Blog For Theocracy

Holy Week is always a time for anti-Christian antagonists to come to the forefront. As the Church celebrates the Resurrected Lord – especially in a year like this when East and West, through the quirks of their differing calendar calculations, unite on the same date – those who oppose Him are stirred into action.

Thanks to my principal combox Nancy Pelosi supporter, I came across “Blog Against Theocracy” – one of those we’ll-all-blog-about-the-same-thing efforts. This one is specifically scheduled for yesterday, today, and tomorrow – the holiest time in the Christian year. I love it.

Their stated aim:

No religious discrimination.
PRO End-of-Life Care (no more Terri Schiavo travesties)
Reproductive health decisions made by individuals, not religious “majorities”
Democracy not Theocracy
Academic Integrity (like, a rock is as old as it is, not as old as the Bible says)
Sound Science (good bye so-called “intelligent” design)
Respect for ALL families (based on love, not sexual orientation. Hellooooo.)
And finally,
The right to worship, OR NOT.

Or in plain language: pro-euthanasia, pro-abortion, pro-Darwinian presuppositional philosophy of science, pro-pansexualism, pro-atheism.

The silly thing is that “Democracy not Theocracy”. After all, we already have the former and you can’t escape the latter. Theocracy – the rule by God – it here to stay. It was here in the beginning (regardless of how long ago that was) and it will be here until the end (regardless of how long from now that will be). And that, my friend, is what really pisses them off. It always has. As the Psalmist noted:

Why do the nations rage,
And the people plot a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
And the rulers take counsel together,
Against the LORD and against His Anointed,
“Let us break Their bonds in pieces
And cast away Their cords from us.”

He who sits in the heavens shall laugh;
The Lord shall hold them in derision.
Then He shall speak to them in His wrath,
And distress them in His deep displeasure:
“Yet I have set My King
On My holy hill of Zion.”

On Holy Saturday anti-Christian bloggers may gloat like those who thought they had done away the Man who went around talking about the Kingdom of God. Every time I read a blog post that claims to triumph over Christianity, I just think about the stone rolled in front of the Tomb. They may follow the advice of Pilate, “Make it as secure as you know how.” They may try to seal it as best they can.

You know what? Christians don’t have to all get together and blog in favour of the power and sovereign authority of a mighty God. On Sunday, two billion of us will be proclaiming it, just as we have done throughout the ages.

Blog Against Theocracy may rail against Christians having a say in the marketplace of democracy equal to their numbers, but they are fighting the mere shadow of Theocracy. After all, Jesus said, “The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, ‘See here!’ or ‘See there!’ For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you.”

The Blog Against Theocracy crowd are not in favour of democracy. They lie. They are undemocratic about their promotion of Darwinism. A poll conducted by CBS (hardly a bastion of conservative Christianity) in 2004 showed that 65% of all Americans and 56% of those voting for John Kerry wanted creationism taught in schools.

Those who support Blog Against Theocracy can’t afford democracy. They are killing themselves off. They promote murdering the old and infirm. They promote murdering the unborn. They promote non-reproductive sexual couplings. In the population game, they lose.

There is only one Winner. “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!”


10 Responses to Blog For Theocracy

  1. Ed Darrell says:

    Last time we tried theocracy over here it was Baptists who were hanged for practicing adult baptism, in Massachusetts, and jailed just for not being the state religion in Virginia. You can be for theocracy all you want, but you have no guarantee that the theocrats will be of your sect.

    I don’t like to gamble with my civil liberties or my faith.

  2. Dave says:

    Ed, Ed, Ed,

    Once again you’ve missed the point entirely. Theocracy isn’t an option. Just like democracy is not rule by democrats, but rather rule by the demos, theocracy isn’t rule by theists, it’s rule by the Theos. It has nothing to do with your civil liberties.

    You’re just opposed to democracy when the majority of the demos wants to incorporate their faith in the Theos into every aspect of life.

    BTW, I know they hanged a few Quakers in Massachusetts, but I can’t find any reference to Baptists swing from the end of a rope.

  3. Ed Darrell says:

    Six Baptists were hanged. More famously, several were banished to the wilderness, which was one of the execution options. Roger Williams, one of the more famous cases, made it safely to Long Island Sound, and founded Rhode Island.

    The Baptists in jail, or “gaol” as Madison spelled it in his famous letter, were in Virginia.

    It’s history. You could look it up.

  4. Ed Darrell says:

    Oh, and in the U.S., who rules has everything to do with civil liberties. Demos is only partially correct — we’re a republic. Theos would be incorrect. Theos is between each person and God.

  5. Traveling Man says:

    I’m afraid you have misconstrued the purpose of the exercise.

    What I and others are doing is objecting en-masse to the establishment of a state religion, and the ability of one group of people to make moral decisions for others; to supplant the Constitution with a code of laws founded on Deuteronomy.

    You have said that we already have rule by God. We do not. God does not dictate to in the way related in Genisis. We are ruled by people. I and those of us participating in bolgs against Theocracy want to keep it that way.

    Another misconception you seem to have is that the movement is anti-Christian. It is not. None of us wants to stop the practice of Christianity in America. None of us wants to burn your churches, and none of us want to deprive you of your civil rights in the way that those who subscribe to the writings of R.J. Rushdoony want to.

    If you, or any other American wishes to impose limits on your behavior beyond what is called for in the Constitution, you are certainly free to do so.

    We want to be free not to.

