While a political strategist for Richard Nixon, Kevin Phillips made a name for himself by being a race-baiter. Phillips argued that Republicans could win over the working-class white voter who was willing to defect the Democratic Party over Lyndon Johnson’s embrace of civil rights legislation.
When The Emerging Republican Majority appeared in 1969, Newsweek described it as "the political bible of the Nixon Administration" and launched his career as a Republican prognosticator. Phillips says he voted for Reagan (twice) and would have “eagerly voted for John McCain” yet has since become disillusioned with party politics. He left Washington D.C. in 1997, “disgusted with how Washington politics had sunk to herald Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Newt Gingrich and George W. Bush.”
Phillips may be a Bush-hater but it’s still a bit odd seeing an unreconstructed, hardcore Nixonite being embraced by the political left. Politics, though, tends to create strange bedfellows, which is why the “Republican” Phillips is allowed space in the broadsheet of the hard-left, The Nation, to rail against a common enemy: theocrats.
“Is theocracy in the United States,” asks Phillips, “(1) a legitimate fear, as some liberals argue; (2) a joke, given the nation's rising secular population and moral laxity; (3) a worrisome bias of major GOP constituencies and pressure groups; or (4) all of the above? The last, I would argue.”
Last May, after reading the Harper’s Magazine series of articles on “The Christian Right’s War On America”, I realized it was time to introduce an observation, similar to Godwin’s Law, on a recurrent theme in political debate. Such a clear pattern of rhetorical hyperbole has led me to codify Carter’s Law of Political Rhetoric:
As the number of religious conservatives expressing an opinion on a moral or political issue increases, the probability that someone on the political left will invoke the term “theocracy” approaches one.
In publishing his book American Theocracy, Phillips is jumping on the bandwagon a bit late. Leftists have been throwing out the code-word for “Bible-believing Christians who vote” for quite some time: “Bush gets mandate for theocracy,” cried the Village Voice’s James Ridgeway. “[T]he right-wing cabal,” warns Dr. Bruce Prescott, Director of Mainstream Oklahoma Baptists, “is methodically pushing our nation toward theocracy.” And writing in The Nation, Barbara Ehrenreich claims that Bush’s faith-based welfare strategy “accelerates the downward spiral toward theocracy.” There’s even a project called “TheocracyWatch” at Cornell University that focuses not on existing theocracies throughout the world but on “the pervasive role of the Religious Right in the U.S. government.”
The common thread of those who use the code-word is a remarkable ignorance of their subject. Phillips, for instance, believes that the rising dominance of Baptists in American Protestantism is ipso facto evidence of a theocratic trend. What he appears to have missed is that Baptists can’t even tolerate a centralized church government much less a central government controlled by the church. A theocracy led by Baptists makes as much sense as anarchists establishing a centralized government. For Phillips to make such a claim in public exposes a brazen willingness to appear stupid.
So where does this silly theocracy canard come from?
Since even the most pernicious lie (“Jews eat gentile children.”) contains some grain of truth (“Jews eat.”), we can’t dismiss the idea completely. After all, it is true that some conservative Christians in our country do want to establish a theocracy. Their actual numbers, however, are rather negligible and their political influence almost non-existent. As a group they likely outnumber black separatists, though they are dwarfed by the number of liberal secessionists. Their association with the election of President Bush is also rather dubious since they voted for Michael Peroutka.
But I suspect that most people who use the word are like Phillips and simply have no understanding of its meaning. Theocracy, which literally means "rule by the deity," is the name given to political regimes that claim to represent God on earth both directly and immediately. The role of the theocratic leader is to play the role of both priest and king, implementing and enforcing divine laws.
The term was first used by the Jewish historian Josephus to describe the way the Jews were under the direct government of God himself. In ancient Israel everyone was a direct subject of Jehovah, who ruled over all and communicated through the prophets. This arrangement was short-lived, though, and the Jews eventually rejected theocratic rule in favor of an earthly king. While the sovereign did not always enforce all of the laws of the former theocracy, he retained the authority given to him “by God.” During the medieval era, a version of this concept was adopted by the Roman Catholic Church. The idea of the divine right of kings combined the secular government with the spiritual authority of the Christian Church to form caesaropapism.
Yet even though the concept of theocracy has its roots in Jewish, Catholic, and even Islamic history, the term has somehow become associated with conservative Protestant Christianity. Part of it can be explained as a result of common ignorance. But enough reasonably intelligent people have been misusing the word that it can only be intentional. I suspect that “theocracy” has become a code word for what Eugene Volokh refers to as “"trying to impose their religious dogma on the legal system."
I like to ask these critics: What do you think about the abolitionist movement of the 1800s? As I understand it, many -- perhaps most or nearly all -- of its members were deeply religious people, who were trying to impose their religious dogma of liberty on the legal system that at the time legally protected slavery.
Or what do you think about the civil rights movement? The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., after all, was one of its main leaders, and he supported and defended civil rights legislation as a matter of God's will, often in overtly religious terms. He too tried to impose his religious dogma on the legal system, which at the time allowed private discrimination, and in practice allowed governmental discrimination as well.
Or how about religious opponents of the draft, opponents of the death penalty, supporters of labor unions, supporters of welfare programs, who were motivated by their religious beliefs -- because deeply religious people's moral beliefs are generally motivated by their religious beliefs -- in trying to repeal the draft, abolish the death penalty, protect labor, or better the lot of the poor? Perhaps their actions were wrong on the merits; for instance, maybe some anti-poverty problems caused more problems than they solved, or wrongly took money from some to give to others. But would you condemn these people on the grounds that it was simply wrong for them to try to impose their religious beliefs on the legal system?
My sense is that the critics of the Religious Right would very rarely levy the same charges at the Religious Left. Rather, they'd acknowledge that religious people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their religious views) into law, just as secular people are entitled to try to enact their moral views (which stem from their secular, but generally equally unprovable, moral axioms) into law.
This double standard is embarrassingly obvious. When the Religious Left supports abortion and gay marriage they are praised as compassionate and progressive. When the Religious Right opposes these same issues they are denounced as religious zealots who want to impose their morality on others. There’s a sense that these critics believe that the right to vote and influence legislation should be limited to the people who have politically correct religious views. The enthusiastic applause that followed Garrison Keillor’s plan to “pass a constitutional amendment to take the right to vote away from born-again Christians” is a shocking reminder of the bias against religiously orthodox Americans.
Apparently, everyone has a right to be heard – until they start listening to God.
[Note: Portions of this entry first appeared in a post written in May 2005.]
1
Sometimes Nazis are indeed Nazis and theocrats are indeed theocrats.
Terms such as "Godwin's Law" and "Bush haters."
And you certainly, even among your own commenters, and certainly among folks like James Dobson have people that like to whitewash the effect avowed "Christians" have had in American history.
And before you start invoking the "they're prejudiced against us!!!" canard (or the lie there's a "religious left" that dares to make war on people's personal lives) you should realize that this isn't just a "Christian thing." For centuries some group has invoked religious or quasi-religious reasons to maintain power.
Americans are increasingly becoming aware of the clear and present danger -worse, in my opinion that Communism was in the 1950s, and that is no hyperbole- that these elements represent to America.
Some of us have read history, and we know the track record of demagogues like Roy Moore and D. James Kennedy.
2
The second setence should have said: Terms such as "Godwin's Law" and "Bush haters" only show to me an attempt to draw attention away from the legitimate issues involved here.
The thing that amazes me most about these folks is the enthusiasm by which folks like this lie and line their pockets in the process. Take D. James Kennedy for example. Please. I'd take him anywhere but I suspect he'd find his way back home, to quote Henny Youngman.
3
Joe said:
As the number of religious conservatives expressing an opinion on a moral or political issue increases, the probability that someone on the political left will invoke the term “theocracy” approaches one.
Do you really think the number of religious conservatives are increasing, or is it that the number of God-hating Left (the "tolerant" ones) are increasing and are prepared to go to any length to root out the vestiges of Christian influence? I rather hope you are right.
posted on 04.17.2006 7:16 AM4
It is a bizarre situation. At the same time that all sorts of behaviors that were once widely considered immoral become socially acceptable; the left becomes more and more shrill screaming 'theocracy' any time a person or group speaks out against such behavior. It appears that it isn't enough that they have almost entirely won the debate, they need to forever silence their critics as well.
If we are becoming a 'theocracy' today, what were we just 30-40 years ago? When getting pregnant meant young girls left school and town to have their child, sodomy was largely a crime and gay people were in closet and gay marriage wasn't even a pipe dream, abortion was outlawed in many states, blue laws were enforced in many states, hardcore pornography was confined to poorly distributed magazines which would be considered softcore today, divorce was extremely hard or largely impossible to get, etc.
And then there are all the stupid little symbolic things that we have had legal fights over and had largely eliminated - religious Christmas songs in schools, manger displays on government property, ten commandments displays, etc.
