What is Theocracy?

Well, the BATS are back at it again this Easter.

You might recall that last Easter, a group of secularist bloggers started a blogswarm to "Blog Against Theocracy." At first I assumed they would be blogging against the ancient nation of Israel, or perhaps some Muslim countries, but I quickly realized they were blogging against something that didn't exist in America and wasn't being worked for in America...yet they wanted people to believe it was.

I use the term BATS because the whole concept of "Blogging Against Theocracy" in a country where there has never been theocracy, is no theocracy, and is no move to institute theocracy is quite silly. Thus, BATS: Blogging Against Theocracy Silliness.

This group of misguided souls believes that any influence of religious faith in the public square constitutes "theocracy." They believe theocracy is manifested in things like teaching creationism, defending the human life of disabled people like Terri Schiavo, defending unborn children, maintaining the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, and any expression of faith in the public square or acknowledgement of the Christian heritage of America.

And though the group claimed they have nothing against Christianity, they chose to have this "Blog Against Theocracy" on Easter, the most sacred holiday in Christianity.

Then they had another on Independence Day, the day this nation was founded by a Christian people who recognized certain truths:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness

And these founders did so

with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence

And now, for the second Easter in a row, they again "Blog Against Theocracy." If this is an indication that they bear no ill will toward Christianity, I would hate to see their definition of hostility."

While carrying on this activity at Easter is highly disrespectful of the 82% of Americans who identify with Christianity, still, I welcome the opportunity to address such misconceptions and distortions of the role of religion in America.

As we did last year, Dakota Voice and others will stand against this error to set the record straight. If error is allowed to stand unchallenged, it becomes accepted as truth. The things against which the BATS rail(a) do not constitute theocracy, (b) do not violate the Constitution, and (c) are perfectly reasonable in our free society, and necessary to it's good health and maintenance.

But before we begin to examine some of these fallacious assumptions and point to the truth, we should examine exactly what "theocracy" is so that we have a proper understanding of the subject matter.

A "theocracy" is defined as "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided."

"Immediate" is defined as "acting or being without the intervention of another object, cause, or agency" or "present to the mind independently of other states or factors."

Therefore, a theocracy would have to be the government of a state by divine guidance or those regarded as divinely guided (i.e. a pastor, priest or other holy figure), which has no other consideration or object than obedience to a deity. In other words, their foremost and overriding concern must be that the commands of the deity are adhered to.

The Encarta Encyclopedia refers to "theocracy" with the Greek root of the word theokratia, meaning “government by a god”. As examples it refers to Old Testament Israel, Muslim communities, and modern-day Iran.

Wikipedia also sheds light on the meaning of "theocracy" and provides several examples. The United States is not found among them.

Since in the United States our leaders are elected by a majority vote of the people, there are no appointments of holy figures to ensure religious doctrine is adhered to. Further, most do not even come from an officially religious background.

The oath of office taken by United States leaders also indicates that their primary objective is not to ensure compliance with religious directives. Instead, it states that their primary concern and obligation is to respect and implement our United States Constitution.

Consider the oath of office taken by congressmen:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Note that their first obligation is to "support and defend the Constitution," and to be true to the Constitution and hold allegiance to it. There is no reference of allegiance to a religious deity or code or creed. The only reference to divinity in the oath is where the oath is affirmed with an appeal for help from God in carrying out that oath, and an implicit accountability before God if the oath-taker breaks the oath.

The president takes his oath as prescribed by Article II Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And since George Washington added "So help me God," that tradition has been carried on by U.S. presidents.

Again, you will note that the highest priority of the president is to carry out the duties of his office and safeguard the U.S. Constitution. Other than the same appeal to God for help, there is no hint of theocracy.

We have seen theocracies in world history, and there are theocracies in the world now, primarily in the Muslim world.

At the end of the day, there has never been a theocracy in America, despite America having been a far more religious culture in the past than it is today. In fact, the farther back you go, the more the character of our culture was overtly Christian. Yet you find no theocracy.

And today you find no theocracy. Our government is not run by pastors and priests, nor is anyone advocating it be run by pastors and priests. Nor do we see anyone wanting to do away with the Constitution and replace it with the Holy Bible.

We do, however, see a number of people who feel threatened by Christian values and the Christian worldview. We see many people who would rather the Christian faith remain within the walls of the church and never escape into the "real world" Monday-Saturday.

They want to live their lives the way they want without ever being confronted when they're wrong. Being rebuked when you're wrong offends, but there is no right not-to-be-offended in the Constitution.

They want unhindered freedom to build a secular world where God, the Bible and Christians have no relevance or influence. The Constitution provides no such right; if secularists want such a world, they should work for it the way every policy group does--and do so without resorting to the fake boogeyman of "theocracy" fear mongering.

Several of the writers at Dakota Voice will spend some of their precious Easter time this weekend, again refuting the implication that the Christian influence of individual citizens somehow constitutes a violation of the doctrine of "separation of church and state" or constitutes "theocracy."

Additionally, some other blogs, also concerned about the encroachment of secularism and the silencing of faith will join us this weekend. As they post their contributions, we will alert our readers; they will likely do the same with other blog posts for their readers. All posts from the group will also be listed at "Blogging Against Secularism."

The blogs joining us to earnestly contend for the faith are:

Ft. Hard Knox

Sibby Online

Ron's Musings

Voices Carry

To all of you, Dakota Voice is grateful to partner with you!

Blogging Against Theocracy: Gone BATS Part II

The BATS are at it again.

I refer to the secularists who had a "Blogging Against Theocracy" blogswarm last Easter weekend. They of course insisted they had nothing against religion, despite the fact that they chose to rail against an imaginary theocracy movement in America on the most holy Christian holiday. Others and I answered their errors, though.

Now they have chosen, coincidentally, I'm sure, to have another BAT on Independence Day, the holiday commemorating the day a bunch of Christians formally recognized that all men were "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights," and "appeal[ed] to the Supreme Judge of the world," and stated their reliance on the "protection of Divine Providence" as they declared independence from England.

These "Blogging Against Theocracy" shadow boxers are of course wrong in practically every aspect of their complaint: there never has been a theocracy in America, no one (except perhaps some radical Muslims) is trying to institute a theocracy in America, and hopefully there never will be a theocracy in America.

