Except Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kansas. But other than that what have the Romans ever done for us?
All highly religious states yet, none that are truly theocratic states. They all follow article 6 of the constitution and try their best to tailor their laws to subvert it. Ultimately the federation wins.
Doesn’t article 6 of the constitution at least allude to a separation of church and state?
Sure. But it doesn’t preclude candidates from announcing their religious affiliation and voters selecting them accordingly.
I don’t think the rest of the federation would approve of a theocratic state.
Not a Mormon theocratic state (which is one big reason why Romney underperformed Bush and Trump among Evangelicals). But there’s a sizable portion of the population that would like their flavor of religion as de facto law of the land. And quite a few who assert it already is, and its just a matter of an Executive/Judiciary action to make it a reality.
Idk, man. “Thou Shall Not Kill” is one of those religious tenants I wish we’d be more zealous about enforcing rather than less.
The endless hair-pulling contradiction of religious-themed governments is in how the patriarchs and high priests seem to believe they are exempt from God’s Law because of their standing in the secular church. Whether you’re Ayatollah Khomeini or House Speaker Mike Johnson, your religiousity serves more as an excuse to do wicked things with God’s blessing than to do good things within God’s stricture.
Yeah, but at the same time there are religious principles that shouldn’t be law.
If someone feels closer to God because they don’t have sex before marriage or because they don’t eat pork then that’s great. Self-sacrifice can be very spiritually rewarding for some.
But making that sacrifice mandatory is not only senseless, but robs them of the spiritual fulfillment. Choosing to make a sacrifice is only rewarding when you have the option not to.
Yeah, but at the same time there are religious principles that shouldn’t be law.
You don’t need the caveat “religious” for that, either. Certainly the century’s worth of Prohibition hasn’t done anyone any favors, despite that being a largely secular moratorium.
But making that sacrifice mandatory is not only senseless, but robs them of the spiritual fulfillment.
A lot of the original prohibitions on food and clothing were as much about hygiene and health safety as spirituality. Shellfish spoil incredibly quickly, for instance. Mixed material fabrics fuck with people who have skin allergies. Its not just a question of sacrifice, but a primitive approach to regulatory governance.
If Leviticus was being written today, there would almost certainly be a line about everyone needing to get vaccinated.
For Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that’s literally what it was. And that’s why many people don’t really care about cotton/polyester blends from a spiritual standpoint today.
But the idea is that there are sacrifices people make as an observance of faith. Right now during Lent millions of people have chosen to give up something as a religious ritual.
If the government banned the sale of caffeine during Lent, then my choosing to go without it for a month wouldn’t have any impact because that choice had been made for me.
But the idea is that there are sacrifices people make as an observance of faith.
The ideas of tithing and shows of humility and pilgrimage were more than just observations of faith. They were cultural patterns of behavior intended to build social cohesion. The building of a shared identity through communal offering and collective participation in events isn’t unique to religion. In the modern era we pay taxes and celebrate national holidays and travel to places of historical significance in an ostensibly secular consequence. But all of this mirrors (and much of it is predicated by) patterns within religious institutions.
Right now during Lent millions of people have chosen to give up something as a religious ritual.
Sure. And during Meatless Monday millions of people have chosen to give up something as a secular ritual.
As the costs (both financial and ecological) of meat consumption rise, a secularized ritualization of eating more “humble” meals could provide significant benefits. And there’s a certain degree of irony in religious conservatives seeing that more clearly than secular liberals, as AM radio talking heads go into apoplexy over Veganism as some kind of heresy in the Cult of the Burger.
If the government banned the sale of caffeine during Lent, then my choosing to go without it for a month wouldn’t have any impact
It would have an enormous impact… to Starbucks. That’s why its very unlikely to happen.
Similarly, you won’t see too many major news networks platforming an LDS Pastor who advocates prohibition on caffeine. Hell, you won’t see too many daytime talk show heads who warn the health hazards of ground beef. Not after the Oprah Winfrey lawsuit in 1996.
But if state officials could decouple themselves from the corporate cronies that are fixated on quarterly profits above all else, would I really cry over a designated National Day of Abstaining From Burgers and Coffee? No.