For anyone screaming 'theocracy', it appears to me that it is simple hatred over the fact that a block of voters is largely supporting one political party and the other party is being driven insane by that support. Which makes me wonder - what would happen if African-Americans or Jews started voting in large numbers for Republicans. Would the ridiculous charge stay 'theocracy', or would the left devolve back into condemnation based on race/ethnicity?
posted on 04.17.2006 8:13 AM6
Our fears of a theocracy aren't without foundation. It is important that America remains, and recommits to being, a strongly secular society. That doesn't mean people can't be religious, but it necessitates that government policy not be reflective of religious dogma.
Each American has the right to believe whatever he or she wishes. Your child, in going to public school, should not feel marginalized or "lesser" than other students if he or she is not an evangelical Christian. This came up in the Dover ID trial several times. We have a fairly lengthy legal track record that recognizes that it is not necessary to have an "official" religion in order to create an atmosphere of intimidation. Such intimidation has never been Buddhist.
Christians should be totally free to attend church, pen tracts, have their own TV programs, speak in public, display symbols, discuss their beliefs with others, hold rallies and gatherings, and lobby government if their interests are imperiled (loss of tax-free status, workplace discrimination, etc.).
Christians should not, ever, head the FDA and prevent women from obtaining legal contraception (as we are seeing now), Christians should not oversee the department of the Interior and enforce dominionist policies that destroy our resources, Christians should not enforce "abstinence only" programs in lieu of comprehensive sex education courses in public schools (when such programs are demonstrated to be ineffective and are only advocated for religious purposes), Christians have no business with the FCC and controlling what non-Christians can view on TV - or in print media or theaters - nor should they have any interest in Americans' artistic expression.
In short, Christians have no business legislating and controlling the activities of non-Christians. When they succeed in doing so, where they succeed in doing so, they enforce their dogmatic beliefs at gunpoint on the rest of humanity and are culpable to charges of constructing a theocracy.
posted on 04.17.2006 8:42 AM7
Evan
If we are becoming a 'theocracy' today, what were we just 30-40 years ago?
Regarding personal rights and civil liberties, somewhat freer, somewhat less free. I am thinking of the disastrous Republican assaults on the rights of the accused, the horrible drug laws, the FBI nastiness, and so forth.
It's telling that whole picture to some folks can be reduced to "gays" and "abortion."
In spite of that the trend of all of humanity tends to be towards more liberty, not less.
It's not important to me that a "bloc of voters" might be supporting a political party; what is important is what that party stands for is the destruction of the middle class, the destruction of liberty, and the furtherance of imperial designs despite the insanity of that.
The Raven:
I think you fell into one of the traps of the religious right: they want to equate "Christianity" with their narrow, pernicous, and disastrous ideas. It's a lie.
8
Even the theonomists and Dominion Theology folks don't look for anything that could be called a "theocracy"--and for most evangelicals and fundamentalists (and, BTW, the Religious Right is an *evangelical* phenomenon; fundamentalists are generally only involved to the extent they, personally, can identify with this or that evangelical organization), theonomists are regarded as somewhere between "hung-up" and heretical (myself, I tend to match my disagreement to their tone--the nuts get contempt, the sound thinkers get dialogue).
Note that none of our recent Presidents (including Clinton and Carter) who vigorously associated themselves with "evangelical" Christianity--no professed atheists, UUs, or even Episcopalians among 'em--were by any means especially conservative in a theological sense. The Bush family is hardly going to be comfortable in First Fundamental Independent Baptist of the Freeway, let me tell you.
The notion of "theocracy" is mind-numbingly stupid.
And Volokh--a libertarian relatively unsympathetic to the Religious Right and Left alike--is dead-on in that analysis.
Christ will, indeed, be King on Earth in The End. However, in the meantime, attempts to immanentize the eschaton are foolhardy, and theologically unsupportable.
Cheers,
PGE
9
So Raven, according to you anyone who is a Christians can not have a government job? And no Christian can allow their beliefs to affect their opinion on public policy? Doctors must perform abortions, pharmacists must be forced to sell abortifacients(or be fired)teachers must teach masturbation and anal sex to grade school children and no one can protest any of this no matter what moral objections they may have? Oh that's right there is no morality, it is all relative.As long as you agree with it.
posted on 04.17.2006 9:26 AM10
Raven,
In short, Christians have no business legislating and controlling the activities of non-Christians. When they succeed in doing so, where they succeed in doing so, they enforce their dogmatic beliefs at gunpoint on the rest of humanity and are culpable to charges of constructing a theocracy.
Communities have a right to set their own standards and elect their own representatives - Christian-based or not. You employ language that seeks to deprive only Christians of representation, then you pretend that this is the definition of "freedom." The only way the Left has been able to advance is by corrupting the courts, since communities have typically rejected its radical ideals. You don't like your community standards? Move to a different one.
"...enforce their dogmatic beliefs at gunpoint"
Your inflammatory language notwithstanding, this is what government does regardless of who is in control of it. Are you suggesting that the Left is somehow exempt from the charge? You are as guilty as anyone.
11
I've read Kevin Phillips American Theocracy, and as an Evangelical Christian, I was taken aback by some of the same things that Joe calls attention to. Who are these supposed theocracts? All of this discourse just reveals a staggering ignorance of the actually beliefs of conservative Christians. Phillips seems to believe that Christian reconstructionists (very much a minority) are the same people who are waiting for the rapture - not quite. If Bush invokes the name of God or the understanding of being called to his position, he is interpreted to mean that he has received a divine mandate directly from God and must impose this will without questions. Not really ... we believe that God calls us to whatever station in life we have been given.
Then I remember that the ultimate goal is selling books, and sometimes a little apocalyptic ferver can go a long way - whether its for the armegeddon itself or the impending fundamentalist take-over.
posted on 04.17.2006 10:07 AM12
Right before it became fashionable to bash her, didn't failed Bush Supreme Court Appointee Meirs enjoy the support of more than a few 'theocrats' on the grounds that she appeared to be a devoted member of a very orthodox Christian Church?
Communities have a right to set their own standards and elect their own representatives - Christian-based or not. You employ language that seeks to deprive only Christians of representation, then you pretend that this is the definition of "freedom." The only way the Left has been able to advance is by corrupting the courts, since communities have typically rejected its radical ideals. You don't like your community standards? Move to a different one.
I disagree with Raven's absolutest stand but he has a point. The FCC is not enforcing 'community standards', it is patronage for a minority. It is as bad as any pork project but worse because instead of just giving money to a few groups it is letting them restrict the freedom of others. Likewise for some the FDA's 'creative' decisions when it comes to contraceptives. In both cases the community is not in the groups lobbying the FDA or FCC but is in the market that wishes to purchase goods and services freely.
Where I depart with Raven is linking this problem to Christians in the gov't. The fact is all gov't's have a tendancy to abuse their position if not policed. In Europe and Canada we often hear of leftist groups using various hate speech laws to restrict free expression. There religious use the same laws to shield themselves from criticism (an article I read long ago talked about a satirical TV Show getting fined by the gov't because they aired some sketches making fun of the Catholic Church's poor response to the sex abuse scandals...the group behind the fine was no other than the Catholic Church which would bristle should a gay rights group use the exact same law to punish their speech).
posted on 04.17.2006 10:10 AM13
pray that P. Bush can save evil America from their hedonistic ways! and purge the world of islamo-fascisim.
posted on 04.17.2006 10:24 AM14
JB: "Your inflammatory language notwithstanding..."
This from the guy who included "God-hating Left" in his first comment.
Evan: "And then there are all the stupid little symbolic things that we have had legal fights over and had largely eliminated - religious Christmas songs in schools, manger displays on government property, ten commandments displays, etc."
Well, Evan, these things don't seem so little or stupid to those who do not share the dominant worldview; they feel, with good reason, that they are being marginalized. The little girl in Tennessee who was ostracized by students, teachers, and administrators because she declined to attend a revival (for which student were excused from class!) probably doesn't see this issue in quite the same light. It is not the function of government to support or celebrate any particular religion, even if a majority of citizens follow it. Isn't it enough to be free to practice your religion in church, at home, and in public without the government echoing your sentiments? I don't want my children singing Christmas carols in school.
posted on 04.17.2006 10:33 AM15
Boonton wrote;
is as bad as any pork project but worse because instead of just giving money to a few groups it is letting them restrict the freedom of others.
This is one of the silliest things ive seen written on this blog in awhile. Restrict the freedom of others?
In today's cable, satellite, internet age, you can see whatever you want whenever you want. If you want raunch, or violence, or worse, you can have it.
But the FCC restricts the freedom of others?
What a laugh! Words have become meaningless in our free culture. We have become so incredibly pampered in our wonderful society that we are now saying the FCC restricts our freedom.
Oh the horror!
posted on 04.17.2006 10:34 AM16
I have an interesting vantage point on this issue as I spent about three decades as a very conservative evangelical (including 12 years as a minister and 3 years as a university assistant professor of Bible) and the last six years as a ardent atheist and Unitarian Universalist.
Having had (and still having) very close contact with both sides, I have noticed an interesting commonality. Each side is convinced that the other side is out to get them. There's a strange paranoia among both leftists and rightists that their political/religious opponents are on the verge of coming to some type of absolute power and legislating the other side out of existence.
I agree with everything that Joe says. I am very frustrated with fellow atheists who think that conservative Christians want to somehow force their religion on the rest of the country through the government. That is utterly absurd. Certainly they want to see laws enacted that are consistent with their own values (or block laws inconsistent with their values). But they do not wish to force anyone to become a Christian or to keep nonChristians from voting or holding office or working to enact their own legislation.
The only thing I might add to Joe's article is an acknowledgement of the theocratic tendencies of Puritans in Massachusetts, Cromwell's England, and Calvin. He acts as if Protestants have never endorsed a theocracy.
Here's what would really make my day: an acknowledgement by evangelicals that there is no "War Against Christians." The effort by secularists and religious liberals (and some religious conservatives) to remove government-sponsored endorsements of religion (teacher-led prayer in schools, creationism/ID, display of 10 Commandments on public property, pledge of allegiance, etc.) does not mean that anyone wants to persecute Christians. We just don't think the government should show favoritism to any specific religion (or to religion in general). So, Joe, how about an article soon admitting this?
posted on 04.17.2006 10:38 AM17
The Raven:
"Christians should not, ever, head the FDA and prevent women from obtaining legal contraception (as we are seeing now), Christians should not oversee the department of the Interior and enforce dominionist policies that destroy our resources, Christians should not enforce 'abstinence only' programs in lieu of comprehensive sex education courses in public schools (when such programs are demonstrated to be ineffective and are only advocated for religious purposes), Christians have no business with the FCC and controlling what non-Christians can view on TV - or in print media or theaters - nor should they have any interest in Americans' artistic expression."
So you are opposed to "theocracy," but in this democracy you would be willing to disenfranchise Christians who don't conform to your moral beliefs regarding the nature of governance? I find this pretty disturbing.
posted on 04.17.2006 10:56 AM18
This is one of the silliest things ive seen written on this blog in awhile. Restrict the freedom of others?
In today's cable, satellite, internet age, you can see whatever you want whenever you want. If you want raunch, or violence, or worse, you can have it.
So if private station owner wanted to broadcast a movie without swear words bleeped out or a performance that might have an exposed nipple visible for several seconds that freedom is protected?
BTW, are you aware that the FCC and Congress has held hearings on extending its reach to satellite radio despite the odd fact that to date no one has been produced who was forced to subscribe to satellite radio against his will?
This is an attempt to restrict the freedom of others. You can sugar coat that as much as you want, you can tell me I can get super-hard core porn from the web and you'd be right in that but the fact is it is nevertheless a restriction of freespeech. When some college censures a professor for criticizing homosexuality do you find that there is no problem because the library computers don't block www.godhatesfags.com therefore there's freedom of speech on compus?
posted on 04.17.2006 11:10 AM19
pgepps:
Although naturally I disagree with pretty much everything you wrote (and George H.W. Bush is an Episcopalian btw), I was amused at the reference to The Illuminatus! Trilogy.
20
Ex-preacher, your comment was quite eloquent and a powerful example of the sort of dialog that we need more of in the public square.
Both the secular/religious left and the religious right have their pithy phrases designed to encite an emotional response rather than enchance critical thinking. Most people seem to think the right is much more effective at this than the left.
Fox News host John Gibson wrote a book called The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought (Sentinel, October 2005). But between October '05 and March '06 the war has escalated apparently:
This week, radio commentator Rick Scarborough convened a two-day conference in Washington on the "War on Christians and the Values Voters in 2006." The opening session was devoted to "reports from the frontlines" on "persecution" of Christians in the United States and Canada, including an artist whose paintings were barred from a municipal art show in Deltona, Fla., because they contained religious themes. ... Among the conference's speakers were former House majority leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) as well as conservative Christian leaders Phyllis Schlafly, Rod Parsley, Gary Bauer, Janet Parshall and Alan Keyes. ... To some outsiders, it illuminated the paranoia of the Christian right. (link)
Some of you might be interested in this thread over at the bad old PZ Myers' blog. Even as an atheist I have a hard time with atheists trashing Christianity and religion in general.
posted on 04.17.2006 12:46 PM21
While a political strategist for Richard Nixon, Kevin Phillips made a name for himself by being a race-baiter. Phillips argued that Republicans could win over the working-class white voter who was willing to defect the Democratic Party over Lyndon Johnson’s embrace of civil rights legislation.
Did Karl Rove take a play from this book by being a "gay-baiter" and conducting the President's campaigns accordingly? He certainly did shut down the "Big Tent" concept in GOP politics.
Note that I'm not saying he deliberately played to Christians exactly, but he did play to those Americans that are prejudiced toward gays.
That does however include many Christians, whom I think simply feel they have valid reasons for their prejudice. Although it is still prejudice.
posted on 04.17.2006 1:19 PM22
Fox News host John Gibson wrote a book called The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought (Sentinel, October 2005). But between October '05 and March '06 the war has escalated apparently:
This sort of nonsense doesn't bother me very much. Fox News sometimes goes so over the top that it becomes its own parody. If that's not enough, the Comedy Channel does a great job knocking down the intellectually bankrupt right with the Colbert Report...which had the last few weeks a hysterical series on 'The War on Easter'
posted on 04.17.2006 1:29 PM23
Joe,
I doubt you would deny that the religious right, particularly it's more fundamentalist arms, has become not only more vocal, but more influential in the Republican party over the last decade or so. There's a wealth of empirical evidence supporting that contention, and it would be odd to try to deny it.
Still, I think you're right: the use of the word "theocracy" is at best, extreme hyperbole, and at worst, a scare tactic. But it's neither new, nor unusual. And I've spoken to a couple of the blogospohere's more vocal "theocracy" criers, who've said, to a person, that they don't feel bad about using it because it's the same tactic that the other side (the religious right) uses. For every cry of theocracy, there are two cries of a secular war on Christianity. A cry that is just as, if not more absurd, coming from the majority in power. It's sort of like white South Africans in the 1970s crying that black South Africans are running the show.
So we might formulate Carter's Law's companion: the more vocal the secular minority, the more people will cry that there's a "War on Christianity."
posted on 04.17.2006 1:49 PM24
Interestingly I think the reverse is true, the less vocal the secular minority the more vocal the cries of 'War on Christianity'. I think that people have an instinctive need to feel that they are being put upon and this need escalates the less they are actually abused.
For example, the National Geographic report on the Gospel of Judas was greeted by many as some sort of gnostic secret plan to corrupt Christians and mock Palm Sunday and Easter...despite the fact that just about all the major educational channels (History Channel, Discover etc.) had nearly non-stop documentaries on orthodox Christian belief surrounding Easter.
25
AndyS:
Even as an atheist I have a hard time with atheists trashing Christianity and religion in general.
In the case of Christianity, many folks - I'm thinking the "Josh McDowell" and "Ravi Zacharias" types- make extravagant claims of Christianity, and realistically, Mark Twain's words are oh so apt here:
"Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution -- these can lift at a colossal humbug -- push it a little -- weaken it a little over the course of a century; but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand."
Or in my words, if I can't ridicule and make fun of any religion, including my own, it's not my freedom of religion.
posted on 04.17.2006 2:23 PM26
Well said, Joe. I agree completely. I'm also in agreement with ex-preacher. I would only add something that Lewis said (paraphrasing): Each generation is most afraid of that which it is least likely to become. Those that are banging the "theocracy" alarm tend to be people like Frank Rich who probably doesn't know any evangelicals, much less what motivates them.
Philosophically speaking, I start from Roy Clouser's definition of religion as that which is ultimately non-dependent. From this vantage, atheists are just like everyone else. They have a particular view of what's true and it filters down and effects what they believe to be right and just regarding many hot button issues. An entaglement with politics is inevitable, especially as government becomes more centralized and powerful.
My hope is that sensible atheists (like ex-preacher) far outnumber the dominionist variety, e.g. the PZ Myers and Sam Harris. Sensible people in both camps need to keep an eye on the zealots on the fringe.
posted on 04.17.2006 3:46 PM27
Gryph:
Did Karl Rove take a play from this book by being a gay-baiter" and conducting the President's campaigns accordingly? He certainly did shut down the "Big Tent" concept in GOP politics.
What in the world are you talking about? The only "gay-baiting" I remember came from the Kerry/Edwards camp constantly reminding the public that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian.
posted on 04.17.2006 5:46 PM28
Boonton writes;
So if private station owner wanted to broadcast a movie without swear words bleeped out or a performance that might have an exposed nipple visible for several seconds that freedom is protected?
That is exactly correct. Private media is owned by private individuals while public media is owned by the public. The public elects its representatives to represent us as the governing body.
Surely you already know all of this. And yet, when the governing body says, "You must not drive faster than 65 miles an hour on our freeway system." you want to scream, "You're restricting my freedom!"
We have a word for total freedom, Boonton, it is called Anarchy.
We have public media and private media, the government in this country allows you to obtain just about anything you want through private media. The same is true for private roads where you can travel at any speed you'd like.