These misguided souls believe things like creation science, defense of the weak against euthanasia, opposition to killing the unborn, defense of one-man-one-woman marriage and traditional families, along with the right and role of people to bring their religious values to the public square...to them, these are all signs and pillars of "theocracy." They have no idea of what a theocracy really is, as their writings show.

If people are allowed to rewrite the past without opposition, they can rewrite the present, and alter the course of the future. America and all she stands for, including our Christian heritage and the Christian influence that makes our nation unique, are far too important to let a lie stand.

In the next two days, writers at Dakota Voice will demonstrate what theocracy is, and what it is not. Whether the BATS (Blogging Against Theocracy Silliness) can accept it or not, we will counter the error and present the truth. Even if the BATS are too extreme in their secularist desires to accept the truth, others will see what is real and what is fearmongering. We did it before at Easter, and we'll build on that with some new information and sources.

The history of our nation alone is sufficient to counter the secularist revision some are working so hard at. And examples even today abound around the world to illustrate what a theocracy really is, and show that it is certainly not what we have in America.

So stay tuned, even as you prepare to celebrate Independence Day 2007. You're celebrating one of the most unique things God has ever done on earth. Take time over the next couple of days, amidst the hotdogs and fireworks, to appreciate what we alone have here in the United States. And take time to give thanks to Divine Providence for giving it to us.

The Proper Role of Faith in Politics

For several decades now, there has been a civil war between the traditional Christian values of America, and those who want to see any influence of Christianity erased from the public square.

This war had been under way for quite a while before many Christians woke up to it, and many are still asleep.

While I have no doubt that there are those who understand but disregard the true nature of a "Christian America" and the role of faith in the public square, there are other who simply do not comprehend the difference between "theocracy" and the lawful, constitutional and proper role of faith in the public square. Consequently, some innocently oppose what they would otherwise support, if they only understood the difference.

Despite the settling of America for the purpose of advancing the Christian religion, and despite the founding of America on Christian principles, America has never, does not, and likely will never be ruled by a theocracy. I know of no one who is advocating America be run by theocracy.

Many Americans do, however, advocate a return to objective Christian values and Christian principles as the foundation for our laws and government; I count myself among that company.

As I said in a previous post, a theocracy is "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided."

Creating laws and government based on Christian principles, as was done during Colonial times, the creation of the United States government, and until recent years, does not constitute theocracy because (a) religious officials are not in charge, and (b) religious writings are not themselves the law.

Historically, America was settled by Christians who had a Christian worldview. That meant they not only held to the Christian religion, but those religious principles so informed their outlook on the world that everything they did was influenced by those Christian values. The Bible makes it clear that God created the entire universe, created what we call science, established human government, has guided human events through history, and that God's values are to be followed in every area of our lives.

Equally historically, as has been shown in numerous BATS articles this weekend, the Founders believed that Christian principles were of the utmost importance in shaping our societal values and even our laws and government operations. Yet at the same time, this has been accomplished without the establishment of a theocracy. How could this be?

Because ours is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In other words, our government is made up of private individuals who bring with them to government service their personal values and priorities. The people also vote for their elected representatives and sometimes upon laws themselves, and they make decisions to vote "yes" or "no" based on their religious values. They do so because religious values are relevant not only within the four walls of a church, but in every area of the "real world."

Any religion that has no bearing on the "real world," including family, work, law and government, is an emasculated and useless religion. If something is true enough to believe for our eternal destiny, shouldn't it be reliable enough to tell us how to live in this temporary life on earth?

What some fail to understand--and rabid secularists refuse to acknowledge--is that America's historic status as a "Christian nation" is not based on any sort of theocracy or law or institute, but on the character of the nation--which is made up of the people.

If someone is truly interested in understanding the difference between theocracy and a society where religious values influence and inform public policy, one of the best sources is the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville.

de Tocqueville was a French historian who traveled America during the 1830s to find out what was behind the "magic" of this dynamic young country that was making such a splash on the world scene.

What he found was quite surprising, especially for someone who came from an old European power which had itself recently experienced a revolution--though a secular revolution.

From de Toqueville's Democracy in America:

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were intimately united, and that they reigned in common over the same country.

There was no law mandating worship of Christian or any other religion, no "state religion," and no theocracy. Yet de Toqueville found that Christianity and our government of freedom were "intimately united" and reigned together over the nation.

Was this a union brought about by theocracy or state religion? Not at all.

In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion, but it directs the manners of the community, and by regulating domestic life it regulates the State.

Notice that he says religion does not directly dictate laws and public opinion, but it is a part of the character of the people who make up the community, and since the people make up the government in America, this is how Christianity helps shape our legal and governmental values.

Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country

de Toquevill reiterates that while there is no state religion or theocracy in America, because of the Christian character of the people who make up American government, it may be regarded "as the formost of the political institutions."

de Toqueville also says

...there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In America, de Toqueville found that, probably because religious allegiance was not forced upon the people by law, the Christian religion reigned supreme in its influence over men. In America, faith in God wasn't just duty, it was real. And because it was real, it influenced every area of their lives--including the civic life of the United States--again, a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

You see, America is historically a Christian nation not because of a theocracy, not because of a state religion, and not because of religious laws enforcing fealty to a religion...but because of the Christian character of the people who make up the United States--which has a government of those people possessed of a Christian character, by that people possessed of a Christian character, and for that people possessed of a Christian character.

This is why, as long as America successfully retains the Christian character of her people, there will never be a theocracy--of any type. And unless the Christians of America acquiesce to the demands of secularists, America will always retain that Christian character.

As de Tocqueville found and as many of the Founders alluded to, America's great freedom, including the freedom of religion, come from the Christian character of her people. While some over the history of the world have forgotten this, the Christians who settled America realized that true faith in God (and God wants none other than sincere faith) cannot be forced, it cannot be coerced, it cannot be mandated, and it cannot be legislated.

That is why the settlers and founders considered religious freedom so important, because only the free exercise of faith is worth anything to man or God. Some religions like Islam and secularism are willing to settle for silent acquiescence as a sign of devotion, but not true Christianity.

Even the unbeliever is free not to believe, so long as his unbelief doesn't lead him to subvert the laws or good character of society.