  6. Dave says:

    Ed, thanks for the information about the Baptists. I knew about the banishments, but not the hangings. As you are still a bit vague about the who and when of the hangings, I’ll attempt to look it up.

    As for the democracy vs. republic thing, I’ve blogged about that at length.

    And once again, you’ve missed my point. Rule by Theos (God) is not between each person and God. God is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. He rules all things. “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it”. This is not based upon anyone’s belief. God is not dependent upon anyone believing in Him. He is transcendent. He is self-existent. It has nothing to do with civil liberties or any form of human government.

    Travelling Man, I have not misconstrued the purpose of the exercise, but merely seen beyond it.

    There is no establishment of a state religion just because the laws of the land have their source in religious values. The Constitution and the essence of the Deuteronomic code existed side-by-side for decades and decades. It is only recently that it has been suggested that there is somehow some sort of incompatability between the two, particularly with regard to the specific moral/social issues in the stated aims of the exercise.

    In other words, you are simply trying to supplant the intent of the framers of the Constitution with an interpretation that is in conflict with the moral values legislatively enacted throughout this country until the 1960s.

    As to your comments about rule by God, I refer you to the remarks supra.

    As someone would studied the works of RJ Rushdoony very thoroughly in college, I think you have misconstrued him. If you are suggesting that Rushdoony wanted to end the killing of unborn children or of the old and infirm or restore the prohibitions on sexual perversions that strike at the very heart of the family as it was instituted by God and universally recognized until the very recent post-modern era, then yes. But these are not historic civil rights envisioned by the framers of the Constitution. They are not even envisioned by the applicability of those same civil rights to every individual in the aftermath of the Peculiar Institution.

    All legislation by its very nature is the making of moral decisions – not necessarily decisions about your hot-button issues, but morality (the pronouncing of what is right and wrong) nonetheless.

    The purpose of the Constitution has never been to impose or not impose limits on behaviour other than the behaviour of the government in carrying out its functions. It merely serves as a framework to allow the various branches of government to do their jobs. They do their jobs when the electorate choose members of both the Executive and Legislative branches who reflect their values and morality. That is representative democracy.

  7. Ed Darrell says:

    And once again, you’ve missed my point. Rule by Theos (God) is not between each person and God. God is the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. He rules all things. “The earth is the Lord’s, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it”. This is not based upon anyone’s belief. God is not dependent upon anyone believing in Him. He is transcendent. He is self-existent. It has nothing to do with civil liberties or any form of human government.

    Ah, well, that settles it, then. There is no need to put “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, since it is assumed. There is no need for public prayer, since God already rules. There is no need to contest Islam, or Judaism, or Jainism, or secularism in any context, since God already rules.

    So, then, why are the whiners complaining that God is being ‘taken out of the public square?’ Why is the Texas legislature entertaining an amendment to put “under God” into the Texas pledge? Why are the creationists whining that their religious views are not honored by everyone? If God already rules, why is it necessary to brand everything? Is God afraid FILA or FUBU will overtake Him in brand identity?

    Jefferson, Madison, Mason, Franklin, Washington and others were quite specific that there is no religious foundation to the Constitution and the laws that flow from it. The Supreme Court was most specific that there is no Christian assumption in our common law, either (see the Girard will case). As Jefferson so aptly put it, religious freedom in this nation is for everyone — the Hindu, the Moslem, the infidel of any faith.

    That’s what scared Rushdooney, I think. I think he thought that, in a fair fight, Christianity couldn’t win.

    I think Rushdooney was way to skeptical on the attractions of Christianity, and I think anyone who takes his writings on government seriously needs serious study of real law, real cases, and real life, to get into reality.

  8. Ed Darrell says:

    Sorry; shoulda been “way too skeptical.”

  9. Dave says:

    Dare I say that yet once again, you’ve missed the point. Yes, God rules regardless of what we do, regardless of what country we live in, regardless of whether we recognise Him. And the end of all days, every knee will bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    This does not remove the responsibility God gave us for the world as His stewards. To say that God’s Kingship eliminated the needs for all of the things you mentioned is the same as saying it has eliminated the need to love your neighbour or care for the poor.

    Theocracy says nothing can happen without God allowing it – including the exercise of the will by man. Theocracy says everyone must stand before God and account for himself.

    Democracy (if that’s what the bloggers against theocracy really want) says that if the electorate want Christian values in their society they are entitled to them. They are entitled to vote for them lobby for them, protest for them, and in every way express their views. They are entitled to put into practice that “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” (Proverbs 14:34)

    To refer to religious foundations in the Constitution is again, a non sequiter. It is not in the purpose of the Constitution to do so. The refer to the religious beliefs of the founding fathers is often a matter of proof-texting.

    Rushdoony wasn’t scared of anything. With an Calvinistic belief in the sovereignty of God he had no need to be. To suggest such a thing is to unfamiliar with his writings and his theology and to substitute these for armchair psychology.

    Rushdoony was very clear in his distinction between religious conversion and the conformity of civil government to Biblical principles. Whilst I would no longer consider myself a Reconstructionist, it has nothing to do with the fact that I have studied real law (including both a seminar in and research paper on Church and State), dealt with real cases, have lived a real life (including work as a political writer and lobbyist). I’m pretty well in touch with reality.

    What you have failed to address is the fact that the aim of the Blog Against Theocracy is to address issues that historically have never been seen to be incompatible with the Constitution.

  10. Pingback: Rethinking Reconstructionism « David’s Daily Diversions

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: