Jump to content

Home

Now I Remembered to Post a Poll with This!!!

Tysyacha

By Tysyacha
in Hot Topics

Would a theocratic USA be a good idea for my (next) novel?  

7 members have voted

  1. 1. Would a theocratic USA be a good idea for my (next) novel?

    • Sure! When's Chapter 1 coming to the CEC, huh?
      3
    • Of course! However, I want to help you on this one...
      2
    • Nice try, but it's already been done. Thanks for playing!
      2
    • Idea is completely implausible, even for "science fiction".
      0

Recommended Posts

Tysyacha Newbie

Tysyacha

Posted
Posted

I've been toying around with writing a story/novel about the USA becoming a de facto (if not de jure/legal) theocracy. After terrorists attack the US in an event that makes 9/11 look like a mere prologue, the President declares a national state of emergency and institutes martial law. The President is also (privately) known as a Dominionist, and s/he thinks it's the perfect opportunity to reclaim the United States as "one nation, under God our Lord, Jesus Christ"...

 

Thoughts? (Like a steak, Tysy prepares to get flamed...er, grilled...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Alkonium Newbie

Alkonium

Posted
Posted

Honestly, I don't think theocracies are ever a good idea. I doubt there is a single country in which 100% of the population has the exact same religious beliefs, and that's the only situation in which I think it could work, because everyone would agree with those views anyway.

 

(I wrote that before I knew you were talking about the premise for a novel)

 

As the premise of a novel, however, good idea. I love a good dystopian dictatorship story. It sounds very "V for Vendetta".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ping Newbie

Ping

Posted
Posted

The way I see it, if you're set on writing it, you might want to do some research. I think up until a few decades ago, Congress fixed a loophole that allowed martial law to be declared if the U.S. was in a state of emergency.

 

Of course, if you already have everything planned, then disregard this comment completely. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommycat Newbie

Tommycat

Posted
Posted

I could swear I had seen this before.

 

Woah... @Totenkopf That's actually scary. BUT it provides a pretty good way to build up the story. First martial law then continued unrest. Soldiers in the streets.

 

Might want to include several soldiers leaving, as I know I would have. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic.

 

@Ping: well it's biased, but note that it condemns GW Bush even though it's conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ping Newbie

Ping

Posted
Posted

@Ping: well it's biased, but note that it condemns GW Bush even though it's conservative.

 

You're right. It's just a nitpick of mine that I prefer sources that have little or no bias, that's all. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
machievelli Newbie

machievelli

Posted
Posted
I could swear I had seen this before.

 

Woah... @Totenkopf That's actually scary. BUT it provides a pretty good way to build up the story. First martial law then continued unrest. Soldiers in the streets.

 

Might want to include several soldiers leaving, as I know I would have. I took an oath to defend the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic.

 

@Ping: well it's biased, but note that it condemns GW Bush even though it's conservative.

 

For the revolution that follows you have 'If This Goes On..." By Robert Hienlien

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommycat Newbie

Tommycat

Posted
Posted
For the revolution that follows you have 'If This Goes On..." By Robert Hienlien

 

Figures it would have been Heinlien haha.

 

Also, I believe even the series "Kings" did a bit of this as well. Though they spent less time on the back story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Totenkopf Newbie

Totenkopf

Posted
Posted
You're right. It's just a nitpick of mine that I prefer sources that have little or no bias, that's all. :)

 

And yet you went to a place you claim is biased......first. :raise: Chances are, though, you won't find any source w/o a bias, perceived or real. As to the link......luck of the draw, so to speak. Had it been the BBC/MSNBC/Fox etc.. it would have been posted as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TriggerGod Newbie

TriggerGod

Posted
Posted

Many previous examples of theocracys have all failed so far. I fail to see why one would work today, or even in the near future. Especially in the United States, where everyone is granted religious freedom.

 

Or so I was told.

 

But in the end its your call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ping Newbie

Ping

Posted
Posted
And yet you went to a place you claim is biased......first. :raise: Chances are, though, you won't find any source w/o a bias, perceived or real. As to the link......luck of the draw, so to speak. Had it been the BBC/MSNBC/Fox etc.. it would have been posted as well.

 

Where did I say Wikipedia is biased? Do not twist my words or make things up. I do not take kindly to people like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Totenkopf Newbie

Totenkopf

Posted
Posted
Where did I say Wikipedia is biased?........

 

*shrugs* Meh, just parroting something I saw on Wikipedia. Don't you think you should use a less biased source, too?

 

That sounds an awful lot like an admission that your source (or recollection thereof) was dubious and your last sentence a half-hearted attempt to chastise me for using a "biased" source as well. Anyway given that you don't know where the info comes from on wiki many times, it's hard to claim it's any less biased than anywhere else. Besides, as I never referenced you in that citation post, why feel the unnecessary need to take cheap shots yourself? As I said, "Chances are, though, you won't find any source w/o a bias, perceived or real".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ping Newbie

Ping

Posted
Posted
That sounds an awful lot like an admission that your source (or recollection thereof) was dubious and your last sentence a half-hearted attempt to chastise me for using a "biased" source as well. Anyway given that you don't know where the info comes from on wiki many times, it's hard to claim it's any less biased than anywhere else. Besides, as I never referenced you in that citation post, why feel the unnecessary need to take cheap shots yourself? As I said, "Chances are, though, you won't find any source w/o a bias, perceived or real".

 

Do not take things I say literally. Quite frankly, seems to me you just want an excuse to argue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Totenkopf Newbie

Totenkopf

Posted
Posted
Do not take things I say literally. Quite frankly, seems to me you just want an excuse to argue.

 

:rofl: Seriously, you accuse me of bias and then say I'm being argumentative b/c I took you at your word. :eyeraise:

 

@Tysy--were you thinking of Sarah Palin? Didn't know she was a Dominionist (almost thought you'd made that one up for the purposes of your story line).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
mimartin Newbie

mimartin

Posted
Posted

Deleted a couple post. Please keep discussion civil and on some semblance of topic. If you have a problem with another poster either PM them, report the post if it violates the rules (of Kavars or the Forum) or use the ingenious power of the Ignore List, but please do not completely derail the original poster’s thread.

 

Yea, we understand that all sources are bias. There have been enough threads derailed in Kavar’s and the internet with that argument. Either show where that article is wrong in a mature civil way or just ignore it. Arguing about how one source is more or less bias than another is futile. Either someone accepts the source or they don’t. Arguing about it is not going to make someone suddenly accept that source.

 

I apologize to Tysyacha for this long winded moderator rant in her thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...