That freedom of belief--or even not to believe--is best guaranteed by the Christian character of America. Rabid secularism demands a suppression of the public expression of religious faith; because of this, it quashes freedom.

In a society protected by the Christian value of freedom of choice, the secularist is free to express his unbelief in public. No one can force him to believe in a deity, and no one can force him to profess belief...but if the majority of society believes in God, he should naturally be prepared for the dissent of others, as is their freedom.

In America, religious values and the reliance upon objective values must inform public policy, or public policy will devolve into "might makes right" and the tyranny of the majority. Religious values help preserve not only the health and good order of our civilization, but freedom itself.

As de Tocqueville says,

Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; and it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? and what can be done with a people which is its own master, if it be not submissive to the Divinity?

In summary, these religious values historically held in America inform public policy, not through theocracy or a state religion or the imposition of law, but through the character and values of the people who comprise government and who are being governed.

What Does a Real Theocracy Look Like?

As the BATS (Blogging Against Theocracy) write about their distaste for any expression of Christian faith in the public eye, we have tried, as we celebrate the birth of a nation founded by Christians and built on Christian principles, to illustrate two things so far to illustrate the profound misunderstanding of the BATS:

(1) America was settled by Christians, founded by Christians, and has traditionally been enlightened both politically and societally by Christian principles

(2) This Christian influence does not constitute "theocracy," nor does the expression of religious faith by citizens or government officials constitute a "theocracy" or violate the First Amendment.

I believe we have illustrated what a theocracy is NOT. Now it's time to show what a theocracy IS, so that, if the BATS choose rationality over their personal distaste for Christianity, they can adopt a position closer to reality and stop attacking the Christian personality of American society--especially on some of our most sacred and cherished holidays.

Here are a few recent examples from around the world of theocracies and how real theocracies behave:

PAKISTAN - Christian Solidarity Worldwide says Masih, a Christian from Chungi Amar Sadu in Lahore, was charged Sept. 10, 2005, under Section 295C of the Pakistan Penal Code. Section 295C relates to blasphemy against the Prophet Muhammad and carries the death penalty. (WorldNetDaily)

EGYPT - An Egyptian court accepted an appeal Monday from 45 Copts who were denied the right to reclaim their religious identities after they decided to convert back to Christianity from Islam, a lawyer and court officials said. A lower administrative court ruled against the plaintiffs on April 29, prohibiting them from restoring their Christian identities on their national identification cards. (International Herald Tribune)

MALASIA - Lina Joy, born an ethnic Malay Muslim, appealed to the nation’s highest court to be recognized as a Christian, the faith of her Indian boyfriend. The forty-three-year-old Joy took up the Catholic faith in 1990, was baptized eight years later, and changed her name to Azlina Jailani in 1999. The next year, Joy sought to remove the word “Islam” from her identification card—that way, she could legally marry her boyfriend—but the lower civil courts ruled that only sharia courts could officially sanction her conversion. Under sharia law in Malaysia, Joy could face criminal prosecution for apostasy, punishable by imprisonment, a hefty fine, or time spent at a “rehabilitation” camp. (Council on Foreign Relations)

AFGHANISTAN - In February 2006 an Afghan court struck down a motion by Abdul Rahman to convert to Christianity. He was sentenced to death for apostasy. The court, dominated by religious conservatives, later reversed its decision under international pressure and released Rahman, who then fled and sought asylum in Italy. Opinion surveys at the time showed that most Afghans, given their tribal history and religious conservatism, supported the death sentence for Rahman. (Council on Foreign Relations)

IRAN - Experts monitoring such persecution say that Christians make up a tiny percentage of the people of Iran, where the government "officially" allows Christians to practice their faith but in reality intervenes and harasses Christians regularly. For example, Christians are not allowed to print literature, including Sunday bulletins, and converts from Islam to Christianity are labeled apostate and subject to the death penalty. Christian pastors are under constant surveillance, and many are forced to sign documents saying they will not allow Muslims to be in their worship services. (WorldNetDaily)

INDIA - In Orissa, more than 15 Hindus stopped a small number of Christian evangelists on a village road, verbally abused them, and then forced them into the local temple for the ritual, the report said. Sources within India told VOM that the evangelists were witnessing and handing out New Testaments and Gospel tracts. "When chaos broke out, the extremists took the evangelists to the police who put them in jail … and confiscated more than 30 New Testaments and Gospel tracts," the report said. (WorldNetDaily)

PAKISTAN - "Daniel, an 11-year-old Christian boy, refused to play with his Muslim friends, resulting in them beating him," the Pakistani source told Voice of the Martyrs. "Daniel's family confronted the Muslims who called the police and made a false report saying Daniel's family had blasphemed the name of the Holy Prophet," the source reported. (WorldNetDaily)

NIGERIA - Nearly 1,000 homes and churches have been burned down by Muslim radicals – with a wink and a nod from a government that doesn't recognize the rights of non-Muslims. "If you go around villages, you will see people missing one hand or one foot," explained Rev. Obiora Ike. "Do you think that’s the result of an illness? That is the result of Sharia Law." Sharia law permits violent attacks against non-Muslims and the killing of former Muslims who have converted to Christianity or other faiths. The destruction of churches and the prohibition of new church constructions are considered legitimate actions. (WorldNetDaily)

NEPAL - Villagers took every opportunity to make life difficult for him, including their response when some water from his field inadvertently spilled onto a neighbor's land, the sources reported. "He was recently fined 6,000 rupees (about $100, a large sum in Nepal), after water from his field spilled over into a neighbor's field," the VOM sources reported. "Normally, this would not be a problem, but the neighbors consider water from Rajan's field unclean because he is a Christian. "Normally, we wouldn't fine you, but because you changed your religion and became a Christian, you need to pay 6,000 rupees," the villagers told him, according to VOM. (WorldNetDaily)

SUDAN - Sudan's militant Muslim regime is slaughtering Christians who refuse to convert to Islam, according to the head of an aid group who recently returned from the African nation. The forced conversions are just one aspect of the Khartoum government's self-declared jihad on the mostly Christian and animist south, Dennis Bennett, executive director of Seattle-based Servant's Heart told WorldNetDaily. Villagers in several areas of the northeast Upper Nile region say that when women are captured by government forces they are asked: "Are you Christian or Muslim?" Women who answer "Muslim" are set free, but typically soldiers gang-rape those who answer "Christian" then cut off their breasts and leave them to die as an example for others. (WorldNetDaily)

