[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 25 Aug 2010 at 16:32, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

[Arlo had asked]
Does this trouble you? Would it trouble you if the faith mentioned 
was a non-Christian faith? Would it bother you more or less if the 
President (any) professed to being an atheist instead of a Christian?

[P]
No, no and no.

[Arlo]
Let me see if I understand, if the same words were uttered about 
Obama's faith being "Muslim" rather than "Christian", you would have 
no problems with that at all? Why do you think so many people do?

[P] 
Because most Muslims follow Islam where there is no separation of church and 
state. Wold you have a problem if Obama were a Muslim? If he tried to impose 
Sharia law?

[Arlo had asked]
In your condemnation of Islam for not having a separation of church 
and state, do you also condemn Christians who do not recognize this 
separation as well? Or is it "okay" when its Christians?

[P]
No, it is not OK regardless of one's faith, including atheists.

[Arlo]
I would agree that an Atheocracy would be as immoral as a Theocracy.

[P]
Good. Humanism should not rule any more than Islam or Christianity. 

[Arlo]
But if "atheism" is on the "church" side of the separation, along 
with Christianity and Islam, what is on the state side?

[P]
The will of the people, limited by constitutional restrictions on government... 


[Arlo]
If we should base our laws NOT on faith (where you include atheism), 
but on "something else", what should that "something else" be? What is it now?

[P]
The will of the people through their elected representatives. Do you think it 
should be something else?