What percentage of Republicans want to create a theocracy?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I say 25-50%. Probably around a third. Whatever the number that want to outlaw strip clubs is.

[patrick1]

I say 25-50%. Probably around a third. Whatever the number that want to outlaw strip clubs is.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. 

Even you know this line of argument is disingenuous tripe.

[TheresNoMoney]

Probably 1/3 I'd estimate.

[MaC]

I say 25-50%. Probably around a third. Whatever the number that want to outlaw strip clubs is.

 I actually agree with you on this.  A third seems about right.  However, I don't understand how you define theocracy in this situation.  If you go in depth I could estimate better.

[opebo]

They all do, because that is what they are voting for.

[Alcon]

If by "create a theocracy," you mean heavily model U.S. laws to conservative Christianity, a third seems a fairly reasonable estimate.

[Dave from Michigan]

well it depends on your definition of theocracy.  I don't think wanting to ban strip clubs means you want to have a theocracy.  I think it would be around 20%, it's not a high as most people think.

[Emsworth]

The percentage of Republicans who would support a de jure established church is, I would say, quite low, probably much less than 10%. However, there are several Republicans who would support de facto establishment: school prayer, Bible readings, and the like.

[A18]

Um, like, one percent maybe?

[Emsworth]

Um, like, one percent maybe?

It is definitely less than 10%, and almost certainly less than 5. Estimates of 25%, etc., are grossly overstated.

However, would you agree that a substantial part of the Republican party would approve of things like saying the Lord's Prayer and reading the Bible in schools?

[A18]

Yes, but that's not theocracy... I mean, unless you think the United States was a theocracy up until about, what, the 1960s?

[Emsworth]

Yes, but that's not theocracy...

You are correct; I would certainly not call it a theocracy. I was merely qualifying, not challenging, the statement.

[opebo]

By 'theocracy' I mean any government that enforces subjective morality derived from religious 'belief' on unwilling citizens. 

 

[A18]

By 'theocracy' I mean any government that enforces subjective morality derived from religious 'belief' on unwilling citizens.

Why does it matter where it's derived from? The result is the same.

Your definition of 'theocracy' doesn't really match up with common usage.

[opebo]

By 'theocracy' I mean any government that enforces subjective morality derived from religious 'belief' on unwilling citizens.

Why does it matter where it's derived from? The result is the same.

Your definition of 'theocracy' doesn't really match up with common usage.

I think it does.  Most socially liberal Democrats are living in fear of what I described above, not a government in which the president is literally a Cardinal or something like that.

It matters from whence oppression is derived, so you can attack the political constitutency backing oppression.  In the US today, that group is the religious.

[Rob]

Republicans who actually want to have a literal theocracy... a very small number. Under 5 percent. Having conservative Christian views, however much I disagree with them, does not by itself make one a theocrat.

Anyone who says that it is theocracy is blinded by partisanship. Maybe you could put things in perspective by traveling to Iran and seeing how they do things in an actual theocracy, instead of throwing the term around meaninglessly.

[opebo]

Republicans who actually want to have a literal theocracy... a very small number. Under 5 percent. Having conservative Christian views, however much I disagree with them, does not by itself make one a theocrat.

Anyone who says that it is theocracy is blinded by partisanship. Maybe you could put things in perspective by traveling to Iran and seeing how they do things in an actual theocracy, instead of throwing the term around meaninglessly.

It is not meaningless.  If I get tossed in jail for patronizing a prostitute, it is small comfort that the President is not actually a Bishop, or whatever half-assed titles these protestants give their prelates. 

The net result is that religious 'values' have been intolerantly imposed upon me, robbing me of my freedom.  That is something frightening enough to be called theocracy, and really it is functionally the same thing as Iran.

[Rob]

The net result is that religious 'values' have been intolerantly imposed upon me, robbing me of my freedom.  That is something frightening enough to be called theocracy, and really it is functionally the same thing as Iran.

You're trivializing the issue. Having restrictions on prostitution is not theocratic (I would legalize it, but that's another subject); stoning women to death for adultery (as in sub-Saharan Africa) is. See the difference?

[Jake]

Hopefully, all of them do in one way or another.

[Emsworth]

Hopefully, all of them do in one way or another.

Hopefully? I should think that a theocracy not only is one of the worst forms of governments possible, but also is unconstitutional.

[Jake]

Constitutional amendments can make things constitutional.

[opebo]

The net result is that religious 'values' have been intolerantly imposed upon me, robbing me of my freedom.  That is something frightening enough to be called theocracy, and really it is functionally the same thing as Iran.

You're trivializing the issue. Having restrictions on prostitution is not theocratic (I would legalize it, but that's another subject); stoning women to death for adultery (as in sub-Saharan Africa) is. See the difference?

A difference of degree, certainly, but exactly the same kind of oppression.  Theocracy.

[Rob]

A difference of degree, certainly, but exactly the same kind of oppression.  Theocracy.

I understand where you're coming from, but you're wrong. The "difference of degree" makes all the difference. Calling a conservative Christian a theocrat is the same thing as calling a liberal a Communist. They are not the same, by any means.

Theocracy and Communism are, respectively, religion and leftism taken to their extremes, but that does not make them the same thing.

[John Dibble]

Very few. Some people here don't actually understand what theocracy is.

[opebo]

A difference of degree, certainly, but exactly the same kind of oppression.  Theocracy.

I understand where you're coming from, but you're wrong. The "difference of degree" makes all the difference. Calling a conservative Christian a theocrat is the same thing as calling a liberal a Communist. They are not the same, by any means.

Theocracy and Communism are, respectively, religion and leftism taken to their extremes, but that does not make them the same thing.

I see your point, but I think that both 'conservative christians', and theocrats operate on the assumption that they know what is best for others, and that other's private consensual behaviours should be under their power through State enforcement.  The difference of degree involved is so small that it really doesn't mean anything to me.