SAUDI ARABIA - When Saudi authorities discovered a man working in Mecca was a Christian, they immediately arrested him, highlighting the desert kingdom's law barring non-Muslims from the Islamic holy city. "The Grand Mosque and the holy city are forbidden to non-Muslims," said Col. Suhail Matrafi, head of the department in charge of Expatriates Affairs in Mecca. (WorldNetDaily)

If the state court is deciding what religion someone is, or what religion they may legitimately claim as their own, then you have a theocracy. If the government harasses, oppresses, or punishes you because you belong to a certain religion, then you have a theocracy. If the government fails to guarantee the same rights for you as for others, based on your religious affiliation, then you have a theocracy.

The United States, since it's earliest days, has had an official and unofficial policy of religious tolerance. Many if not most of the early settlers had fled religious persecution in their old countries; they were not eager to see it started again in the New World. Even though the vast majority of Americans have been and still are Christians, people of all faiths have always been welcome in America and allowed to practice whatever religion they choose without penalty.

That is why the Founders made the first clause of the First Amendment one guaranteeing the freedom of all citizens to practice their faith as they see fit, with no official state church to establish a national orthodoxy:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Notice here that it is only the federal government that is prohibited from making a law respecting an establishment of religion. Some of the states continued to have their own official churches even after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, though this practice eventually fell by the wayside.

But no one was punished for practicing another religion.

And citizens were not prohibited from expressing their faith...even in public ("prohibiting the free exercise thereof"). Even public officials, members of our representative government, were not prohibited from allowing their faith to inform their decisions.

Such moves as separating faith from the public square are a recent development, only seen in the last 50 years or so as Marxists and secular humanists have grown more bold, and as Christians have acquiesced and abdicated their responsibility to be "salt and light" in society.

So when you ponder the question of whether we have a theocracy in America, or whether Christians are trying to institute a theocracy in America...stop and consider these examples of genuine theocracies from around the world; stop and consider the founding principles of the United States, and the original intent of the founders and the founding documents.

If you're honest, I think you'll find there is no "theocracy movement;" only a movement to sanitize any expression of Christian faith from the light of day.

Feedback: Shadow Boxing Against Theocracy

Some feedback from Amanda in Carrboro, NC on my post(s) on this "Blogging Against Theocracy" idiocy:

If, as you say, Theocracy doesn't exist, then why are you so afraid of people blogging against it? Anyone in this country should be against the idea of Theocracy - regardless of whether or not they think it's happening.

And, as for religious groups being criticized heavily by the media - haven't we been criticizing Middle Eastern religions, Atheism, etc for a long, long time? Do they not get equal consideration, as religions (or lack thereof)?

There are a lot of religious people who are against Theocracy - most of the people I've heard talk about it are Christian, even. In your case, it seems like you don't see Theocracy happening because it's favoring your religion, but what about those out there who are being denied the rights to worship or not, and to be free from laws that favor particular religions (and hinder others).

I'm just asking that you think about it, and consider that you might be wrong.

I'm not afraid of anyone blogging against theocracy, but I am very concerned about what this group IS doing: attacking public expression of Christian values. I'm not sure whether the people involved in this are genuinely ignorant of the difference between a theocracy and what we have traditionally enjoyed in America until recently ( i.e. a culture influenced--not governed by--Christian values)...or whether they understand the difference and just don't care, as long as it servers their secularist ends.

No one in America is being denied their right to worship (except Christians who choose to do so publicly), and no one is being forced to worship. What we do have is a concerted effort to (a) deny that America was founded on Christian principles by a Christian people; (b) deny that Christian values have shaped our system of government and culture, and (c) purge any expression of Christian faith from public view under the guise of a fallacious doctrine not found in the Constitution called "separation of church and state."

Whether American government and culture SHOULD be based on Christian principles is a valid subject for public debate; if some people believe the United States should be a completely secular nation like France, or even an Islamic country, then let's publicly debate the pros and cons of such a proposition, then put it to a vote--that's the way we do things in the United States.

But attempting to revise history to say the Founders weren't Christians, that they didn't believe religious values should inform and shape public policy, that those values HAVE NOT traditionally shaped American public policy...that's the worst kind of intellectual dishonesty and deception. Beyond being lazy and cowardly, it attempts to short-circuit the public debate of a healthy republic and replace it with a lie foisted on the people without their proper consideration.

I've thought about it, and considered that I might be wrong. But I'm not. The evidence is beyond overwhelming for anyone intellectually honest enough to see it. The fact that this evidence is getting covered up by the dust of history--partially from lack of use, partially from people trying to bury it--should concern all Americans.

I'll be presenting just a few examples of this evidence this weekend, so stay tuned.

Thanks for writing, Amanda.

Seeking Theocracy in America?

I came across this today while doing some research for "Blogging Against Theocracy Conspiracists." It's from Wallbuilders.com, from David Barton. The website contains a wealth of information about the Founders and America's Christian heritage. Anyone doubting Barton's intellectal honesty should note that he has not only highlighted many of the quotes which prove America's Christian heritage, he has also pointed out some popular quotes that cannot be confirmed with original sources.

The following is a good summary of why the whole "theocracy" charge is fallacious, and is a veiled attempt to hide public expressions of faith in the closet.

In a recent letter, the writer took the same position as Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) and parroted AU's offensive mantra, associating a theocracy or theocratic state with the “Religious Right.” Such claims are patently false.

First, to have a theocracy in America, the Constitution must be replaced with a totalitarian dictator who speaks on God's behalf (i.e., a revival of “the Divine Right of Kings” doctrine). I challenge AU, or anyone else to identify which part of the “Religious Right” is calling for such a government.

Second, the “Religious Right” leaders (Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Jim Dobson, et. al) are calling for an increased respect for the Constitution and its actual wording, urging citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote. The real “crime” of these leaders is not that they want a theocracy (which they don't) but that they rightfully want legislators to make national policy instead of judges. Should that occur, AU or groups like them could not win another battle, for Americans overwhelmingly reject their policies (e.g., “under God” in the Pledge - a phrase opposed by AU but supported by 87% of Americans).

