Home > Community Forum > The Hysteria over Theocracy

July 27, 2006

The Hysteria over Theocracy

by Jesus Politics

Much has been made in the last two years of the threat of theocracy to our democratic traditions. Many secular and religious progressives have been alerted to and disturbed by the growing Christian supremacist or Christian nationalist movement in the US. Some of these alarms about the Christian Right have been sounded right here at the community forum of the Christian Alliance for Progress. To see how some conservatives are reacting to these alarms, it may be of interest to read Ross Douthat's review (published in First Things) of the recent "theocratic" literature. Some excerpts:

This is a paranoid moment in American politics. A host of conspiracies haunt our national imagination [ ]

Perhaps the strangest of these strange stories, though, is the notion that twenty-first-century America is slouching toward theocracy. [ ]

But the fear of theocracy has become a defining panic of the Bush era, reaching a fever pitch in the weeks after the 2004 election, when a host of commentators seized on polls suggesting that “moral values” had pushed the president over the top—and found in that data point a harbinger of Gilead.[ ]

The term theocrat has become a commonplace, employed by bomb-throwing columnists, otherwise-sensible reporters, and “centrist” Republicans such as Connecticut’s Christopher Shays, who recently complained that the GOP was becoming the “party of theocracy.” And now the specter of a looming Khomeini’ism has migrated into the realm of pop sociology, producing a spate of books with titles like The Baptizing of America, Kingdom Coming, Thy Kingdom Come—and, inevitably, American Theocracy, the Kevin Phillips jeremiad that shot to the top of the New York Times bestseller list this spring.[ ]

Goldberg’s approach, like that of all the anti-theocrat authors, is to assume that the most extreme manifestation of religious conservatism must, by definition, be its most authentic expression. So she analyzes contemporary evangelicalism without once mentioning Rick Warren, Joel Osteen, or any other prominent pop theologian, and her description of mega-churches—at once “temples of religious nationalism” and “tightly organized right-wing political machines”—suggests a fairly thin acquaintance with the variegated world of entrepreneurial Protestantism. [ ]

Never mind, because the Rushdoony-and-Rapture theory’s implausibility is crucial to its appeal. Just as a plausible account of American politics in the 1950s would have left no room for the fantasies of the John Birch Society, a reasonable account of the Religious Right would have to accept the possibility that religious conservatives are fairly normal American political actors, seeking to further their agenda through normal political channels. [ ]

But if you’re committed to the notion that religious conservatives represent an existential threat to democratic government, you need a broader definition of theocracy to convey your sense of impending doom. Which is why the anti-theocrats often suggest that it doesn’t take mullahs, an established church, or a Reconstructionist ban on adultery to make a theocracy. All you need are politicians who invoke religion and apply Christian principles to public policy.

If that’s all it takes to make a theocracy, then these writers are correct: Contemporary America is run by theocrats. Of course, by that measure, so was the America of every previous era. The United States has always been at once a secular republic and a religious nation, reflexively libertarian and fiercely pious, and this tension has been working itself out in our politics for more than two hundred years. It’s often been a mixed blessing, giving us Prohibition as well as abolition, Jesse Jackson as well as Reinhold Niebuhr, the obsession with free silver as well as the zeal for civil rights. But there’s no way to give an account of American history without grappling with this tension—and with the role played, for good and ill and sometimes both, by religious reformers from Jonathan Edwards all the way down to Jerry Falwell.

Yet this is a history that the anti-theocrats seem determined to reject. The Christian Right isn’t just bad for America because of its right-wing misapplication of religious faith, they suggest—it’s bad for America because any application of faith to politics is inevitably poisonous, intolerant, and illiberal. [ ]

In addition to casting religious conservatives as mullahs, proto-fascists, and agents of American decline, this strict-separationist interpretation of world history frees the anti-theocrats from the messy business of actually arguing with their opponents. From sex education and government support for religious charities to stem cells and abortion, it’s enough to call something “faith-based” and dismiss it. Indeed, reading through the anti-theocrat literature, one gets the sense that the surest way to judge if a political idea is wrong, dangerous, or antidemocratic is to tally up the number of religious people who support it. [ ]

A Christian is allowed to entertain such doubts, in other words, and allowed to mix religion and politics in support of sweeping social reforms— but only if those reforms are safely identified with the political Left, and with the interests of the Democratic party. [ ]

No religion-infused movement can afford to be used by a political party as a way to gain votes and nothing more. That’s how the Democrats have used the Al Sharpton / Jesse Jackson–era civil rights establishment and, sadly, how the GOP has often used the Religious Right. But this is less of a danger to the nation’s self-government than to the integrity of religious witness. [ ]

What all these observers point out, and what the anti-theocrats ignore, is that the religious polarization of American politics runs in both directions. The Republican party has become more religious because the Democrats became self-consciously secular, and the turning point wasn’t the 1992 or the 2000 elections but the putsch of 1972, when secularist delegates—to quote Phillips, quoting Layman—suddenly “constituted the largest ‘religious’ bloc among Democratic delegates.” [ ]