Doesn’t article 6 of the constitution atleast allude to a separation of church and state?
I don’t think the rest of the federation would approve of a theocratic state.
Except Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Kansas. But other than that what have the Romans ever done for us?
All highly religious states yet, none that are truly theocratic states. They all follow article 6 of the constitution and try their best to tailor their laws to subvert it. Ultimately the federation wins.
Sure. But it doesn’t preclude candidates from announcing their religious affiliation and voters selecting them accordingly.
Not a Mormon theocratic state (which is one big reason why Romney underperformed Bush and Trump among Evangelicals). But there’s a sizable portion of the population that would like their flavor of religion as de facto law of the land. And quite a few who assert it already is, and its just a matter of an Executive/Judiciary action to make it a reality.
Which I simply don’t understand.
I’m religious, but if following the tenants of my faith were law, I would no longer be choosing to practice my faith.
Idk, man. “Thou Shall Not Kill” is one of those religious tenants I wish we’d be more zealous about enforcing rather than less.
The endless hair-pulling contradiction of religious-themed governments is in how the patriarchs and high priests seem to believe they are exempt from God’s Law because of their standing in the secular church. Whether you’re Ayatollah Khomeini or House Speaker Mike Johnson, your religiousity serves more as an excuse to do wicked things with God’s blessing than to do good things within God’s stricture.
Yeah, but at the same time there are religious principles that shouldn’t be law.
If someone feels closer to God because they don’t have sex before marriage or because they don’t eat pork then that’s great. Self-sacrifice can be very spiritually rewarding for some.
But making that sacrifice mandatory is not only senseless, but robs them of the spiritual fulfillment. Choosing to make a sacrifice is only rewarding when you have the option not to.
You don’t need the caveat “religious” for that, either. Certainly the century’s worth of Prohibition hasn’t done anyone any favors, despite that being a largely secular moratorium.
A lot of the original prohibitions on food and clothing were as much about hygiene and health safety as spirituality. Shellfish spoil incredibly quickly, for instance. Mixed material fabrics fuck with people who have skin allergies. Its not just a question of sacrifice, but a primitive approach to regulatory governance.
If Leviticus was being written today, there would almost certainly be a line about everyone needing to get vaccinated.
For Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that’s literally what it was. And that’s why many people don’t really care about cotton/polyester blends from a spiritual standpoint today.
But the idea is that there are sacrifices people make as an observance of faith. Right now during Lent millions of people have chosen to give up something as a religious ritual.
If the government banned the sale of caffeine during Lent, then my choosing to go without it for a month wouldn’t have any impact because that choice had been made for me.
The ideas of tithing and shows of humility and pilgrimage were more than just observations of faith. They were cultural patterns of behavior intended to build social cohesion. The building of a shared identity through communal offering and collective participation in events isn’t unique to religion. In the modern era we pay taxes and celebrate national holidays and travel to places of historical significance in an ostensibly secular consequence. But all of this mirrors (and much of it is predicated by) patterns within religious institutions.
Sure. And during Meatless Monday millions of people have chosen to give up something as a secular ritual.
As the costs (both financial and ecological) of meat consumption rise, a secularized ritualization of eating more “humble” meals could provide significant benefits. And there’s a certain degree of irony in religious conservatives seeing that more clearly than secular liberals, as AM radio talking heads go into apoplexy over Veganism as some kind of heresy in the Cult of the Burger.
It would have an enormous impact… to Starbucks. That’s why its very unlikely to happen.
Similarly, you won’t see too many major news networks platforming an LDS Pastor who advocates prohibition on caffeine. Hell, you won’t see too many daytime talk show heads who warn the health hazards of ground beef. Not after the Oprah Winfrey lawsuit in 1996.
But if state officials could decouple themselves from the corporate cronies that are fixated on quarterly profits above all else, would I really cry over a designated National Day of Abstaining From Burgers and Coffee? No.
The US (and western civilization) has been a theocratic state for a long time, it simply hides in plain sight as scientism or materialism.
Hate to break it to you, but one of the two major political parties in this country is.