The rabid opposition to public religious expressions is often irrational, In fact, a New Jersey bill proposing that students begin each day by reciting the first 56 words from the Declaration of Independence was loudly denounced as “a thinly-veiled attempt to put prayer in schools” - the first step on the road to a - you guessed it - “theocracy!” Reading the actual wording of the Declaration of Independence leads to a theocracy??? It is time for that term to become anathema in public discourse.

BATC: Blogging Against Theocracy Conspiracists

Blogging Against Theocracy Conspiracists

I was tempted to just ignore the misguided folks who are set to "Blog Against Theocracy" beginning on Good Friday and finishing on Easter. They obviously haven't the slightest idea of what a theocracy is, nor why America isn't a theocracy and is in no danger of becoming a theocracy.

However, I decided that since the ignorance about "church and state" and America's Christian heritage is growing, and this ignorance already threatens our free society (our freedoms are, after all, founded on Judeo-Christian principles), I decided to use this as an opportunity to address some of the myths and misunderstandings prevalent in our increasingly secularist society.

So I'll be doing some posts this weekend myself to set the record straight on why it is so important that religious faith--especially Christian faith--guides (not dictates) public policy.

America has been influenced by Christian principles since even before the Mayflower dropped anchor in America. The men who declared independence from England were almost all Christians and their politics were guided by their Christian faith. Those same men set up our unique American form of government, and they were again guided by their Christian faith as they did so. Our government and culture has since then carried a distinctly Christian flavor, and only in the last 50 years, as secularists have usurped the normal legislative process through judicial activism, has the United States taken a secular turn.

Even so, most Americans still believe in God. And God says we are to let our faith be a guiding testament to a world that has lost it's way. Christians cannot remain in good standing with their God while keeping silent in the face of pressing societal issues that can bring terrible suffering.

God's principles for living are too good, and America's Christian heritage is too important to be buried under a mountain of secularist lies under the facade of something that never existed and can't be found in the U.S. Constitution: "separation of church and state."

The bloggers aren't Orson Wells and there ain't no invasion...

This "Blogging Against Theocracy" reminds me of Orson Wells and the radio broadcast of "The War of the Worlds". There was no threat of invasion then and no threat of Theocracy now. What a sham and waste of time. Well, unless the "intent" is there to actually make people believe all this nonsense is true (because why else would there be blogging against it), stir them up and get them to then feel even the slightest touch of religious influence on government will lead to theocracy. Wouldn't that be interesting if that is what is up?

On the other hand...

The bloggers aren't Orson Wells and there isn't an invasion of theocracy going on. But I suppose it doesn't take much to entertain the bored peoples of this world. Too bad they don't spend their time focusing on one of the many "real" issues our society and government are facing, rather than seeing if they can make people believe a sham is "the real deal".

BATS: Defending Human Life=Theocracy?

Blogging Against Theocracy Silliness


One of least sensible things I've heard the "Blogging Against Theocracy" crowd list among their shopping list of things to exorcise religious thought from is the protection of human like, e.g. Terri Schiavo.

Without even exploring the overwhelming evidence that Terri Schiavo, while severely disabled, remained cognitive (e.g. she laughed, she expressed irritation at an invasive medical procedure, she tried to talk, she clearly recognized her parents, she followed a balloon around with her eyes), religious faith had EVERYTHING to say about Terri's situation and other situations dealing with euthanasia.

Life, death and the afterlife fall into the purview of religious thought even more so than that of government. Yet government does have a certain amount of jurisdiction over these areas because it is charged, both in God's law and by man's law, with the protection of human life.

That her threadbare excuse for a husband's petition to kill his "wife" was even entertained was a travesty (amidst allegations that he might have abused and/or assaulted her, the fact that he'd been living with and having children with another woman while trying to end his "wife's" life, that he stood to gain financially from her death, and that there was no documentary evidence that Terri would want to die in a situation such as hers), was a moral and legal travesty.

When the normal system breaks down and is about to allow a terrible miscarriage of justice, others within government not only have a right but a responsibility to intervene and prevent that miscarriage. Governor Bush should have done much more than he did, and the U.S. Congress, though they took some action, should have done more. But in the end, they all subordinated what was right to the will of a judge.

What's more, the murder of Terri Schiavo went well beyond just turning off the heart or lung machine of a person who had no brain function. Terri obviously had awareness, and her autonomic functions were working fine. She just needed a feeding tube for food and water, since her "husband" wouldn't allow her any therapy to be able to eat and drink on her own.

Since when are food and water "medical treatment?" Do you plan to have some "medical treatment" tonight? Will you go to a restaurant for some "medical treatment" this weekend? What kind of "medical treatment" do you prefer: Italian or Chinese?

Secularists and purveyors of the culture of death would have us believe that because an argument may have religious standing, it is therefore invalid for consideration in public policy. What utter nonsense! We'd better repeal our murder, rape and theft laws, then, because these issues are religious in nature (i.e. the Bible speaks to their morality).

You might think at first glance that even secularists would appreciate the unique and fragile nature of human life (after all, in many of their minds, this life is all there is). You might think that even they would realize the rightness of not killing a woman too disabled to fend off her murderers. The fact that this moral truth escapes secularists is indeed further truth that if our faith values do not inform our public policy, our public policy will become cold, callous and barbaric.

Placing value on human life and defending the disabled does NOT constitute "Congress [making a] law respecting an establishment of religion." Nor does it constitute a "theocracy."

Who Wants Theocracy?

Yesterday I wrote about Jefferson and the separation of church and state. Today I want to address the question of theocracy more directly. As I mentioned yesterday, there are many on the left who seem to believe that the religious right really wants to institute a theocracy in America. Nothing could be further from the truth! I’m sure there is an insignificant minority who really would like theocracy but being insignificant, they really don’t need to be dealt with in any significant way.

For the overwhelming majority of evangelicals and anyone on the religious right, what we want is what the First Amendment guarantees. We want to exercise our religious beliefs without government interference. But because freedom of religion has been reinterpreted to mean freedom from religion, that has become increasingly difficult to do.