So the rise of the Religious Right, and the growing “religion gap” that Phillips describes but fails to understand, aren’t new things in American history but a reaction to a new thing: to an old political party newly dependent on a bloc of voters who reject the role that religion has traditionally played in American political life. The hysteria over theocracy, in turn, represents an attempt to rewrite the history of the United States to suit these voters’ prejudices, by setting a year zero somewhere around 1970 and casting everything that’s happened since as a battle between progress and atavism, reason and fundamentalism, the Enlightenment and the medieval dark. [ ]

The tragedy is that so many religious people have gone along with this revisionism—out of sympathy for the lifestyle liberalism of the secular Left, or out of disdain for the crudity and anti-intellectualism of some religious conservatives, or out of embarrassment in the face of a culture that sneers at anyone who takes their faith too seriously. In the process, they have become everything they claim to oppose: bigoted and hysterical, apocalyptic and self-righteous. What’s worse, they have corrupted themselves for the sake of a politics that cares nothing for their faith—that would tame it to suit the needs of secular society or do away with it entirely. [ ]

Garry Wills is half-right: There is no single Christian politics, and no movement can claim to have arrived at the perfect marriage of religious faith and political action. Christianity is too otherworldly for that, and the world too fallen. But this doesn’t free believers from the obligation to strive in political affairs, as they strive in all things, to do what God would have them do. And the moments when God’s will is inscrutable, or glimpsed only through a glass, darkly, are the moments when good-faith arguments between believers ought to bear the greatest fruit.

In today’s America, these arguments are constantly taking place—over issues ranging from abortion to foreign policy; over the potential, and potential limits, of interfaith cooperation; over the past and future of the Religious Right. But they are increasingly drowned out by cries of “theocracy, theocracy, theocracy” and by a zeal, among ostensibly religious intellectuals, to read their fellow believers out of public life and sell their birthright for the blessing of the New York Times.

Posted by Jesus Politics at July 27, 2006 05:26 AM

Comments

Hi JP

Right on! And for leftist Christians like me there is a double danger in the excessive anti-so-called-theocracy movement. Firstly by declaring religious motives for poltical beliefs to be inherently unprogressive we drive off a lot of religious people who would otherwise support progressive causes. They won't come near us because we condemn the very thing that motivates their politics. Secondly a lot of secular leftists are discouraged from finding God because they believe that God-belief leads to oppression and bigotry.

Objectively there is no tension between progressive politics and the Gospel of Christ, but the cultural meme in todays society tells us that those two are sworn enemies of each other. We progressive Christians have to educate both sides of the phoney war.

your friend
Keith

Posted by: keith johnson at July 27, 2006 11:53 PM

Amen Keith

Posted by: Tracie at July 29, 2006 01:13 PM

Let's start here: I am a Christian. I believe that Jesus is Lord and Savior.

And I do find myself menaced by US theocrats. A very substantial part of the Christian right seeks to use the law to declare me less than human because I am a lesbian. The use of the mechanisms of the law to impose real material disabilities on people who violate one's religious beliefs is what theocrats do.

Though I would say they are conmen when they appropriate "theo" to describe their dictatorial polity.

Posted by: janinsanfran at July 29, 2006 09:08 PM

I'm with janinsanfran on this one. I'm a Christian minister and member of a congregation that believes in same-sex marriage, but the Right wants to outlaw this. They've already made sure in my state, Kentucky, that any holy union ceremony has no legal standing and then made same-sex marriage unconstitutional so that it would be harder to change this discrimination. Now, they seek to criminalize holy unions that are PURELY religious ceremonies, thereby infringing on our free exercise of religion.
Recently the Kentucky public schools changed the designations B.C. and A.D. ("Before Christ" and "Anno Domini"--Latin for "Year of Our Lord") to the more inclusive B.C.E. and C.E. ("Before the Common Era" and "Common Era") which has become common among historians and religion scholars (reflecting the fact that Jewish and Christian scholars now often collaborate and the growing pluralismof our society). Well, the Kentucky State Legislature has forced them to return to the B.C. & A.D. designations (at great expense of changing all the textbooks twice in 5 years!) because the "politically correct" designations "discriminate" against Christians.

Now, the Right is trying to restrict those who work for religious liberty and church/state separation by passing legislation (H.R. 2679) that would force those who bring church-state suits to pay all their own court fees and forbid attorney fees--even if they win.

What are we to call such moves if not "theocratic?"

