[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[David Thomas]

Hi Horse
>[Horse]
> I realise that in the strictest sense we aren't looking at the USA as a
> theocracy, but in the broader sense I think this is the case.
[Dave] 
Not sure this is the full problem. My take is that over time religions tend
to separate people rather than bring them together. Religious freedom
accelerates the problem rather than slow it down. Nowhere is this more
apparent than in American Christianity. If some small group in one church
feels that there are some "issues" within the congregation whether they are
theological, social, or personal they go start a new church. And this
church's views, of course, are "better", "more right" than the previous. So
while all these splinters nominally believe in same God their views both
religiously and on all other matters vary widely.

With roughly 70% of American nominally calling themselves Christians this
poses a particularly rough problem for any politician trying to get elected.
To get elected they must pander to these nominal homogeneous Christians. But
once elected the are trapped with religious "supporters" spread across all
the political and ideological spectrum who's differences are nearly
irreconcilable. Throw into that the economics of politics and you magnify
that irreconcilable factor logarithmically. So what you get is something
like a combination of anarchy and gridlock where every decision made pisses
off a substantial portion of your supporters. On one hand it makes doing
nothing a viable option. On the other it makes doing anything the least bit
controversial, but necessary, virtually impossible. So as the legislative
process breaks down what happens is rather than a theocracy, you get
executivocracy. Where the only things that get done are by presidential
power. Which then can amplify religion in politics based on the bent of that
one person.

>[Horse]
> In theory there 
> should be a proportionate number of atheists elected or standing
> reflecting the number of atheists within the US community.

The problem I have with the theist, atheist, and anti-theist positions is
the uneasiness with their absolute assuredness that they are right.
This type of attitude when it bleeds over into politics can be very
dangerous. 
 
That's why I find the Buddha's position more palatable. In my interpretation
he basically said, "Forgetgetaboutit !  If gods and their powers are as
described there is nothing you puny humans can do to influence or change
their actions. Best work on something you can change, you."

Dave