I was a double major in college. My majors were political science and religion. Typically people looked at me like a grew two heads when I told them this...

To read more, go to Ron's Musings.

The Hit Job on Easter

Secularists are waging an all-out war on Christianity and public expression of faith this year.

From CNS News:

Christians and Jews are accustomed to cultural elites trying to undermine their religious faith during Lent, Passover and Easter -- but it's never been as bad as this year.

Beginning on February 26, the news and entertainment media have fired a stunning barrage of criticism at religious beliefs, religious practice and religious symbols. Nothing is too sacred to attack this year, not even the most crucial teachings of Judaism and Christianity.

Go to the article to read the full list of anti-Christian fare that's being offered this Easter season.

And then there's the blogswarm over this "Blog Against Theocracy" idiocy, which boils down to an attack on any public expression of Christianity (something protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) under the guise of opposing something that doesn't exist in the US and no Christian I'm aware of is advocating: theocracy.

Purveyors of this "theocracy" rot like to say they're "not anti-religion, just anti-theocracy." If they keep telling themselves this, they might succeed in believing it, but the rest of us aren't fooled.

Shadow Boxing: Blogging Against Theocracy

Looks like Dawnne and some others at Clean Cut Kid will be blogging against something that doesn't exist in the United States and, to my knowledge, no one in the United States is advocating (except maybe a few Muslim extremists who want us to live under Sharia law). Maybe it's these Muslim extremists CCK and the secularists at "Blog Against Theocracy" are blogging against.

Oh, they included a description of what it is they're against. It isn't any stuff that constitutes a theocracy, but they're apparently so repulsed even a whiff of Christian beliefs being expressed publicly or informing public policy that they're calling it "theocracy":

• religious discrimination (not sure what this means--disparaging those who worship government?)



• end-of-life care (i.e. kill the disabled and infirm at will)



• reproductive health decisions without legal restraint (i.e. kill your baby if it interferes with your sexual fulfillment)



• academic integrity (i.e. vehemently reject anything the Bible says, no matter how much scientific sense it makes, in favor of anything that fits an atheistic worldview, no matter how little sense it makes)



• sound science (i.e. embrace naturalism)



• respect for all families (i.e. whether they're a family or not, let them call themselves one, because feeling good trumps all facts or truths)



• the right to worship, or not (a right guaranteed and enjoyed by all Americans, unless you are a Christian who wants to express your faith in public)

How cute that these people who claim not to be "anti-religious" are doing this on Easter weekend. As long as your religion's god is humanism or government, that claim of not being anti-religion might be true.

The Purpose?

The purpose of blogging against theocracy? To be rude and crude? That is what I have seen thus far.

One might think, since there is a demonstration against, that there is actually a movement towards theocracy. And, in thinking so, become immediately hostile towards any people(s) felt to be instigating a forced and specific religion upon them. Hostile and reading a false message and cause into anything and everything that has to do with the group alleged to be a part of this endeavor. Amazing how that works.

Religion is not the enemy! It is merely the target of the moment.

Rather than stay with the arguments at hand, many have taken to saying it is the religious right this, religious right that. It can never be that the person came to the conclusion through facts discovered and analyzed. Oh no, it must be that the conclusion was tainted by religious beliefs and/or influence and therefore a religious belief being forced upon others. That is an allegation used to sway opinion, but that does not mean it is based in fact.

In reading some of the comments, I guess it is being suggested that some of these against theocracy peoples want pure science and are suggesting that it has not been thus far? Pure science includes pure facts that lead to pure answers. That would then mean that for them to follow their own wishes, they would have to take their assumptions out of "why" another came to the conclusions they did. Unless, it could be proven as an absolute, the allegations of religion and/or influence of the religious right would have to be taken out of the equation presented to whomever.

Obviously, we are all influenced by many factors. But to say that because one believes in God he or she cannot analyze and come to a true and accurate finding, is to, in itself, be a wrongful and inaccurate statement that distorts and is self-serving. It is an attempt to win an argument, not by the truth and the facts, but by attempting to taint the opponent in a hope the message will likewise be tainted in the minds of the recipients.

There is a fight to prevent religious discrimination? Amazing since the past few years has been to discriminate against anything Christian in public view. Amazing how one may dress up like a witch and yet not like Jesus, though Wicca is a belief as well. But then, that appears to be okay because it is not a Christian one.

With that said...

I found the personal insults towards Bob Ellis to be nothing more than rude and crude. A tactic utilized often by those who feel themselves somehow intellectually superior, but lacking in the ability to debate issues. Instead, they revert to name calling and personal attacks. Rather than give proof of whatever and consideration of facts presented to them -- they merely say their opinion over and over as though that in itself makes it so and anyone who doubts it is a moron.

Theocracy is a possibility that needs to be fought? I think some rude people need to find something constructive to do with their time, so they don't have to create a fantasy cause to defend against? A class in manners might not be a bad idea either.

BATS: Insight on the First Amendment

Blogging Against Theocracy Silliness


In "honor" of "Blogging Against Theocracy," a.k.a. "Marginalizing Christianity on its Most Sacred Holiday", a post on "Insight on the First Amendment."

This information provides some insight on the First Amendment as it deals with religion. Most of the information here is from David Barton’s “Original Intent.”

Did Thomas Jefferson say that religion should have no influence on the state? Not in the least. He did, however, point to the true scope and intention of the First Amendment prohibition preventing CONGRESS from making a law respecting an establishment of religion:

Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in any religious discipline has been delegated to the General [federal] Government. It must then rest with the States. – Thomas Jefferson

From the Annals of Congress from June 8, 1789 to September 25, 1789, containing the records of the discussions of those who drafted and approved the First Amendment:

AUGUST 15, 1789. Mr. Sylvester had some doubts…He feared it [the First Amendment] might be thought to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether…Mr Gerry said it would read better if it was that “no religious doctrine shall be established by law”…Mr. Madison said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that “Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law.”

This record gives us some insight as to how the Founders wrestled with the wording of the First Amendment, in the hopes that it wouldn’t be interpreted to “abolish religion altogether” as it is being interpreted by many today.