You live in a permissive country, Boonton, be glad of it.
posted on 04.17.2006 10:19 PM29
Eric & Lisa wrote:
"That is exactly correct. Private media is owned by private individuals while public media is owned by the public. The public elects its representatives to represent us as the governing body."
I think you're not quite getting what Boonton said. Unless you're refering to PBS (which has shown it's fair share of nipples in the past), network TV is owned by private companies. It is not a public work paid for by tax revenue, like roads are. What are you referring to when you speak of "public media"? Since the network broadcasters are private entities, shouldn't they be able to show what they want then? Or is that not what you mean?
"public media is owned by the public" Can you give me an example?
posted on 04.18.2006 12:19 AM30
Enigma,
See http://www.answers.com/topic/broadcasting for a run down on the complexity of who owns what when it comes to radio and TV, broadcasting and cable. Perhaps the salient point is that broadcasters do not own the frequency on which they broadcast, the public does and the federal government provides licenses. There have been numbers laws and Supreme Court cases around government regulation of the media. It's not a simple situation.
posted on 04.18.2006 12:56 AM31
Eric & Lisa:
We have a word for total freedom, Boonton, it is called Anarchy.
"Freedom will cure most things." - A. S. Neill
I tend to think both are impractical, but really, it's quite hypocritical for a conservative to be decrying capital "A" Anarchism!
You live in a permissive country, Boonton, be glad of it.
You can't possibly believe this stuff...
32
Mumon, ya got me. My slip on the George the Elder. Musta hovered over a not-particularly-conservative denomination for several seconds before thinking I was safe. Nuts.
Allusions are played where they lie. :-)
Cheers,
PGE
33
Eric & Lisa:
"And yet, when the governing body says, 'You must not drive faster than 65 miles an hour on our freeway system.' you want to scream, 'You're restricting my freedom!'"
Thank you for understanding democracy =) I was running out of hope for some of these folks...
posted on 04.18.2006 3:24 PM34
Joe:
Insteresting post, and your expose on hypocrisy sort of reminds me of a few words by a certain infamous former persecutor of the church turned missionary:
RO 2:1 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment?
I think we should all pause and do some serious thinking . . .
Now, on matters of substance, I think there is a lot of well-posoning rhetoric and rage based on distorting the history of the rise of modern liberty, and the sterling, often sacrificial contribution of Bible-believing Christians to it. So, in our time, CHristians who are the heirs of the same tradition are now cast unjustly as would-be oppressors when in fact the truth is nearly the opposite.
Aristotle, in his The Rhetoric, shows us the underlying agenda:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .[As cited and discussed here.]
The exchange with Jon Rowe in this recently closed off thread is telling on the point. Perhaps, I should let Blackstone, in his 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England, have the last word for today:
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being . . . consequently, as man depends absolutely upon his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all points conform to his maker's will. This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility, established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion; so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the purport of those laws . . . These are the eternal, immutable laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live honestly [NB: cf. Exod. 20:15 - 16], should hurt nobody [NB: cf. Rom 13:8 - 10], and should render to every one his due [NB: cf. Rom 13:6 - 7 & Exod. 20:15]; to which three general precepts Justinian[1: a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3] has reduced the whole doctrine of law [and, Corpus Juris, Justinian's Christianised precis and pruning of perhaps 1,000 years of Roman jurisprudence, in turn is the foundation of law for much of Europe]. [Parenthetical remarks and emphases added. Link is just above, on Modern Liberty's roots]
+++++++++++
Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
posted on 04.19.2006 5:39 AM
35
OOPS:
Forgot to link the thread where the issue of the roots of modern liberty came up.
I think that the secularists have some serious distortion of history and misreading of classical authors questions to answer for on this. [I intend to update my notes to bring to bear further points that came up in the exchange with Jon Rowe -- he has strengthened my case.]
GEM
posted on 04.19.2006 5:47 AM36
I think that the secularists have some serious distortion of history and misreading of classical authors questions to answer for on this.
Gordon, you need to remember that virtually all laws have been drafted and enacted by Christians. Very few atheists get elected or appointed to positions where they can influence legislation and jurisprudence. Maybe they're Catholic, or Baptist, whatever, but they had to have a record of regular church attendance to make the cut.
And it's truly amazing that we have a framework of law that is largely secular, based on the principles of reason and fairness. Smart Christians have been able to separate their personal religious beliefs from their juridical activity. Exceptions abound, of course, as with "blue laws," like those in the South that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday.
But look at Ohio, where legislation is on the table that would make it a felony for a woman to travel to another state to obtain an abortion, and make it a felony for anyone to assist such a woman with transportation, logistical support, or coordination of activities.
posted on 04.19.2006 7:08 AM37
GM: We certainly see the world differently. It appears to me that Mr. Rowe has thoroughly supported his case and exposed yours for the weak stretch that it is. I invite all onlookers to review the comments on both sides, if they can stand it, and judge for themselves who made the stronger case. No one is denying that Christians have made substantial contributions to modern liberty; what is in dispute here is the EXTENT to which Christians may take credit for the rise of modern liberty in general and the founding of the United Staes in particular. You clearly overstate the case. Deists like Franklin, Jefferson, and Paine contributed to the rise of freedom as much as anyone, and it is clear that they did not seek to establish a Christian state. The fact that you are reduced to quoting the Dutch DOI and looking for language like "the Year of our Lord" in the U.S. constitution shows the relative weakness of your case. You accuse secularists of revising history even as you distort it.
The reason so many people are willing to use the word "theocracy" in reference to conservative, politically-active Christians is that so many of them are willing to skew history to make the United States appear to be founded upon Christianity. Sir, it was not.
posted on 04.19.2006 7:22 AM38
I think that the #1 reason to be concerned with those that are mixing their religion with their politics, (whether they are "theocrats" or not), is that the practical effect of their influence is the expansion of the reach of Government into all areas of our lives, personal and public.
They do not seek to influence the National discussion by actually discussing anything. They do not seek to persuade anyone of the correctness of their views, rather they seek to compel compliance with them. Using Government as the means to an end.
For example, if the anti-gay marriage amendment to the US Constitution were to pass, it would limit the freedom of local state governments to define marriage as they see fit, and as the citizens of that state desire. It limits freedom, (religous and otherwise) rather than protecting it.
If a similar law had been in place outlawing inter-racial marriages, the reasoning of which was often justified by devout Christians of the time as being supported by the bible, then we would likely still have such bans in place to day.
39
I am in essential agreement with you, Patrick, although the anti-gay marriage ammendment supporters would argue that they are merely seeking to make explicit what was always implicitly understood. Of course, the opponents of interracial marriage might well have said the same in the 1950s.
I have a fairly high level of confidence that the anti-gay marriage amendment will never come close to approval. Even at the height of its momentum, they couldn't get House approval. Senate approval would be much more difficult. Hardest of all would be getting approval from 3/4 of the states. Now that the momentum has left the amendment movement and support for gay marriage is rising, I don't think the amendment has a prayer (which brings us to the prayer amnendment).
posted on 04.19.2006 3:36 PM40
Historical note:
One of the things that Americans can justly be proud of is that nearly all of the amendments to the Constitution have been attempts to broaden rights, not restrict them. Obviously, the first ten amendments (aka "The Bill of Rights") fall into this category, but so do the vast majority of subsequent amendments. The right to vote has been expanded to include all races, women, and those 18 and over. The real exceptions to this rule are the 18th and 22nd amendments. Thankfully, the 18th amendment (Prohibition) was repealed. The 22nd amendment limits a president to two terms, a move I consider an abridgement of the right of Americans to elect whomever they want. Although enacted by Republicans in retribution for FDR's 4 -term reign, the amendment has actually hurt Republicans (Eisenhower, Reagan, and George W. Bush) more than Democrats (Clinton). Realistically, though, probably only Reagan and Clinton stood a real chance at a third term.
posted on 04.19.2006 4:00 PM41
It is interesting to note that one of the links from Mullings' page points here...
That the king himself, and all the people should be careful to honor and serve God according to His will revealed in His word, which, if they performed, God would assist and preserve their estates. If not, He would abandon and exterminate them, which plainly appears by the comparing of various passages of Holy Writ. Moses, somewhat before his death, proclaims these conditions of covenant to all the people, and at the same time commands that the law, which are those precepts given by the Lord, should be kept in the ark of the covenant. After the death of Moses, Joshua was established captain and conductor of the people of God, and as the Lord himself admonished, if he would have happy success in his affairs, he should not in any way estrange himself from the law...
Now as has been widely pointed out (say, by Isaac Asimov for those who just about have time for popular authors), the states of Israel and Judah were annhilated largely because the religious class held sway in those places.
Let's constrast this "government by god" concept with that of another failed theocratic model, the Mandate of Heaven given to the Emperor of China...
