PDA

View Full Version : Now I Remembered to Post a Poll with This!!!


Tysyacha
07-03-2010, 05:17 PM
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...)

Alkonium
07-03-2010, 05:22 PM
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".

Hallucination
07-03-2010, 07:13 PM
This is only a good idea if it's a romance aimed at the same market as Twilight.


This is not a troll post, I'm entirely serious.

Tysyacha
07-03-2010, 07:17 PM
Ehhh...okay, I'll make the terrorists vampires (I mean the bad vampires, not the good ones.)

Ping
07-03-2010, 08:28 PM
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. ;)

Totenkopf
07-03-2010, 08:37 PM
plugged in this: martial law loophole in US law and got this....

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/apr/23/00026/

Ping
07-04-2010, 10:58 AM
plugged in this: martial law loophole in US law and got this....

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2007/apr/23/00026/

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

Tommycat
07-04-2010, 11:03 AM
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.

Ping
07-04-2010, 11:14 AM
@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. :)

machievelli
07-04-2010, 01:39 PM
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

Tommycat
07-04-2010, 05:58 PM
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.

Totenkopf
07-04-2010, 06:26 PM
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.

urluckyday
07-04-2010, 11:05 PM
Not sure how you'd be able to play it out...but hey, if you've got the drive, go for it...

It does sound eerily familiar though...

Arcesious
07-05-2010, 09:13 AM
Simpsons did it! Erm, I mean, V for Vendetta did it.

I dunno, such a scenario seems to me to be completely implausible no matter how much you fill the plot with deux ex machina explanations.

Tommycat
07-05-2010, 11:49 AM
Truth is, its been done, but I wouldn't let that stop you. It hasn't been done to death yet.

TriggerGod
07-05-2010, 01:35 PM
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.

Ping
07-05-2010, 01:53 PM
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.

Totenkopf
07-05-2010, 02:15 PM
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".

Sabretooth
07-05-2010, 02:29 PM
It isn't about whether a novel deals with a good idea or a bad idea, but how well it deals with either one.

*goes back to smoke Buddhaweed*

Ping
07-05-2010, 09:31 PM
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.

Totenkopf
07-05-2010, 10:43 PM
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).

Tysyacha
07-05-2010, 11:09 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yes, I was thinking of Sarah Palin. Check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chip-berlet/what-is-dominionism-palin_b_124037.html

Makes me say, "Ohmuhlawd!!!"

Q
07-06-2010, 10:01 AM
A theocratic US is pretty much beyond the scope of reality nowadays. A Satanocratic US, on the other hand...

Totenkopf
07-06-2010, 10:05 AM
---is pretty much here already. :dev9:

mimartin
07-06-2010, 11:49 AM
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.

Tysyacha
07-06-2010, 01:38 PM
I'm going to compromise with all of you and write the prologue to ULTIMATUM. If you like it, you can vote as such in the poll I PROMISE NOT TO FORGET TO ADD, and if you don't, you can do the same. I'm just going to give this story a preliminary shot and see what happens. Thank you for all of your feedback, and this time, the majority rules (like in a democracy)!