We are not to attribute this [First Amendment] prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity (which none could hold in more reverence, than the framers of the Constitution) – Joseph Story

The real object of the [First A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects. – Joseph Story

All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others. – George Mason

The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established. – James Madison

The whole power over the subject of religion is left exclusively to the State governments to be acted upon according to their own sense of Justice and the State constitutions. – Joseph Story

The Founders were wise men, typically educated far beyond the eduation of most people today. They were also a people of morality and integrity, I doubt they fully realized what might be done with the Constitution by a people that were no longer educated OR moral, but instead wanted to substitute the wisdom of their own lusts for power and pleasure for that of the original intent.

Regarding that, one final bit on the interpretation of law and the Constitution (this applies to current law, and especially the Constitution.

The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it. – James Wilson, signer of the Declaration, member of the Constitutional Convention, and nominated by President George Washington as an original Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court

The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is to construe them according to the sense of the sense of the terms and intentions of the parties. – Joseph Story

In other words, if you wrote a letter to someone, would you want them to interpret it as you meant it…or would you want them to interpret it in a “living” sense, based on their perceived needs and their own agenda?

I think we know that answer to that one, so why should the interpretation of the Constitution, our nations’ highest law, be any different? And it is obvious what the Founders intended with the First Amendment: not the exorcism of faith from public policy, but the prevention of an establishment of a national religion.

And no one is advocating a national religion, which probably would be a theocracy, so that’s why all this bunk of “Blogging Against Theocracy” is shadow-boxing at best, but is more likely just a veiled attack on the influence of Christian morality in public policy.

Confusion at SouthDaCola Over Treaty of Tripoli

Ghost of Dude at SouthDaCola made it clear today that he needs a lesson in American history.

Ghost of Dude says he's "heard a lot lately about how this nation was founded by Christian men and with Christian principles" but expresses confusion that the Treaty of Tripoli says

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen (muslims),-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan (Islamic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Ghost of Dude brings this up now because

Because increasingly, theocrats disguised as republicans and campaigning on “values” have begun trying to foist religiously-based laws on this state and nation under the mistaken belief that we are a Christian nation. In reality, we have no official religion, and the establishment of such an organization is expressly forbidden by our constitution - which was written, voted on, and ratified by our “Christian” founding fathers.

His confusion is understandable, in that many people have been confused by this, despite the overwhelming body of evidence that America was founded by Christians on Christian principles, and was never intended to sanitize and separate Christian influence from our government.

Before I examine that overwhelming body of evidence, let's pause for just a moment to take a look at what was meant by this statement in the Treaty of Tripoli.

Muslim nations were--and many still are--genuinely theocratic institutions. Their laws come directly from their holy text and they are ruled in part or in whole by religious officials. As such, they rightly saw themselves as "Muslim nations," but also saw the Western nations they warred against (England, France, Spain, the United States, etc.) as "Christian nations." This could be said to be true of most of these nations in a couple of senses. It was true that the people of these nations almost all ascribed to the Christian religion. And in the case of most of them, they actually had official state churches and official state religions.

The United States obviously did not have an official state church or an official state religion. However, we were closely associated with the other European nations that did, and almost all citizens of the United States were in fact Christians.

Based on their own nationalized religion, and on that of several European nations, the Muslims saw (and still do to a great extent even today) conflicts between Muslim and "Christian" nations not as secular conflicts over land and property and such, but as religious conflicts.

It was in this manner that Article XI of the treaty stated the United States was not "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

But what secularists usually don't include (and overlook even if they do included) from the Treaty of Tripoli is precisely what is needed to understand just what the authors of the treaty meant.

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

So you see, the Treaty itself explains that it is not making a statement about the religious character of the people of the United States, nor about the principles upon which our nation founded. It was rather intended to assure the members of the Muslim nations with whom the treaty was made that we bore them no official hostility or disagreement based on "religious opinions."

Finally, Ghost of Dude suffers from the same fundamental misunderstanding of "theocracy" that many--especially of the liberal persuasion--suffer from today.

I wrote at length on the meaning of "theocracy" a few months ago. I would suggest a reading of that lengthy treatise, but I'll try to explain briefly here.

Theocracy is essentially a form of government where the laws come straight from a "holy book" and policy is dictated by religious leaders.

There are several examples of theocracies around the world, usually found in some Islamic countries.

The American form of government, while from the beginning based on Christian principles and a Biblical worldview, has never involved law that came straight from the Bible, nor has it involved civic leadership by religious authorities.

The founders of the United States were mostly Christians, and most believed Christian principles were the best way not only for living, but for producing a healthy society.

Their statements and writings illustrate this belief in abundance. Now, for some of that voluminous evidence I mentioned from the Founding Fathers:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness. – George Washington’s Presidential Farewell Address

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. – John Adams

It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. Religion and virtue are the only foundations…of republicanism and of all free governments. – John Adams

While the people are virtuous, they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader. – Samuel Adams

It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality. – Abraham Baldwin, signer of the Constitution

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion whose morality is so sublime and pure…are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments. – Charles Carroll, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters. – Benjamin Franklin

Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement – John Hancock

Righteousness alone can exalt them [America] as a nation…The great pillars of all government and of social life: I mean virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor, my friend, and this alone, that renders us invincible. – Patrick Henry.

The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society…We all agree in the obligation of the moral precepts of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses. – Thomas Jefferson

The Holy Scriptures…can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses. – James McHenry, signer of the Constitution, Secretary of War

I believe that religion is the only solid base of morals and that morals are the only possible support of free governments. Therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man toward God. – Gouverneur Morris, penman and signer of the Constitution

Religion and morality…are necessary to good government, good order and good laws, for “when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice” – William Paterson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Justice

The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained. – George Washington’s Inaugural Address

The law…dictated by God Himself is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity if contrary to this. – Alexander Hamilton, signer of the Constitution

Let it never be forgotten that there can be no genuine freedom where there is no morality, and no sound morality where there is no religion…Hesitate not a moment to believe that the man who labors to destroy these two great pillars of human happiness…is neither a good patriot nor a good man. – Jeremiah Smith, Revolutionary soldier, judge, U.S. Congressman, Governor of New Hampshire

It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs whether any free government can be permanent where the public worship of God and the support of religion constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape. – Joseph Story, U.S. Supreme Court Judge, Father of American Jurisprudence

Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society – George Washington

Whatever makes men good Christians, makes them good citizens. – Daniel Webster

Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown—general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land. – Daniel Webstser

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were…the general principles of Christianity. – John Adams

Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. – James Wilson, signer of the Constitution, U.S. Supreme Court Judge

Whoever is an avowed enemy of God, I scruple not to call him an enemy to his country…God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that the unjust attempts to destroy one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both. – John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration

No country on earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange, then, and much to be regretted indeed it would be, were we to neglect the means and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. – George Washington (how deeply sad that we have betrayed Washington’s confidence)

When a citizen gives his suffrage [vote] to a man of known immorality he abuses his trust [civic responsibility]; he sacrifices not only his own interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country. – Noah Webster

Even though these men recognized that Christian principles were necessary for good government and a healthy society, they also recognized the potential for corruption and oppression when official religious institutions and civic governments were closely married.

