wanted the gov't to implement in this theocracy you accused me of wanting.


President John Adams summed it up this way
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

[Gunny]

In another thread with similar topic.
You were accusing me of wanting theocracy.

Originally Posted by Gunny
"Not your objective? Then why pages of derailing this thread? Your objective which appears to be trying to convince yourself and everyone else your are right and yours is the way appears no better than those you cite as examples.

You want a theocracy based on YOUR religious beliefs. The Ayatollah has one of those. How's that worked for Iran?

When an idea is what's best for all and doesn't infringe on your right to believe what you want, being a naysayer just because you can does nothing positive for you nor anyone else."
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?78364-MASS-PSYCHOSIS-How-an-Entire-Population-Becomes-MENTALLY-ILL

the gentleman in the video is saying nearly exactly what I said in the other thread.
but here you clearly recognize the difference in theocracy and people living with an understanding of Christian principals creating THE BEST civil society & gov't.

Originally Posted by Gunny
"People having religion and government run by religion are not the same things."

Which I'm guessing that maybe you understood anyway,
Since you never answered my questions about specific religious policies I wanted the gov't to implement in this theocracy you accused me of wanting.


President John Adams summed it up this way
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Cherry picking. I have ALWAYS understood the difference between theocracy and society that embraces and sets its standards based on religious morality. The latter will legislate according to personal and societal morality while the former uses a religion to legislate based on that religion. We no longer live in a society that will accept the latter.

At no point did you ask do I believe people are better off with God and/or do I believe society is better off with God. You have been too busy trying to cherry pick what I post to try and prove me wrong to discuss the issue objectively. The conversation began as nothing more than an exercise on how to create a better society within society, to the point that it ultimately replaces the weak and corrupt one. There's no being right or wrong.

I repeatedly made the distinction that one cannot use "God" as a selling point to the segment of society that has all the same morals and rules but refuses to accept where they come from, and can wordsmith a logical argument without God. Why alienate or throw out otherwise good, productive people because they choose to follow their own religion or not?

So you want a society with only those who recognize and will testify that Western societies' sense of right and wrong is Judeo-Christian? That is not only an exclusive society, but a monotheist one that recognizes the religion as law. That is by definition theocracy.