Posted by: Michael the Leveller at July 29, 2006 10:05 PM

Hi Janinsanfran

Very good point about attaching the prefix "theo" to right wing politics. An actual theocracy, as in run by God himself? No problem. The problem is that what is officially called theocracy is more like "priestocracy" where the religiously powerful rule over the rest of us. Christians cannot support such a thing. But neither should we buy into what amounts to a right wing talking point that being pro-God is being anti-progressive; when secularists promote ideas like that they play into the right wing's hands.

your friend
Keith

Posted by: keith johnson at July 30, 2006 06:07 AM

Amen Keith! It is constant source of annoyance to me that, thanks to the "bad rap" that the neocon "christian" movement has given to Christianity in general in this nation, I often find Liberals who are either distrustul of me, or even outright antagonistic toward me because I am a religious Brother. They have come to see Christianity as "the enemy", and have no concept that what they've bought into is a fear of something which isn't actually Christianity to begin with, but rather its dark, evil mirror-universe twin. It's like with the whole issue of the word "Humanist". The concept of Humanism is a very beautiful thing, and in no way precludes a belief in God, yet because of neoconservative propaganda, "Humanism" has been demonized to a rediculous degree. Our whole society is running around hysterical on a whole plethora of issues, an impending theocracy among them, which is rather a nice diversion for those who seek to establish a PLUTOCRACY, which, actually, has to some degree already been established in the United States.

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Posted by: Brother Damien at August 1, 2006 04:12 PM

It is not the Christian Right it is the Religious right Being a Christian is the designation of people who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and that is not just liberal that is very liberal and that is what you have done for the least of us and a record is kept. Revalation 22: 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. Just because some one says I am a Christian does not make you a Christian; so why address them as Christians if they are not. If they want to follow the teachings of the big 3 Pat, Jerry and James then they are religious and not Christian.

Posted by: Monte Schlarman at August 1, 2006 09:05 PM

Br. Damien... I run into something very similar at school.

Because of the fundamentalist preachers, I've had to remind people I knew quite well more than once that I am a Christian. They forget that the "Christianity" shoved in their faces isn't (at least in my opinion) the real thing. The idea is that believing in Christ means you have to reject science or anything intelligent, that you cannot have any fun, and that you are a hate filled idiot. Sadly, that is the sort of people who present themselves as Christians fairly often around the campus.

I cringe every time I hear that the "jackleg preachers" are in the area- or that the university has some fundamentalist group holding a big to-do on campus. I'd LOVE to have a meeting on campus that was composed of progressive Christians!! That might show people that there ARE Christians who aren't out to offend everyone or force everyone to live a life that isn't right for them.

Aaahhh... a funny sermon that leaves people feeling better and more positive towards God and each other!!! Now THAT would be a pleasant (and unusual) change!!!

Posted by: Bob Bowers at August 2, 2006 01:32 AM

Amen to that Bob. The Good News is supposed to be just that, and not leave a bitter, vile taste in one's mouth. On the topic of "what sort of idiocy might one expect from a fundamentalist "christian" theocracy", here in Kentucky the news is very strange. Up near the Ohio/Kentucky border they're preparing for the opening of a 25 MILLION dollar Creationism museum, in which the age of the Earth will be stated as being around 10,000 years, and dinosaurs will be shown cavorting with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. No, sadly, I'm not making this up. It's going to be very detailed (well, 25 million will buy you a lot), with animatronic dinosaurs, etc. I have GOT to see this thing when they open it. I don't know, it seems to me that when anyone rejects the use of reason and intelligence that was given them by Almighty God that that is a form of blasphemy. That these creationist folks can just throw out all of the scientific data that has been backed-up and refined again and again over hundreds of years is astounding, and all to show strict adherence to a story written by people that could scarcely have even begun to understand how life on Earth actually developed, and who were writing of God's Creation in a manner which people of that day would have been able to relate to. If this type of wooly thinking is what neocon christians espouse, then perhaps it's a good thing that they're opening these kinds of museums, to better highlight the vast differences between a THINKING Christianity and a caveman version (speaking of which I wonder how they'll explain cro-magnons, neanderthals, etc. in this absurd exhibit-- although the thought of a Tyrannosaurus playfully hopping about Eden is priceless I must say).

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Posted by: Brother Damien at August 2, 2006 02:53 PM

SIGH. Well, I remember a scripture being thrown in our faces by an assemblies preacher when it was mentioned about people having a brain- "The whole head of man is sick" or something like that. His argument was that people weren't supposed to think, just believe.

It is now obvious to me that they don't want people to think.. They want people to just OBEY!!!!!!!

Yeah... obey them (and in my opinion serve the devil), or obey God?

My last class before graduation is one called "Fantastic Archaeology". In this class I had to create a website on a topic- I chose biblical archaeology. The title is: Biblical Archaeology, the Good, the Bad, and the Bad Science. In doing the research for this website, I learned a whole lot- that makes a literal interpretation of the Bible to be a recent, FLAWED understanding. I've also learned a whole lot about the historicity of Israel.

The big thing I found out was that ideology and greed are the two main problems in Biblical archaeology. Strangely, I figured that fundamentalists would be putting pressure on archaeologists to only "prove" the bible- but they tend to stay far away from the real archaeologists- and the few that claim to have made finds haven't done anything real.

With such overwhelming evidence against a literal interpretation of scriptures, it is interesting that people would keep that up. I suspect it is a fear factor- it's easy to try to live life according to a "fixed" set of rules and regulations- it is hard to live it otherwise (trying to live it according to God's wisdom and what I call the Law of Love).

