Hello again ashibaka,
Interesting question!
Just let me do a short bio on my political past.
I am a life republican as far back as I can remember. I recall going door to door in October of 62 stuffing "Vote for Goldwater-Humpery" pamphlets into doorways. More recently I was on the county executive committee for the Republican Party, a replublican precient captain, and was the county chairman of the Robertson for president campaign in the 88 election. My wife and I were delegates to the state republican convention that year.
I don't know if you consider Pat Robertson a fundamentalist (believe me, he is not), but that was the closest real-life time we even came close to a "Christian Government". Roberson supporters would have never supported or even considered 90% of the things you listed.
So you can see that I am not just posturing when I say that I seriously doubt the things you describe would ever happen.
Before what you describe could happen. the following institutions and offices would all have to support the fundamentalist position.
The president would have to be supportive (because he has veto power),
Two thirds of both houses of congress would have to fall in because the constitution would have to be changed and they would have to do it.
The Supreme Court would have to be majority... this could not happen for many years as the appointments are life long. The congress could get around this by simply passing a law saying the court now has 20 members, and then stacking the new positions with the flavor of their liking.
Two thirds of the state legislatures would have to support the changes because that is what is required to change the constitution. This would be the most difficult to get around because the states really do not like the federal government telling them what to do to start with, and they would never give the federal government the sort of power you describe regardless of who was in control of it. I know because our state of SC was the first state to secede during the civil war on the states rights issue. People still resent Washington around here. This "two-thirds-of-the-states-rule" is the only plug the states have to pull, and their hand is always on the cord ready to yank whenever some wonderful Washington politician has some grand plan to save us all. This is why there are so few efforts to change the constitution... it only takes 17 states saying "NO" to kill an amendment.
Beyond that, a majority of the voting public would have to vote in all these politicians. Say 100 million voters would have to vote in tens of thousands of politicians who support the items on your list. There are no-where near these numbers of voters or politicians.
If by some stretch of madness this did happen, the military would have to be ready and willing to put down the resulting revolution.
Having said all that, let me add that as a Christian I am aware that people are saved by faith. You cannot legislate faith into people. They have to choose faith on their own. Even the fundamentalist camp (which is very small to start with, and even miniscule when limited to those supporting even part your list) knows you cannot make people love, care, and behave. Not that your list is a picture of what loving, caring, and behaving people are like. I for one would not support most of what is listed, and I doubt there are a handful of fundamentalists would either.
Just a couple words on each:
1) Abortion would be outlawed. No exceptions.
Nope.
2) Hard core inappropriate contentography in any form would be banned.
Nope. Would have to define "hard core first". Teletubbies and Judy Blume are ok with me. X-rated on kid accessible cable is not.
3) All public schools would replace the teaching of evolution with "creation science"
Nope... schools should be able to present any kind of knowledge that man has discovered. Including both of what you mention. If someone says "creation science" should be banned, then perhaps we are closer to what you describe than we think: just with a different kind of "fundamentalism" in control.
4) The death penalty would be expanded to cover crimes like rape and drug trafficking.
I am personally against the death penalty for any crime.
5) Christian schools, charities and other organizations would receive taxpayer funding...
Nope, they do not need government help. Government help always come with regulatory strings attached. No thanks.
7) The Constitution would have been amended to state that America is officially a Christian nation.
That is the rub. The constitution would have to be amended
before any of this could happen.
8) You could add sex between consenting adults of the same gender to the list of death penalty crimes.
Nope... like I said. I am against the death penalty in any instance.
10) Women would need to dress "appropriately" (perhaps not as bad as the Taliban, but certainly have their heads covered at all times)
That is just silly. Reminds me of an incident in New Jersey where women were upset about a law outlawing topless bathing at the public beaches. A bunch of gals were protesting at a their beach and were
flagrantly breaking the law they so indignantly opposed. Do you think a counter protest was organized made up of men carrying signs "put those tops back on!"? no.....
