"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


Most muslim societies are, to some degree or other, theocratic. Some
have supposedly elected theocratic governments...

...as this country would be, if checks & balances were not in place.

well, I can see you've gone past the end of the paved roadway. Let us know
when you've returned, so you can rejoin the world.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
. ..

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


Most muslim societies are, to some degree or other, theocratic. Some
have supposedly elected theocratic governments...

...as this country would be, if checks & balances were not in place.

well, I can see you've gone past the end of the paved roadway. Let us
know when you've returned, so you can rejoin the world.


Some religions are non-intrusive. Some are very intrusive. Their followers
believe everyone should see things their way. Can you name one or two
examples of each?

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message news:dyNHf.14469

Some religions are non-intrusive. Some are very intrusive. Their followers
believe everyone should see things their way. Can you name one or two
examples of each?

I can, but I won't -- partly because you have defined the problem quite
vaguely [most religions believe they've got it right, some proselytize
extensively, a few claim theirs is the only correct answer, and one (that
I'm aware of) insists that they're right and everyone else must die.], but
mostly because your posit has naught to do with the issue.

Please explain to me how this country would have become a theocracy without
certain unspecified checks and balances in place. You might explain the
unspecified checks and balances, too.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
news:dyNHf.14469

Some religions are non-intrusive. Some are very intrusive. Their
followers believe everyone should see things their way. Can you name one
or two examples of each?

I can, but I won't -- partly because you have defined the problem quite
vaguely [most religions believe they've got it right, some proselytize
extensively, a few claim theirs is the only correct answer, and one (that
I'm aware of) insists that they're right and everyone else must die.],
but mostly because your posit has naught to do with the issue.

Please explain to me how this country would have become a theocracy
without certain unspecified checks and balances in place. You might
explain the unspecified checks and balances, too.


Simple: It is an established fact that some candidates receive enormous
support from the Christian extreme right, and that they expect these
candidates to push for certain types of laws which feed only their beliefs.
Without the other two branches of government in place, we would be a
Christian theocracy, just as Iran is an Islamic theocracy.

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


Simple: It is an established fact that some candidates receive enormous
support from the Christian extreme right, and that they expect these
candidates to push for certain types of laws which feed only their
beliefs. Without the other two branches of government in place, we would
be a Christian theocracy, just as Iran is an Islamic theocracy.

That's it? That's all you've got? What kind of vague, simplistic
demagoguery is that? Watch this:

Simple: It is an established fact that some candidates receive enormous
support from the extreme left, and that they expect these candidates to
push for certain types of laws which feed only their beliefs. Without the
other two branches of government in place, we would be a socialist
"workers' paradise", just as was the former Soviet Union.

or, how about....

Simple: It is an established fact that some candidates receive enormous
support from underground white supremecists, and that they expect these
candidates to push for certain types of laws which feed only their
beliefs. Without the other two branches of government in place, we would
be an oppressive militarist dictatorship, just as Iraq was under Saddam.

Jesus, Doug, you used to be better than this. What happened?

And now, recognizing that I have allowed myself to be drawn in to a
political, non-boating discussion, I withdraw, with abject apologies to the
rest of rec.boats. Mea Culpa.

"John Gaquin" wrote in message
...

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message


Simple: It is an established fact that some candidates receive enormous
support from the Christian extreme right, and that they expect these
candidates to push for certain types of laws which feed only their
beliefs. Without the other two branches of government in place, we would
be a Christian theocracy, just as Iran is an Islamic theocracy.

That's it? That's all you've got? What kind of vague, simplistic
demagoguery is that? Watch this:

Simple: It is an established fact that some candidates receive enormous
support from the extreme left, and that they expect these candidates to
push for certain types of laws which feed only their beliefs. Without the
other two branches of government in place, we would be a socialist
"workers' paradise", just as was the former Soviet Union.

or, how about....

Simple: It is an established fact that some candidates receive enormous
support from underground white supremecists, and that they expect these
candidates to push for certain types of laws which feed only their
beliefs. Without the other two branches of government in place, we would
be an oppressive militarist dictatorship, just as Iraq was under Saddam.

Jesus, Doug, you used to be better than this. What happened?

And now, recognizing that I have allowed myself to be drawn in to a
political, non-boating discussion, I withdraw, with abject apologies to
the rest of rec.boats. Mea Culpa.



The other two "influences" you describe have nothing to do with religion.
Don't create detours until you've finished the first trip.