The Mandate of Heaven (天命 Pinyin: Tiānmìng) was a traditional Chinese concept of legitimacy used to support the rule of the kings of the Shang Dynasty and later the Emperors of China. The concept of the Mandate of Heaven was that Heaven would bless the authority of a just ruler, but if a king ruled unwisely, Heaven would be displeased and would give the Mandate to someone else. It is first found discussed in writings that recorded the words of the Duke of Zhou, younger brother of King Wu of Zhou and regent for King Wu's infant son King Cheng of Zhou, he is usually considered to be its first proponent...With the idea of the Mandate of Heaven there were no time limitations. Instead it was a performance standard. The Duke of Zhou explained the Mandate to the people of the Shang dynasty, that if their king had not misused his power, his Mandate would not have been taken away. Eventually, as Chinese political ideas developed further, the Mandate was linked to the notion of dynastic cycle in which a dynasty started strong and vigorously but gradually would succumb to immorality and be replaced by a new stronger dynasty. The notion of the Mandate of Heaven was also invoked by Mencius, a very influential Chinese scholar.
The idea was different from the European notion of Divine Right of Kings in that it legitimized the overthrow of a dynasty and it also put limits on the behavior of the emperor. If the emperor ruled unwisely or failed to perform the proper rituals, the emperor could lose the Mandate of Heaven and be overthrown.
Both concepts assume that there is a supernatural reason why the head of state has his power, and both of course have the severe defficiency that a tyrant might never actually admit that he's been a tyrant. Gee who could come to mind there?
In both the theocratic states of the Reformation and China large amounts of blood flowed as a result of a conflation of some religious (I count the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in with "religous" here) conferment with the very practical point that goverment should first serve the people, and should continue to do so, because that promotes responsiveness and stability.
No god was needed for this in either Europe or China; it is obvious that when that mandate of "heaven" is withdrawn, a state's govermental structure sinks into the abyss.
And if one is mistaking this responsive to all of the people for a deity, deities, or a dialectic, they by definition are not being responsive to the people.
And that's why there's really not a dime's worth of difference between a theocrat and a dyed in the wool Communist.
42
The Raven: Exceptions abound, of course, as with "blue laws," like those in the South that prohibit the sale of alcohol on Sunday.
This was, as you likely know, also prevelent in the north up to and including the present.
Boonton (who I think currently lives in PA) might be able to correct me, but when I was a resident of Pennsylvania (as recently as 1987) the state liquor store shut down on Sunday. Beer could only be purchased at distributors by the case or keg (any day but Sunday), liquor was available only at state stores (any day but Sunday), and (7 days a week) you could buy a maximum of 2 six packs from a bar.
Imagine my surprise on going to grad school in Michigan to find that supermarkets sold beer, wine, and liquor 24x7!
posted on 04.19.2006 9:08 PM43
All:
A few reemarks are in order, to clear up some clouds of rhetorical obfuscation:
1] RR: It appears to me that Mr. Rowe has thoroughly supported his case and exposed yours for the weak stretch that it is.
--> I think the truth is nearly the opposite, and for good reason. Let's start with the last exchange, April 17 - 18, before the thread closed down:
8] [RR]: I've long recognized that that a pro-libery tradition in Protestantism did emerge pre-Enlightenment, around the late 16th Century. But a few things must be kept in mind. One, the major impetus for it was the terrible persecution between the sects, not that the Bible "clearly" calls for religious tolerance or liberty. Indeed, the pro-liberty "interpretations" were utterly novel for their time.--> PROGRESS: a pro-libery tradition in Protestantism did emerge pre-Enlightenment, around the late 16th Century. Let us draw out the implications and the train of influences that flowed from that tradition:
Vindiciae 1579 --> Dutch DOI, 1581 [which enshrines liberty of conscience as cited, and applies the principles of the double covenant to the first liberating revolution of the era] --> Dutch republic as a center of refuge and freedom of expression, so that e.g. even Hobbes went there to publish what would not pass the censors in England --> Pilgrims, Jews and others seek refuge there --> 1644, Lex Rex builds on Vindiciae --> 1688, Glorious Revolution develops British liberty, under a Dutch prince --> 1690's, Locke's works build on Ruthergotrd, Hooker and others and uses an explicitly biblical doundation for many of his ideas --> 1700's, the ideas disseminate, especially in the American colonies --> 1765, Blackstone's commentaries embed biblically rooted libertarian ideas in legal education and praxis --> 1774 - 87, these are built into the US founding.--> Second, JR here acknowledges, but without attribution, the force of the following from Vindiciae: Of late years divers kings, drunk with the liquor which the whore of Babylon has presented unto them, have taken arms, and for the love of the wolf, and of Antichrist, have made war against the Lamb of God, who is Christ Jesus; and yet at this day some amongst them do continue in the same course. We have seen some of them ruined in the deed, and in the midst of their wickedness; others also carried from their triumphs to their graves.
--> This reference is of course from Rev 18:
REV 18:1 After this I saw another angel coming down from heaven. He had great authority, and the earth was illuminated by his splendor. 2 With a mighty voice he shouted:"Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great! . . . . 3 For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries.The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."
REV 18:4 Then I heard another voice from heaven say: "Come out of her, my people,so that you will not share in her sins,so that you will not receive any of her plagues . . . .
REV 18:24 In her was found the blood of prophets and of the saints, and of all who have been killed on the earth."
--> Thus, we see Duplesis-Mornay arguing later: those who confess that they hold their souls and lives of God, as they ought to acknowledge, they have then no right to impose any tribute upon souls . . . The exchequer of God takes nothing from that of Cæsar, but each of them have their right manifestly apart . . . But if a prince usurp the right of God, and put himself forward, after the manner of the giants to scale the heavens, he is no less guilty of high treason to his sovereign, and commits felony in the same manner, as if one of his vassals should seize on the rights of his crown.
--> Thus, we see in the derivative Dutch DOI, scarce three years later, as cited by me 2:39 am April 14:
although the king had by fair words given them grounds to hope that their request should be complied with, yet by his letters he ordered the contrary, soon after expressly commanding, upon pain of his displeasure, to admit the new bishops immediately, and put them in possession of their bishoprics and incorporated abbeys, to hold the court of the inquisition in the places where it had been before, to obey and follow the decrees and ordinances of the Council of Trent, which in many articles are destructive of the privileges of the country.This being come to the knowledge of the people gave just occasion to great uneasiness and clamor among them, and lessened that good affection they had always borne toward the king and his predecessors. And, especially, seeing that he did not only seek to tyrannize over their persons and estates, but also over their consciences, for which they believed themselves accountable to God only.
--> Onlookers, take particular note that this official document of the founding of the Dutch repuiblic observes that freedom of conscience under God was the consensus view of the Calvinist Dutch people -- in the main taught and pastored by Calvinist preachers -- as at 1581.
--> This is very similar to the situation, 200 years later, in which the British bemoaned the impact of the "black regiment" of preachers, men who preached sermons that expounded the biblical teachings on liberty, as in the May 29, 1776 sermon long since excerpted from here, which anticipates in detail what we find in the US DOI of 6 weeks later. Indeed, Jefferson himself testified that the DOI was in large part a distillation of what the population thought and felt!
--> As for the issue of the Bible and liberty of consceince the plain force of both instructive example and the explicit NT teachings is plain, e.g. Ac 5:29 in context as the Apostles resisted the command of the Sanhedrin that they become silent:
AC 5:29 Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! . . ."AC 5:33 When [the Sanhedrin, i.e. the council of elders (i.e recognised leaders of the Jewish people, one of the roots of parliamentary systems of Government)] heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34 But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35 Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36 Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37 After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38 Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39 But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."
--> Observe carefully how Luke here exposes the danger of tyranny over the conscience,a nd answers tot he claim that the assumed, politically correct "truth" needs to be protected by the sword of the state: God is his ablest defender, so beware that you -- in ignorant zeal for a false or only partially correct opinion -- may find yourselves fighting God. That Calvin et al may have failed to heed this and many other similar contexts and counsels of Scripture is not the fault of the Bible. Nor is it fair or accurate to say that in the above I have not addressed this point.
--> It is fair comment for me to say that an inspection of the thread will rapidly reveal thatt he balance ont hemerits is not at all as you represent, given the key material facts excerpted here.
2] Gryph: if the anti-gay marriage amendment to the US Constitution were to pass, it would limit the freedom of local state governments to define marriage as they see fit, and as the citizens of that state desire. It limits freedom, (religous and otherwise) rather than protecting it.
--> THis is of course ignoring the basic facts of human biology, sexuality, and child rearing. "Liberating" a fish from the restraint of water kills it. In short, saying that a tail is a leg -- regardless of how many courts legislate on thematter, or even if legislatureaas and referenda so rule -- does not make a dog suddenly have five legs.
--> More seriously, you here need to address the foundation of rights, as they are historically and philosphically deeply rooted in JudaeoChristian worldview-shaped ethics, and in a way that evolutionary materialism-based worldviews soon run into trouble over.
--> Citing Holmes, on the is-ought gap:
However we may define the good, however well we may calculate consequences, to whatever extent we may or may not desire certain consequences, none of this of itself implies any obligation of command. That something is or will be does not imply that we ought to seek it. We can never derive an “ought” from a premised “is” unless the ought is somehow already contained in the premise . . . .R. M. Hare . . . raises the same point. Most theories, he argues, simply fail to account for the ought that commands us: subjectivism reduces imperatives to statements about subjective states, egoism and utilitarianism reduce them to statements about consequences, emotivism simply rejects them because they are not empirically verifiable, and determinism reduces them to causes rather than commands . . . .