I think can speak for most men when I say women are beautiful! They are great! Not in an obscene or perv way... but just in their overall physical appearance. Graceful, lovely... perfect! You average guy on the street would not stand for it! God knew what he was doing!
Like I said... silly.
11) Most (all?) forms of birth control outlawed.
Nope. We had four, and said no more!
12) People that are not Christian but are of "mainstream" religions would be relegated to second-class citizens (at best). Pressure to convert would be enormous.
Nope. We have already seen this happen... but in the other direction. There are definite barriers in most government and large corporations against Christians occupying places of authority and power. You do not hear about this in the media. And is not this list a reflection of that phobia? I used to call it "fundaphobia" back in my cartooning days.
13) People that are religious but not "mainstream" (Wiccans, Satanists, etc.) would be given three choices: Conversion, Deportation, or Execution .
Another silly fundaphobic statement. Atheists already did this in Russia... to the Christians. What about Waco? Koresh was a nut (not mainstream?)
. But they sent in a tank against a house with women and kids in it.
14) Ditto for Atheists, only I don't think they'd get the first two choices.
See answer to #13.
15) Failure to observe worship services is a crime
Nope. Most Christians don't go now.
16) Blasphemy is a crime
Nope. Unless you call praying at a football game blasphemy. That is already happening.
17) Sloth is a crime, so the homeless and unemployed are rounded up and given menial work
Welcome to 1998. Been there done that. Anyone applying for food stamps or AFDC is required to take steps toward gameful employment. The states carry out these functions, so there is still a little common sense.
18) Married couples are required to "be fruitful and multiply"
I doubt that would be a problem. Believe me, most (married and not) are putting up a good effort... a lot.
19) Immigrants must convert before they are admitted to the country
Nope... but they should have some means of support, or someone supporting them besides taxpayers. I am against all efforts to force us to contribute to religious charities... like, social security and welfare. I don't care what a person believes; just don't force your tenants and charities on me. Sound familiar?
20) Faith healers are granted license to practice medicine
They already practice, and do not need a license. With a license come regulations. Who would want that?
21) Begin work on a legal definition of "Christian" so non-Christians (cultists like Mormons and Catholics, for example) could not falsely hide behind the label "Christian".
We wanted to remove our kids from the public school in the mid 80s. Not for religious reasons, it was just that they were in the 3rd grade and could not read. Especially bad because we had taught them to read before they ever went to school and the school was "un-teaching" them. There were no private schools within 20 miles so we decided to home school them. State law virtually forbade the practice by instituting ridiculous requirements for home schooling. We had to get around it by first incorporating as a home church, and then forming a private religious school in that home church. A local Mormon family was experiencing the same problems with the schools, but made the mistake of trying to do it the right way and approached the school board for permission to home school. No way. They came to us for help and we let them into our home for schooling.
Who was more tolerant in this situation, the present secular state-school, or the Christians?
Beyond that, we already have what is called "wolves in sheep's clothing". If a bad guy wants to be considered a good guy what does he dress himsefl up as? Not an atheist!
22) Christians are exempted from traffic laws on Sundays.
Is this so we can speed to church, or so we can be sure to make it home in time for kick-off?
Go Steelers!
23) Ban work on Sundays.
That actually was in place for many years. Fundamentalists did not do that. Who wants to work on Sunday anyway? I, and most people who actually work for a living would say yippee!
24) Failure to take an oath on the Bible in a courtroom would be grounds for a contempt citation.
Just words to start with. If I did not believe, I would not do it. Let 'em throw me in jail. Beyond that, as a Christian I am supposed to let the truth without a oath. If a person is gonna lie, he can lie an oath.
Overall, the folks who compiled your list are a little out of touch, and really do not know how Christians believe, much less fundamentalists. The list is improbable and preposterous. If there were such a thing as "fundaphobia" they got it big time.
Thanks again ashibaka, you are great! What do you think about some of these things?
The idea of a supreme authority (be it God, Hitler, or Stalin), in general, shouldn't be applied to government.