I would argue that living otherwise is far more Christian than living according to laws. That requires a person to think, pray, and try their best to place themselves in the other's shoes before they make any decisions.

Once I've made my presentation on the topic, I'll post a link to the website here, so if anyone is interested they could check it out.

Posted by: Bob Bowers at August 2, 2006 03:10 PM

According to evolutionists, how long have humans been on the earth?

Posted by: Gary at August 2, 2006 04:28 PM

Bob wrote: "With such overwhelming evidence against a literal interpretation of scriptures. . ."

Friends, let's not fall into this trap. The media (with some cooperation by some fundamentalists themselves) have portrayed the difference between fundamentalism and other forms of Christianity as a debate between "those who read the Bible literally," and those who don't. But this isn't true as I tried to argue elsewhere on CAP. Very often "libera" biblical scholars take some passages of Scripture very literally and evangelicals and even fundamentalists all use non-literal interpretation at times.

We are all selectively literal. The question is when to be what and, if something is interpreted x or y, the question is still "what authority does this have?" Those are questions of epistemology (How do we know what we claim to know?), including theories of revelation and inspiration; questions of hermeneutics (the science and art of interpreting anything), questions of authority in the formulation of doctrinal, moral or other decisions in the Church. The history of different answers to those questions IS the history of Christianity from one perspective. But it has never been a question of one party always taking something "literally," and others never doing so.

As before, I recommend highly (especially to overworked university students who cannot find time for longer histories) Robert M. Grant and David Tracy,_A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible_.

Posted by: Michael the Leveller at August 2, 2006 04:38 PM

Au contraire. Homosexuals are the ones in American society who are seeking to stifle debate through intimidation, phoney cooked psychological studies and "hate" crimes laws.

Less than human. Homosexuality is a BEHAVIOR, just like drinking, smoking, fornication, etc. Why then is it bigotry to oppose homosexual acts and not say smoking? Hate the smoke, love the smoker.
Hate the drug abuse, love the drug abuser.

What gives any homosexually oriented person the right to tell me that I have to accept their sexual passions as normal, healthy and not sinful?

Homosexual acts, like fornication, adultery, bestiality, etc., are always sins in the eyes of God.

I have to love the so-called "progressive" theologians who twist the Bible by using archaic definitions of words, such as porneia, which meant prostitution in Attic Greek but meant all unlawful sexual activity in Palestinian Koine Greek.
http://www.robgagnon.net

Sort of like the difference in the meaning of the word bum in American vs. British English.

Tell me, where did Jesus abrogate Leviticus 18:21?
What verse? Jesus didn't say a whole lot about a lot of things. He never said anything about gambling, drinking too much, so using Gay "Christian" logic those things are okay.

It takes a person without a lot of logical faculties to buy into the arguments of the homosexual denial movement.

Posted by: John at August 2, 2006 04:46 PM

Many of you are mistaking traditional policies as theocratic. If same-sex marriage being illegal is a test of theocracy, then America has always been a theocracy. You demand we change the laws to reflect your unbiblical beliefs, and when we refuse, you accuse us of creating a theocracy!

Can any of you think clearly enough to see the absurdity in that?

Posted by: Gary at August 2, 2006 06:00 PM

Actually, homosexuality is something people are born with. I've yet to meet a homosexual man or woman that said they had "chosen" to be homosexual. Indeed I'm not sure how one COULD choose such a thing, anymore than you can "choose" to like certain foods. Now the argument against that argument seems to be that then you can say child molesters or serial killers are "born that way", but that is a specious argument in the extreme. Child molesters (the majority of whom, by the way, are adult men who prey on little girls, not little boys) and serial killers combined only make up a tiny fraction of the population, whereas a "conservative" estimate (if you'll pardon the pun) puts the number of gay men and lesbians in the U.S. at anywhere between 12 to 28 million. Even assuming it's as low as 12 million (which I very much doubt) that is FAR, FAR too high a number for this condition to be an aberration. In other words, it is suggested by numbers alone that this is a congenital phenomenon.

As far as the other list of sins, fornication is covered in The Ten Commandments, and The Ten Commandments WERE upheld by Jesus. Smoking is never listed as a sin, nor is drugs. In fact, alcohol is a drug, and is found in wine, and The Bible more than suggests that not only did Jesus' disciples drink wine regularly, so did The Master Himself. Is you suggestion that there is something wrong with the consumption of alcohol when Jesus enjoyed the occassional glass of wine? As for adultery, it is additionally addressed by Jesus Himself, who said that unless adultery had taken place people didn't need to be divorcing. As I've pointed out before, I don't see fundamentalists/conservatives picketing Washington for a ban on heterosexual divorce except in cases of adultery, and yet this is something Jesus actually addressed, as opposed to homosexuality, which in four gospels we hear nothing about. Bestiality also falls under the category of sexual aberration, and only a tiny percentage of individuals engage in that activity, so comparing bestiality to homosexuality once again is a specious and rediculous argument, not to mention the fact that both child molestation and bestiality involve non-consensual sex, whereas homosexuality is in general sexual relations between two consenting adults.

As far as the whole translational issue, I leave that to individuals who are better versed in ancient languages than I, but I have found more than ample evidence to suggest that there is a good point in some of these arguments.

And finally, regarding the reference to Leviticus, that is all well and good if you also observe all of the OTHER Levitical Laws. Ask an Orthodox Rabbi, and he will tell you that you cannot "pick and choose" which Levitical edicts you will follow. If you want to quote the Levitical passage regarding homosexuality, remember two things...#1. You must also then refrain from eating pork, certain types of shellfish, and observe strict sexual practices regarding a woman's menstrual period, as well as not wearing certain types of fabrics with others, among MANY other instructions, and #2. That Jesus Himself proved that Levitical Law was flawed by directly going against it (He stopped the crowd from stoning the prostitute--which was part of "The Law" and believed to be The Will of God--He dismissed strict hand-washing rituals as unnecessary, He allowed His disciples to pick grain on the sabbath, He healed on the sabbath, He touched lepers, He associated with the "unclean" of society, and chastised The Pharisees with being obsessed over "The Letter of The Law", but having no concept whatsoever of The Spirit of The Law). Jesus also made it clear that The Great Commandment superceded ALL of the other laws ("on these two Great Commandments hang ALL (that's ALL) of The Law and The Prophets too"). As far as gambling and drinking, I'm not sure that it is made clear that either of these is an actual "sin", depending of course on just how much one indulges in them. As I said, Jesus Himself drank wine, as did His disciples, and although gambling in excess is certainly not a wise thing, it is not specifically prohibited. Paul (in Ephesians 4:28) seems to make a statement against it certainly, and there can be no doubt that gambling is the result of greed, which is one of the most basic sins. I think there is a confusion with some as to the issue of "coveting", and an argument can be made there I'm sure. Well, I've never had the desire to gamble, so quite honestly it's never been something I've given a huge amount of consideration too, I'll freely admit. But, interestingly enough, you have a nation (the U.S.) full of conservative "christian" bankers who are regularly practicing usury, and an army of neocon "christians" who will defend such practices as "good business". There are TWELVE injunctions against usury in The Bible, and one very strong one in The Gospel of Thomas. Idolatry is also a sin, yet you will find that the vast majority of conservative "christians" advocate a law preventing "desecration" of the flag, which in effect would make the flag a "holy or sacred" object treated to an idolatrous degree of worship.

So, to sum up, we have things that are very clearly defined as sin throughout The Bible that fundamentalist/neocon "christians" are just ignoring because it suits their purposes (usury, divorce outside of adultery, idolatry, GREED, war-mongering, apathy toward the poor and sick, etc.). What they are choosing to concentrate on, rather than The Beatitudes and Matthew 25:32-46, are things which indeed were either never addressed by Jesus OR were part of Laws or Doctrines that Jesus actually dismissed as flawed (the Levitical Code). Some people make the argument that "God intended this, or God intended that". Beyond the very obvious problem of claiming to know The Mind of God, there is the problem of things like men shaving the hair off of their faces, flying in airplanes, or prolonging life by medicines or medical treatments, as well as a few thousand other examples. Perhaps it is best to refrain from judgement (or claiming to know "The Will of God" like The Pharisees did), unless of course you don't have a log in your own eye.

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Posted by: Brother Damien at August 2, 2006 06:26 PM

Thanks for the tip, Michael. I do know that some scriptures are (and have been) taken literally, and others have not.

I oversimplified the situation (and considering how complex it is, that is EASY to do!)

Posted by: Bob Bowers at August 2, 2006 10:55 PM

My friend Darrell Pursifal (blogging as Dr. Platypus) is just now beginning a series of posts on biblical interpretation on his blog.
Here's a link to the first one which begins with traditional Jewish approaches to the Hebrew Bible and works its way toward Medieval Christian purposes. I suspect future installments will deal with the Reformers' approaches and the rise of critical methods, etc.
http://pursiful.com/?p=30

Posted by: Michael the Leveller at August 3, 2006 03:01 PM

Gary, Eddie,

Guys, check out y2t little tirades against Catholics and anyone of any religion on the "Progressive Faith" thread. I'm especially interested in what Rev. Eddie Hughes, as a Conservative Christian Minister would have to say to this person.

Posted by: Frank Frey at August 3, 2006 08:15 PM

Thanks, Michael! I'm looking forward to further installments.

Posted by: Bob Bowers at August 3, 2006 10:45 PM

Hi Janinsanfran

your friend
Keith

Posted by: keith johnson at July 30, 2006 06:07 AM

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Posted by: Brother Damien at August 1, 2006 04:12 PM

Posted by: Monte Schlarman at August 1, 2006 09:05 PM

Br. Damien... I run into something very similar at school.

Aaahhh... a funny sermon that leaves people feeling better and more positive towards God and each other!!! Now THAT would be a pleasant (and unusual) change!!!

Posted by: Bob Bowers at August 2, 2006 01:32 AM

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien

Posted by: Brother Damien at August 2, 2006 02:53 PM

It is now obvious to me that they don't want people to think.. They want people to just OBEY!!!!!!!

Yeah... obey them (and in my opinion serve the devil), or obey God?

Once I've made my presentation on the topic, I'll post a link to the website here, so if anyone is interested they could check it out.

Posted by: Bob Bowers at August 2, 2006 03:10 PM

According to evolutionists, how long have humans been on the earth?

Posted by: Gary at August 2, 2006 04:28 PM

Bob wrote: "With such overwhelming evidence against a literal interpretation of scriptures. . ."

Posted by: Michael the Leveller at August 2, 2006 04:38 PM

Au contraire. Homosexuals are the ones in American society who are seeking to stifle debate through intimidation, phoney cooked psychological studies and "hate" crimes laws.

What gives any homosexually oriented person the right to tell me that I have to accept their sexual passions as normal, healthy and not sinful?

Homosexual acts, like fornication, adultery, bestiality, etc., are always sins in the eyes of God.

Sort of like the difference in the meaning of the word bum in American vs. British English.

It takes a person without a lot of logical faculties to buy into the arguments of the homosexual denial movement.

Posted by: John at August 2, 2006 04:46 PM

Can any of you think clearly enough to see the absurdity in that?

Posted by: Gary at August 2, 2006 06:00 PM

Peace and Blessings.

Br. Damien,I read your posts and have written similar things to the same effect.It's not so much that I think liberals rail aginst Christianity as it is the tyranny of the right to impose it's version of Christianity on everyone else , to impose their views of the bible on everyone else. This is why there is the concer about theocracy.PAt Robertson once made the statement that he didn't have to be nice to the episcopalians and methodists and such, he quite frankly called them the anti-christ. It's the religious rights intolerance of other Christians who don't have the world or dominionist views we have to be concerned about The religious right is aattack on everything and everyone including Christianity freddom of relgion which is guaranteed by our constitutiont, they want a one world order according to their interpretation of scriptures and they have declared war on everything and everyone who does not agree with them. Let's get this straight.I've actually seen the videos were they are indoctrinating young kids to do battle "with the enemy" This is war they proclaim. I don't think most liberalss have a problem with faith and God but they do have a problem with the ditatorial attitude of the right, who wants to impose their way and rule on everyone. They even attack and criticise working mothers.What does that say? Even single parenting. Even using birth control or contraceptives. Please do not be mislead by their intentions. It's not Christianity that we are against but the tyranny of the right.They want laws to favor them (Tax exemptions, millions being given to them in federal funds while secular institutions are being discriminated aginst) They have a very fatalistic view of the world and even attack environmentalism.(Basically many of them attack laws that protect the environment and think they are ridiculous,God will provide and we have limitless resources) Science has proven otherwise, it is showing how the depletion of natural resources is detrimental to the earth.Can this possibly be good for America and our children's future.

Posted by: A.G. at June 23, 2007 05:30 PM

I'm just going to repost this , I didn't take the time to edit my mistakes. But to show I'm not ignorant or a really bad speller , here is the revised copy.
Br. Damien,I read your posts and have written similar things to the same effect.In my view,it's not so much that I think liberals rail against Christianity as it is the tyranny of the right to impose it's version of Christianity on everyone else , to impose their views of the bible on everyone else. This is why there is the concern about theocracy.

Pat Robertson once made the statement that he didn't have to be nice to the episcopalians and methodists and such, he quite frankly called them the anti-christ. It's the religious rights intolerance of other Christians who don't have the same world view or dominionist views we have to be concerned about as well. The religious right is attacking everything and everyone including Christianity .

Freedom of religion which is guaranteed by our constitution is apparently not what they are for, they want a one world order according to their interpretation of scriptures and they have declared war on everything and everyone who does not agree with them. Let's get this straight.I've actually seen the videos were they are indoctrinating young kids to do battle "with the enemy" ."This is war!!" They proclaim. I don't think most liberals have a problem with faith and God but they do have a problem with the dictatorial attitude of the right,who quite literally want to take over as Pat Robertson once said.

They even attack and criticise working mothers.What does that say? Even single parenting. Even using birth control or contraceptives. Please do not be misled by their intentions or rhetoric. It's not Christianity that we are against but the tyranny of the right.They want laws(And have had legislation passed in their favor) to favor them (Tax exemptions, millions being given to them in federal funds while secular institutions are being discriminated against) They have a very fatalistic view of the world because they believe in the apocalypse and even attack environmentalism.(Basically many of them attack laws that protect the environment and think they are ridiculous,God will provide and we have limitless resources)They have sucessfully had their cronies in the republican party actually undermine laws that protect the environment.

Science has proven otherwise, it is showing how the depletion of natural resources is detrimental to the earth.Many of them just don't give a "damn" they think Jesus is coming back to take THEM up to heaven in the rapture, so why even care what happens to the environment. They even feel it is their right and perogative to do what they want to to it.(Reference: PFAW,People for the American way website)
Can this possibly be good for America and our children's future? Most people are ignorant about the extent and power they have in the government and just what kind of damage they are doing.( They also operate behind the scenes and in stealth so Americans won't know what they are up to)

They favor big business over workers rights, unions and have tried to undermine laws that protect families like the family leave act.Does anyone care about this? Do we really want people like that making decisions for the rest of us?The right is worng for America and American families, they aren't pro family values they are anti-family values.

Posted by: A.G. at June 23, 2007 05:54 PM

I'm going to post this:
10 Reasons Why the Religious Right Is Not Pro-Family
by Rob Boston

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 19, Number 1.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"America is involved in a Second Civil War," screams the cover copy on James Dobson and Gary Bauer's 1990 book Children at Risk: The Battle for the Hearts and Minds of Our Kids. "On one side are those who defend family, faith and traditional values. On the other side are those who aggressively reject any hint of tradition or religion and want a society based on secular values."

Randy Tate, Executive Director of Pat Robertson's Christian Coalition, warned in August that if Coalition members failed to vote, "the anti-family, anti-Christian Left ... which undermines the marriage-based family" would run America.

It seems as if every other word out of the mouths of Religious Right leaders these days is "family." Dobson calls his group "Focus on the Family." Bauer, his Washington sycophant, heads the Family Research Council. Religious Right leaders constantly claim to be carrying forth the banner for "family values."

Having monitored the Religious Right for 12 years, I am convinced that the Religious Right is many things, but pro-family isn't one of them. The banner that the Religious Right hoists is for narrow, reactionary, right-wing politics, not family values.

With that thought in mind, here are ten reasons why the Religious Right is not "pro-family":

1. Ignorance Is Not Pro-Family.
Parents who really care about children want them to grow up well educated and ready for the challenges of an increasingly technological society speeding toward the next century. Yet the Religious Right, through its constant advocacy of creationism, would have children learn Bible stories in place of real science. Thanks to their meddling, many public schools are afraid to teach evolution, and biology textbooks give the subject scant attention. As a result, an entire generation of public schoolchildren may grow up lacking an understanding of the principles underpinning modern biological sciences. Such ignorance cannot fail to have widespread and dangerous repercussions in the fields of medicine and research.

Furthermore, Religious Right activists bash public education incessantly, yet they have constantly stood in the way of efforts at innovative school reform. Instead, they champion outdated techniques such as rote drilling and mindless memorization.

2. Denying Children Access To Sex Education Is Not Pro-Family.
Concerned parents realize that children are curious about how their bodies work and need accurate, age-appropriate information about the human reproductive system. Yet, thanks to Religious Right pressure, many public schools have replaced sex education with fear-based "abstinence only" programs that insult young people's intelligence and give them virtually no useful information.

One Religious Right video I saw a few years ago depicted an actress dressed as a nurse lecturing a classroom full of high schoolers on the importance of abstinence. One boy raised his hand and asked what would happen if he engaged in premarital sex anyway. The "nurse" sighed and replied, "Well, I guess you'll die." Real pro-family parents don't deny the importance of stressing abstinence to young people, but they also know that today's teenagers are sophisticated enough to see right through simplistic, fear-based messages.

3. Censorship Is Not Pro-Family.
Most parents want their children to grow up with a love of reading. But in public education, the Religious Right does all it can to disrupt this by constantly challenging works of literature. At a certain age, young people need books that are compelling and interesting, books that are more than simply high school versions of "See Dick run." Yet Religious Right organizations have challenged novels like The Catcher in the Rye, Of Mice and Men, Go Tell It on the Mountain, and a host of others. Not satisfied with having their own children excused from reading these modern classics, the Religious Right has sought to have them completely taken out of schools, denying access to other people's children as well.

In recent years, Religious Right groups have stepped up their attacks on America's libraries, insisting that all "controversial," "anti-religious," or "pro-gay" materials be placed on restricted access or removed altogether. The Religious Right has even attacked children's books that dare to portray nontraditional families in a positive light.

4. Religious Coercion And Intolerance Are Not Pro-Family.
Religious Right groups conceived and advocated for the odious and misnamed "Religious Freedom Amendment," a constitutional amendment that would have removed the separation of church and state from the Bill of Rights and replaced it with religious majoritarianism and heavy-handed coercion. Real pro-family parents recognize the equal rights of all children in public schools, no matter what their religious or philosophical beliefs and reject all forms of coercion in the schools. Contrast this to the Religious Right view, which holds that the majority should be able to impose its religion on everyone else. How would you like your child to be the only first grader sent out into the hall every morning during prayer and Bible reading because you're not Christian? Doing something like that to an impressionable youngster is child abuse, not practicing family values.

5. Denigrating Some Families Because They Are Different From Yours Is Not Pro-Family.
Real family values advocates recognize that child rearing is difficult and that all families need support. The Religious Right's view is that only heterosexual, two-parent families are worthy of support. Single-parents are criticized, and gay parents are routinely vilified.

Religious Right groups would deny gay people the right to adopt, even if that means children must languish in institutional care. Some groups go so far as to support denying gays access to their own children. In Virginia, several Religious Right organizations supported a court ruling denying a lesbian mother custody of her own child, for no other reason than her homosexuality. Real family values means realizing that people who think or live differently than you can be good parents too. The Religious Right has always been too immature and intolerant to recognize this.

6. The Philosophy Of "The Ends Justifies The Means" Is Not Pro-Family.
In the political sphere, Religious Right groups will do anything to win, including smear its opponents, distort their records, lie, and violate federal election laws. Real family values proponents struggle to teach their children ethical values, including those of fair play and honesty. Leaders and members of the Christian Coalition have the gall to accuse the group's opponents of being "anti-family" when it's their actions that have dragged our political system further into the gutter.

7. Hatred Is Not Pro-Family.
No parent in his or her right mind would teach a child to hate. Yet the Religious Right's rhetoric toward its perceived enemies is laced with hatred and intolerance and has that effect. Gay people, liberals, the nonreligious, pro-choice Americans, advocates of women's rights, and others have all been subjected to vicious verbal assaults and name-calling by Religious Right organizations. Real pro-family Americans realize that they should strive to avoid saying things they would not want their own children to repeat. Children exposed to Religious Right rhetoric could not help but learn to hate and fear those targeted by these organizations.

8. Hating America Is Not Pro-Family.
Real pro-family parents teach their children that our nation, while it has often fallen short of its lofty ideals, strives to be a good country where people are treated with justice and fairness. They recognize the occasional shortcomings of our political and economic systems and urge children to work to correct injustices. The Religious Right's rhetoric increasingly attacks and vilifies America. Many groups assert that our government is no longer legitimate because of court rulings they dislike, going so far as to flirt with approving of armed rebellion. This extreme view does nothing but give intellectual aid and comfort to the "hate America" crowd, exemplified by violent militias and other radical anti-government activists.

9. Ignoring Children's Needs Is Not Pro-Family.
The Religious Right is obsessed with children, but only "unborn" ones. While they constantly assail legal abortion, Religious Right groups have done virtually nothing to improve the lot of American children across the board. These organizations never lobby for better health care for poor children or seek to improve the circumstances of poor families. Robertson once attacked Head Start, one of the most effective programs for helping poor children get a decent education, and he has been a vociferous critic of welfare, even though children are the primary recipients of many welfare programs. Robertson also advocates turning education over to "free market" forces, which would all but guarantee no access to decent education for the poor. Many Religious Right groups, notably Dobson's Focus on the Family, actually advocate violence toward children. Dobson is a vocal proponent of corporal punishment, despite the fact that numerous studies have shown that striking children is ineffective and actually fosters anti-social behavior.

10. Attacking Working Moms And Making Them Feel Guilty Is Not Pro-Family.
Real family values advocates support all mothers, whether they work outside the home or not. The real pro-family position recognizes that many mothers today are conflicted about working outside the home and that some do so because of financial necessity, others because they choose not to withdraw entirely from the workforce. Religious Right groups seek to make working moms feel guilty, yet they have done nothing to help make America's business climate friendlier toward working mothers. In fact, when family needs and big business wants collide, Religious Right groups usually side with big business. Many opposed 1993's Family and Medical Leave Act, which requires companies to give parents time off to tend to sick family members, holding that it would harm the nation's business climate.

On the issues that really are "pro-family," such as affordable health care for children, creating quality, safe public schools, or ensuring access to affordable, safe day care, the Religious Right has either been silent or has served as obstructionists. In the place of these issues, the Religious Right has substituted its own agenda, which includes creationism and mandatory worship programs or coercive prayer in public schools, censorship, an end to legal abortion, and mean-spirited attacks on gay people and others who serve as targets of their hate. They can call it "pro-family" if they want, but plenty of evidence, including plain old-fashioned common sense, would seem to indicate otherwise.

Posted by: A.G. at June 23, 2007 05:59 PM

Also remember that all our public officials take a sworn statement to defend and uphold the constitution. When they make that oath, should they go against it? Separation of church and state exist for one reason.Our founding fathers knew & were familiar with the oppression of the church and the monarchy in England. They put the clauses in constitution to protect religious freedom ,but they wanted to avoid the same circumstances in England to happen here in governing. They were against religious tyranny not freedom of religion. Please be clear on this. The constitution and separation of church and state are not anti-God. (Remember the first amendment, freedom of speech and religion) Don't let anyone fool you into thinking otherwise.

Posted by: A.G. at June 23, 2007 06:21 PM

July 27, 2006

The Hysteria over Theocracy

by Jesus Politics

Comments

Post a comment