Elizabeth Anscombe’s point is well made. We have a problem introducing the ought into ethics unless, as she argues, we are morally obligated by law – not a socially imposed law, ultimately, but divine law . . . . This is precisely the problem with modern ethical theory in the West . . . it has lost the binding force of divine commandments . . . .
If we admit that we all equally have the right to be treated as persons [best rooted in Creation order, i.e. let God define the person -- 45 million unborns plus Terri . . . ], then it follows that we have the duty to respect one another accordingly. Rights bring correlative duties: my rights . . . imply that you ought to respect these rights.
3] Mumon: as has been widely pointed out (say, by Isaac Asimov for those who just about have time for popular authors), the states of Israel and Judah were annhilated largely because the religious class held sway in those places.
--> I think a far better and more credible explantion [as opposed to the remarks of a Biochemist, science fiction writer and prominent atheist] is found here:
Deut 8:17 You may say to yourself, "My power and the strength of my hands have produced this wealth for me." 18 But remember the LORD your God, for it is he who gives you the ability to produce wealth, and so confirms his covenant, which he swore to your forefathers, as it is today.DT 8:19 If you ever forget the LORD your God and follow other gods and worship and bow down to them, I testify against you today that you will surely be destroyed. 20 Like the nations the LORD destroyed before you, so you will be destroyed for not obeying the LORD your God.
--> On that track record, I think the US needs to look very carefully at current trends, its attitudes to God and godliness, and its recent history.
4] In both the theocratic states of the Reformation and China large amounts of blood flowed as a result of a conflation of some religious (I count the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in with "religous" here) conferment with the very practical point that goverment should first serve the people, and should continue to do so, because that promotes responsiveness and stability.
--> First, the atheistic state counts as a rather interesting case of religion does it not: in short the attempt to secularise the US is in effect an establishment of the religion of secularism. Interesting how a self referential inconsistency comes back to bite . . . the snake tries to swallow itself.
--> More directly, I have already amply pointed out that the religious oppression that characterised both Roman and Protestant states in the early part of the C16, can hardly be blamed on the biblical model, and that the biblical framework in fact led to the rise of the state under God's acknowledged judgement [Cf US DOI and Locke with Judges 11 on Jepthah's appeal to the judgement of God] that recognised that rights come from the Creator and governments exist to protect these rights [Cf US DOI].
--> Finally, recognising that one rules under the Lordship of God our Creator and will account to him for justice -- thus the protection of rights -- is hardly a recipe for oppressive tyrannising over men's consciences, given say the instructive example of Gamaliel. [THe recent attacks on Mr Balir in the UK for acknowledging that accountability before Gos are in fact a capital example of the sort of well-poisoning rhetoric and mistrepresentations of theology, history and the Bible that are underlying much of the heat in this discourse.]
--> I think that Aristotle, in his The Rhetoric should get the last word:
Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker [ethos]; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind [pathos]; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [logos]. Persuasion is achieved by the speaker's personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible . . . Secondly, persuasion may come through the hearers, when the speech stirs their emotions. Our judgements when we are pleased and friendly are not the same as when we are pained and hostile . . . Thirdly, persuasion is effected through the speech itself when we have proved a truth or an apparent truth by means of the persuasive arguments suitable to the case in question . . . .[Cf discussion here.]
+++++++++++
Grace, open our eyes
Gordon
44
Gordon Mullings says:
--> THis is of course ignoring the basic facts of human biology, sexuality, and child rearing. "Liberating" a fish from the restraint of water kills it. In short, saying that a tail is a leg -- regardless of how many courts legislate on thematter, or even if legislatureaas and referenda so rule -- does not make a dog suddenly have five legs.
According to this assumption, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes have an inherently better marriage and are inherently better parents than say, Joe Carter's ex-wife and her partner. Care to guess which one's kid is going to be in therapy for the rest of their lives?
And incidentally, some dogs are indeed born each year with five legs instead of four. They do not cease being dogs. And they are just as worthy and capable of giving and receiving love as any other dog. Or human for that matter. And THAT, is a basic "fact" of biology.
All Hail Xenu!
posted on 04.20.2006 2:46 PM45
GM: "...the attempt to secularise the US is in effect an establishment of the religion of secularism."
This is utter nonsense, since secularism is not a religion, despite misguided attempts by some to define it as such.
secularism: noun; indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious consideration.
Thanks to Merriam-Webster for the foregoing definition.
Mullings's statement is particularly loathsome in that it seeks to establish that a state religion is inevitable, in that LACK of a state religion constitutes a state religion. Of course what follows is that the state religion should be determined by the majority. How convenient! I'm sure the Christians in Muslim countries take great comfort in the fact that their persecution, exclusion, and/or marginalization is justified by the demographics. And, of course, if the U.S. were ever to become a Muslim-majority nation, Mullings would surely not object to the imposition of Muslim law.
It's a good thing that Mullings is not allowed to change the definitions of words unilaterally. Secularism is not a religion, but an approach to government, the only religiously neutral one available. It allows for freedom of religion for folks like Mullings, and (relative) freedom from religion for folks like me. The problem with some evangelicals is that they feel their practice of their faith is inhibited when the government fails to support it.
posted on 04.20.2006 3:03 PM46
Patrick:
For example, if the anti-gay marriage amendment to the US Constitution were to pass, it would limit the freedom of local state governments to define marriage as they see fit, and as the citizens of that state desire. It limits freedom, (religous and otherwise) rather than protecting it.
This is one of the most disingenuous arguments I have ever heard. The states have already been robbed of their freedom to decide by corrupt leftist courts who think it is their prerogative to order states around as casually as they would order a pizza. The left's concern for "states rights" is quite selective. It is in fact the pleading of the states for relief from an out of control judiciary that is fueling the marriage amendment talk in the first place.
posted on 04.20.2006 4:08 PM47
Jeff writes: "The left's concern for "states rights" is quite selective."
As is the right's concern for "states rights." Conservatives in Washington have blocked or tried to block medical marijuana in California and euthanasia in Oregon. As I recall, the wording of the proposed anti-gay marriage amendment would not grant an exception for states that want to allow it.
posted on 04.20.2006 4:39 PM48
Jeff, once you depart from the literal meaning of 'theocracy,' I'm not sure that you or I are entitled to a corner on its non-literal meanings. Usage may not be definitive, but it must be accommodated in order to communicate. The usage which you find objectionable is inflammatory, but not, ipso facto, incorrect. In response to an opponent, you concede that 'regardless of who is in control [of government]' they "enforce their dogmatic beliefs at gunpoint [as per your critic]." I fail to see how you have escaped the sharp end of your own parsing: "The role of the theocratic leader is to play the role of both priest and king, implementing and enforcing divine laws." Democracy 'invites' the Christian to do this--without any guarantee of a monopoly of its power to be efficacious in the role (hence your objection to the definition of your critics). The critics discern the desire, if not the intent. The critics may also well succeed in redefining democracy to exclude the participation of some. Since the message some Christians proclaim is that a truly theocratic kingdom already exists, such a malign disenfranchisement may bring needed clarity to the relationship between citizens of the theocratic kingdom (as vessels of grace) and the kingdoms of this world (as instruments of God's wrath). Until then, any who grapple for the powers of this age must appear a threat to those who are, indeed, under wrath.
posted on 04.20.2006 7:05 PM49
Regarding the Dutch DOI:
Looking at the Protestant case liberty in context, a striking pattern emerges. Inevitably, those Protestants who argued for religious liberty were dissidents "protesting" the power that some dominant sect had over them.
What Gordon has not yet come to terms with is that once such Protestants got in power and became dominant, i.e., Calvin in Geneva, the Puritans in Mass., they din't give a rat's ass about "liberty of conscience," but rather sought to erect "Christian Commonwealths" that attempted to incorporate the Bible in its entirely into the civil laws.
And the results were disastrous. A literal interpretation of the Bible was used to ruthlessly persecute dissident sects, to burn heretics and witches at the stake, and to otherwise behave like absolute theocratic tyrants. (And in Luther's case to spout the most vile anti-Semitism).
I have a hard time seeing how the Dutch system can be understood as "Calvinist" when Calvin's Geneva -- his "Christian Commonwealth" -- was the furthest thing from a paradise for tolerance (ask Servetus, whom Calvin had burned at the stake simply for speaking his Unitarian mind), and used the Bible to justify such actions!
Rather, the Dutch system was better understood as a Protestant nation under oppression asserting a "right" to liberty as dissenters (and using the Bible to argue their case; indeed the Bible can be interpreted in a variety of ways to justify almost any position).
In the US, the first example of a Protestant in a position of dominance who voluntarily erected a government that recognized religious liberty was Roger Williams's colony he founded -- Rhode Island. And he understood the Bible to respect government recognized religious liberty only after he concluded that governments were in principle secular entities, where the less government had to do with the Christian religion and vice versa, the better.
The problem for many on the religious right, like Gordon,(the "Christian Nation" folks) is that we often hear them state that governments' duty is to uphold God's law. This is precisely the line of thinking that the pro-liberty Protestants' tradition rejected in order to make the case that the Bible and religious liberty are compatible.
It's true that, according to Founding theory, governments must recognize God-given unalienable rights. But the most unalienable of rights -- the rights of conscience -- grant individuals the right to worship not just the God of the Bible, but in Jefferson's and Madison's words, no God or twenty Gods. And that is explicitly forbidden by the First Commandment; and elsewhere the Old Testament demands execution for worship (or at least encouring others to worship) false Gods. Therefore, Nature's God grants men an unalienable right to do what the God of the Bible forbids.
Certainly it's possible to reconcile the natural rights theory of the Declaration with what's written in the Bible. But the first beginning step in doing so is to recognize that the unalienable right to liberty includes the right to do things explicitly forbidden by the Bible, indeed that we have an unalienable liberty right to do things which merit the death penalty in the Bible.
posted on 04.20.2006 7:37 PM50
All:
A clipoff morning . . . is it those windows keys?
Okay, on points of key relevance . . .
I will focus on JR, noting that the implications atre all too relevant for others such as RR. When I gfet more time I will come back:
1] Looking at the Protestant case liberty in context, a striking pattern emerges. Inevitably, those Protestants who argued for religious liberty were dissidents "protesting" the power that some dominant sect had over them. What Gordon has not yet come to terms with is that once such Protestants got in power and became dominant . . . they din't give a rat's ass about "liberty of conscience," but rather sought to erect "Christian Commonwealths" that attempted to incorporate the Bible in its entirely into the civil laws . . . . A literal interpretation of the Bible was used to ruthlessly persecute dissident sects, to burn heretics and witches at the stake, and to otherwise behave like absolute theocratic tyrants. (And in Luther's case to spout the most vile anti-Semitism).
--> First and foremost, JR reveals that he has simply not seriously read or interacted witht he facts and what has already been said, here nad in the previous thread. For instance, I have long since pointed out that many protestants failed to understand that the same argument against Mystery Babylon in unholy alliance with the tryannical state could also apply to them, i.e the civil authority cannot claim a right to tyranise over the conscience, as Gamaliel said in effect too.
--> However, it has been clearly shown that there is a line from the Bible in the hands of the common man to the VIndicae to the Dutch DOI and thence tot he rise of modern liberty. Onlookers should note on this that JR has simply ignred not only the previous thread but also the excerpt above -- that should give a context for understadning RR's claim that JR has rebutted what I have to say.
2] A literal interpretation of the Bible was used to ruthlessly persecute dissident sects, to burn heretics and witches at the stake, and to otherwise behave like absolute theocratic tyrants. (And in Luther's case to spout the most vile anti-Semitism).
--> It is precisely failure to take the grammatico-historico-contextual sense of the scriptures seriously on the matter that led Calvin et al into grave errors.
--> On theocracy, I note here that the key principle at stake is that Government is under God, as the new commenter notes -- and that establishement and liberty are not inevitable enemies [the Dutch Reformed church being a case in point fromthose days -- note the issue of establishemnent of local state churches and liberty of dissenting groups was also embedded int he AMerican founding].
--> SImilarly, having a so-called separation of Church and state does not secure you from having the possibility that movements that are religious in their roots [which includes evolutionary materialism] -- cf Joe's earlier thread on this -- can become quasi churches and established, indeed they can become the latest disguise of Mystery Babylon. THe case of that quaker librarian in Ohio looks like that is illustrative.
3] I have a hard time seeing how the Dutch system can be understood as "Calvinist" when Calvin's Geneva -- his "Christian Commonwealth" -- was the furthest thing from a paradise for tolerance
--> You simply have failed to do your homework. The reformation had three major streams:t he Lutheran in Germany and Scandinavia, the Calvinist in Switzwerland, France, Holland and Scotland, and hte hodge-podge Anglicans.
--> Cf Abraham Kuyper's L P Stone Lecture 1898 on the case of the Calvinist contribution to liberty, with an emphasis on his native Holland. He was hte last great calcinist statesman-theologian, and for 40 years the history of Hollanfd was largely his biography, culminating in being prime minister.
--> You have a choice here, between the easily established facts of history and your prejudices.
4] The problem for many on the religious right, like Gordon,(the "Christian Nation" folks) is that we often hear them state that governments' duty is to uphold God's law. This is precisely the line of thinking that the pro-liberty Protestants' tradition rejected in order to make the case that the Bible and religious liberty are compatible.
--> Of course, again, wilfull rejection of stubborn facts already cited. FOr instance, let us consider Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity in the citation in Locke's 2nd essay on Govt, Ch 2 Sec 5, on what is the law of nature and of GOd that is to be enforced by the state:
. . . if I cannot but wish to receive good, even as much at every man's hands, as any man can wish unto his own soul, how should I look to have any part of my desire herein satisfied, unless myself be careful to satisfy the like desire which is undoubtedly in other men . . . my desire, therefore, to be loved of my equals in Nature, as much as possible may be, imposeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to themward fully the like affection. From which relation of equality between ourselves and them that are as ourselves, what several rules and canons natural reason hath drawn for direction of life no man is ignorant.
--> In short, the state under God is responsible for justice, which gives to each his due, in turn implicating that the Creator has endowed us with certain unalienable rights, inclusive of course of conscience, thence the claim that others are mrally bound to respect these rights.
--> THe distortion of my position under a claim that I am one of hte CHristian Nation folks is simply unjust and unwarranted. Here is what I have said and linked on the matter, in my online note:
Today, many think that biblically based Christian Faith is an enemy of liberty; indeed, we often see that "fundamentalist" Christians are spoken of in the same contempt-filled breath as radical islamist terrorists, as if the essential point is that religion and terrorism or tyranny go hand in hand. . . . . In fact, this is grossly (even inexcusably) unjust, for the difference between Evangelical Christians and Al Qaeda's plane-hijacking suicide bombers is obvious and vast; but the underlying misperceptions and hostility reflect what we have not learned about the roots of modern democratic self government and the idea-sources and motivations of the liberation struggles that we benefit from today. To correct that potentially dangerous misunderstanding, we need to first go back to the first major Reformation work on liberation struggles, the 1579 anonymous book, Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, by Junius Brutus [i.e. Phillipe Duplessis-Mornay, a Hugenot French soldier and Diplomat], the subsequent and derivative 1581 Dutch Declaration of Independence, and the stream of further thought and state documents that flowed from that well-spring, including most notably Samuel Rutherford's Lex Rex, John Locke's 2nd Treatise of Civil Government, and the US founding documents, especially the 1776 American Declaration of Independence . . . . while plainly there are many streams of thought and movements across history that have contributed to the rise of such self-government by free peoples as we enjoy today, we must now trace the stream of key biblically rooted ideas and that of the historic liberation struggles that flowed from those ideas, materially and massively contributing to the US DOI of 1776 and the resulting new framework of government, and thus modern democracy.
--> I have repeatedly linked and drawn attention tot his, but again JR has simply refused to let the facts get inthe way of his opinions and assumptions.
5] It's true that, according to Founding theory, governments must recognize God-given unalienable rights. But the most unalienable of rights -- the rights of conscience -- grant individuals the right to worship not just the God of the Bible, but in Jefferson's and Madison's words, no God or twenty Gods. And that is explicitly forbidden by the First Commandment
--> Here we must point outt hat the spiritual challenge of who do you worship is not to be conflated witht he civil situation in the covenantal state of Israel then projected onto other nations and the NT situation or the wider world.
--> Indeed, for instance my online note is set int he context of Daniel's service int he court of Nebuchadnezzatrr etc. As Duplesis Mornay observed and as cited but ignored, from Jesus, there is a difference in jurisdiction between Caesar and God, and the means for enforvcement in this world.
--> Issues of justice aside, the ordinary state properly has nor interest in theological matters, and indeed, that is exactly an instructive example cited in Acts:
AC 18:12 While Gallio was proconsul of Achaia, the Jews made a united attack on Paul and brought him into court. 13 "This man," they charged, "is persuading the people to worship God in ways contrary to the law."AC 18:14 Just as Paul was about to speak, Gallio said to the Jews, "If you Jews were making a complaint about some misdemeanor or serious crime, it would be reasonable for me to listen to you. 15 But since it involves questions about words and names and your own law--settle the matter yourselves. I will not be a judge of such things." 16 So he had them ejected from the court.
--> This decision was critical in the work of Paul over the next decade and more, due to Gallio's position. In Geneva, a simple citation of htis byt he civil authority should have stopped the trial of Servetus insofar as it had to do witht heological matters. SImilarly, it should have stopped the Jones court recently over in Dover -- calling theologically shaped opinions within an evolutioary materialist system do not change them into non-religious matters!
--> God is his ablest defender, and let the court of free discussion decide the case, not Mystery Babylon in whatever disguise in unholy alliance with Tyranny!
6] Nature's God grants men an unalienable right to do what the God of the Bible forbids. Certainly it's possible to reconcile the natural rights theory of the Declaration with what's written in the Bible. But the first beginning step in doing so is to recognize that the unalienable right to liberty includes the right to do things explicitly forbidden by the Bible, indeed that we have an unalienable liberty right to do things which merit the death penalty in the Bible.
--> GOd gives us a moral freedom to worship whom we will, within the context that we have within us a testimony from him that as Locke observes at the beginning of the Essay on Human Understanfding:
Men have reason to be well satisfied with what God hath thought fit for them, since he hath given them (as St. Peter says[cf. 2 Pet 1:2 - 4, cf 1 - 11]) pana pros zoen kaieusebeian, whatsoever is necessary for the conveniences of life and information of virtue; and has put within the reach of their discovery, the comfortable provision for this life, and the way that leads to a better. How short soever their knowledge may come of an universal or perfect comprehension of whatsoever is, it yet secures their great concernments, that they have light enough to lead them to the knowledge of their Maker, and the sight of their own duties . . . It will be no excuse to an idle and untoward servant [i.e. of God, cf Rom 1 and 2], who would not attend his business by candle light, to plead that he had not broad sunshine. The Candle that is set up in us [Prov 20:27] shines bright enough for all our purposes.
TO God we will accout for how we exeetrt hat capacity:
Rom 2: 6 God "will give to each person according to what he has done." 7 To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. 8 But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. 9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; 10 but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 11 For God does not show favoritism.
--> We have a right to freedom under God, but to him we will account for how we use that freedom. But that is GOd's jurisdiction. Under God, the state's jurisdiction is to do good especially by upholding and defending justice, which is rooted in the duty to respect the image God has placed in us. The state's job is not to decide on disputable theological or atheological opinions -- Judge Jones, kindly note here! -- but to enforce and defend justice.
--> In that regard, I should note that doctrines tending to promote "might makes right" -- as is highly evident in the parallel thread this morning -- should be exposed aby all well thinking people as incoherent and unjust in their tendency and history. This, EO has provided a good forum for.
--> So the issue is not opinons and who one worships, but the insistent calumny that has tried to suppress the truth on the roots of modern liberty and has sought to unjustly tag biblecal Christians as threats to liberty and justice for all. THat is shameful and should be desisted from.
++++++++
Grace, open our minds
Gordon
PS RR: Go here to see what happens witht he definition of ewhat is religious or not as soon as one recognises that one has to include under that rubtric cases that are neither theistic nor litugical. When a religious view becomes institutionally influential, it can give into the temptration of oppression -- and note Dewey's vision that his teachers were going to be the priestsof a new faith on this. In our time, secularist humanism is hte latest guise for Mystery Babylon. Okay, later I will be back to make up for the clipped off.
posted on 04.21.2006 8:23 AM51
"Go here to see what happens witht he definition of ewhat is religious or not as soon as one recognises that one has to include under that rubtric cases that are neither theistic nor litugical."
1. I have already been there, and I have already registered my objections to that overly broad definition.
2. Your wording, as is often the case, is dramatically slanted. When other people do this, you call it begging the question. Despite your assertion to the contrary, one does not have "to include under that rubric cases that are neither theistic nor litugical", at least where the First Amendment is concerned, and probably not for any practical purpose. My suspicions are raised any time conservative Christians seek to introduce modified definitions, because I am well aware of their incremental approach, which they apply evangelically and legislatively.
posted on 04.21.2006 2:06 PM52
All:
As I promised, notes on points raised, replacing what was clipped off.
1] Gryph: According to this assumption, Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes have an inherently better marriage and are inherently better parents than say, Joe Carter's ex-wife and her partner . . . . some dogs are indeed born each year with five legs instead of four. They do not cease being dogs. And they are just as worthy and capable of giving and receiving love as any other dog.
- > Simply put, Cruise and Holmes are man and wife, reflecting the natural, creation order. If they then go about a foolish distortion of how man and wife should behave,t hat says nothing tot he legitimacy of the creation order itself.
- > That some dogs are born with a fifth LEG is irrelevant to the attempt to decree by saying magic words in a courthouse or legislature or even a referendum, that a TAIL is a leg. And, that was Lincoln's point, as JC aptly cited.
- -> In the case that is under consideration, homosexuals are not inthemselves incapable of love, nor havet ey ceased to be human. Only, the attempts to "redefine" marriage by saying magic words, reflexct a disordered view of what is the nature of human sexuality and the associated requisites of child birth and child rearing.
2] RR: secularism is not a religion, despite misguided attempts by some to define it as such. secularism: noun; indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious consideration. Thanks to Merriam-Webster for the foregoing definition.
- - > Here we first see an attempt to divert the discussion, for the core point is as was aptly summed up by JC in his earlier thread on the subject:
In order to define the term in such a way that it is neither too broad nor too narrow, we must list all of the features that are true of all religious beliefs and true only of religious beliefs.* While this may appear to be an obvious point, we are often surprised to find what has been pruned when a definition is stripped to its essential components . . . . Having excluded gods and worship from our definition [by way of Brahmin Hinduism, Theravada Buddhism as examples of (a) religion, but withoug (b) gods, and (c) liturgical worship], we are left with very few features that all religious beliefs could possibly share in common. As Roy Clouser asks, "What common element can be found in the biblical idea of God in Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in the Hindu idea of Brahman-Atman, in the idea of Dharmakaya in Mahayana Buddhism, and the idea of the Tao in Taoism?" The answer, he argues, is that every religious tradition considers something or other as divine and that all of them have a common denominator in the status of the divinity itself.While many religions disagree on what is divine, they all agree on what it means to be divine. The divine is simply whatever is unconditionally, nondependently real . . . . Clouser uses this common element to formulate a precise definition: A belief is a religious belief provided that it is (1) a belief in something as divine or (2) a belief about how to stand in proper relation to the divine, where (3) something is believed to be divine provided it is held to be unconditionally nondependent.
The conclusion we can draw from this definition is that everyone holds, consciously or unconsciously, a religious belief.
- - > Thence, we see that when a set of worldview linked beliefs has an identifiable divine element, then finds systematic and institutional representation, we may properly see it as being of sufficiently religious character that the matter of its being a quasi church within the meaning of the issue of establishment of a religion applies. (As indeed has come up before the USSC, and has issued in the conclusion that secular humanism is in fact just such a religion in the relevant sense.) On this, for evolutionary materialism-anchored secular humanism, we should take pause to see Dewey's remarks that teachers are in effect priests of a new religion; i.e. education systems can become captive to a new religious - htough in theis case non-liturgical and non theological [in fact a theoilogical] - establishment dedicated tot he proposition that matter in some form or other is the ultimate independent reality that is therefore in effect sovereign.. And, as we shall just now see, for excellent reason, for as JB notes overnight over in the other parallel thread:
[Humanist Manifesto I:] In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. ... While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age.
- - > In short, secular humanism has in it sufficient of the characteristics of a religion to give one pause.
3] Mullings's statement is particularly loathsome in that it seeks to establish that a state religion is inevitable, in that LACK of a state religion constitutes a state religion. Of course what follows is that the state religion should be determined by the majority . . . . It's a good thing that Mullings is not allowed to change the definitions of words unilaterally. Secularism is not a religion, but an approach to government, the only religiously neutral one available
- - > What is particularly loathsome in this excerpt is that RR wishes to project the claim that secularism is "neutral" regarding theistic religion, when in fact we are seeing just he opposite in action on the ground: the "neutrality" is simply a pretence, as the tolerance and neutrality extend only as far as others go along with the agendas of the secular humanists. (Then, as RR tries to do in his comments, they proceed to blame the victim for complaining about this.) Not far behind is the inference that I am single-handedly and question-beggingly attempting to impose a definition, given that I had pointed to the earlier discussion that shows just why this is not exactly a new point. [And, a point where the USSC apparently agrees with me to boot!]
- - > Further to this, RR here shows that he is failing to reckon with the point that law is always ethics-relative and worldview-relative. What has been demonstrably happening on the ground is that the elites of the USA and other major western powers have for some decades now been increasingly dominated by secular humanists, and are trying to impose their views on law and morality on the public, twisting constitutions, laws and powers of courts and parliaments in the process.
- - > As to the establishment of Islamist religion, I would find it just as objectionable as the establishment of secularist religion, once there is tyranny over the conscience. There is, sadly, a long islamic history on that.
.
4] Teague: the message some Christians proclaim is that a truly theocratic kingdom already exists, such a malign disenfranchisement may bring needed clarity to the relationship between citizens of the theocratic kingdom (as vessels of grace) and the kingdoms of this world (as instruments of God's wrath). Until then, any who grapple for the powers of this age must appear a threat to those who are, indeed, under wrath.
- - > First, welcome, and we need to hear more from you!
- - > Now you here raise an important point, on the Lordship of Christ. Here, we need to hear Paul:
COL 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.COL 1:21 Once you were alienated from God