For this reason, they established in the First Amendment that people would have the freedom to express themselves religiously as they saw fit, and prohibited a state church or religion.

They also established in the Constitution that no religious test for office would be required. In other words, you could not be officially denied to public office because you belonged to a non-favored religion or denomination, or held a non-favored religious view.

However, as illustrated above by the statements of the founders, this was never intended to sanitize Christian expression or influence from public life or even government itself.

Perhaps the best and most enlightening examination of how religion influences public policy in America in a healthy fashion comes from "Democracy in America" by Alexis de Tocqueville.

de Tocqueville was a Frenchman who visited America in the early 1800s. He traveled this young country in a quest to find out what made the United States, despite it's youth, such a successful mover and shaker on the world scene.

What he found was amazing. It also points strongly toward this unofficial mix of civics and religion which is so perplexing to some.

Upon my arrival in the United States, the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America, I found they were intimately united and they reigned in common over the same country.

Was this a union brought about by theocracy or state religion? Not at all.

In the United States religion exercises but little influence upon the laws and upon the details of public opinion, but it directs the manners of the community, and by regulating domestic life it regulates the State.

He further explains:

Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country

He also says

...there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America; and there can be no greater proof of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

de Tocqueville sums up the proper relationship between civil government and religious faith--actually the need for religious faith.

Despotism may govern without faith, but liberty cannot. Religion is much more necessary in the republic which they set forth in glowing colors than in the monarchy which they attack; and it is more needed in democratic republics than in any others. How is it possible that society should escape destruction if the moral tie be not strengthened in proportion as the political tie is relaxed? and what can be done with a people which is its own master, if it be not submissive to the Divinity?

Just as President George Washington indicated, we desperately need religious influence in public life in order to maintain the health of our government and society.

Without it, our government breaks down as it becomes more filled with immoral officials with no moral compass.

As our leaders move farther from a moral foundation which recognizes eternal accountability and the "golden rule" to treat other people as we would like to be treated, they make greater surrenders to selfishness, greed, corruption and personal pursuit of power.

When this happen, freedom suffers. In fact, freedom is gravely threatened. If our leaders cannot be trusted to govern themselves according to moral constraints, they cannot be trusted to safeguard the freedoms of those they are supposed to serve.

And this threatens not only those "values voters" so oft-despised by liberals, but liberals themselves.

For while the things a liberal loves today may be shared by those in power, tomorrow a different set of corrupt politicians may come along who could take it upon themselves to ruthlessly quash these things.

So while we have never had a theocracy, do not currently have a theocracy, and practically no one wants a theocracy, we nevertheless need to promote the traditional moral base of our nation.

That moral foundation is what has made us a great nation; without it, we will shrink to mediocrity at best, but most likely would implode catastrophically.

To illustrate this, I leave you with the relevant quotes of two of the Founders:

Without the restraints of religion and social worship, men become savages. – Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration

Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet. – Robert Winthrop, Speaker of the U.S. House

BATS: Is Creation Science "Theocracy?"

Blogging Against Theocracy Silliness


In "honor" of "Blogging Against Theocracy," a.k.a. "Marginalizing Christianity on its Most Sacred Holiday", a post on creation science, its scientific validity, and whether it constitutes an element of theocracy.


I recently read an evolutionist who said that because all life on earth shares similar DNA, this is proof of evolution, proof that we all evolved from a common ancestor.

I know how to program in several computer languages, including HTML, ASP, Java, and SQL database programming. Because I know these languages, I can change existing applications that are built in these languages (just as all life on earth is built in the language of DNA). I can also create entirely new applications using these languages.

Consider for a moment a web page at CNNs website and a web page at CBSs website. If you open them up in code view, you’ll find many things in common: they will both have HTML tags, paragraph tags, header tags, table tags, and so on. Is this proof that one evolved from the other, or that they both evolved from a common web page? Of course not. It only proves that they both make use of the same programming language.

The same is true with donkeys, aardvarks, monkeys and men: God used the same “programming language” of DNA to build all of us. He just used the same programming language in different ways to create different organisms.

Some say that because monkeys and humans DNA is mostly the same, this is proof that we evolved from monkeys. The similarity in DNA structure is no more proof of that than two web pages that are mostly the same, but one plays MP3s embedded in the page, while the other plays videos embedded in the page.

The reason evolutionists and creationists look at the same evidence but reach two very different conclusions about it is because of “worldview.” Contrary to accusations, creationists don’t deny the existence of any evidence we observe in the universe, they just interpret differently how it came to be as we see it.

Everyone, no matter how open minded, approaches life with a set of presuppositions. These presuppositions essentially color and shape how we see the universe. Just as if you literally wore rose-colored glasses, you would see the world with a red hue. Or if you wore glasses with the wrong prescription, you would see the world out of focus. Or if you wore binoculars, you would see everything in the world much closer than it actually is. These things that affect our perception of the universe, these glasses, are called a “worldview,” and everyone has one.

The creationist holds a presupposition that God preceded everything in the universe, and that he has the power to create the universe and everything in it. The creationist believes that God communicated with humans and told us a little about himself and how he created the universe, and that this communication is written down in the Bible.

The evolutionist holds a presupposition that there is no force or intelligence outside the universe, that no one intelligently designed the universe, that the universe and everything in it came into being and came to be as we see them through spontaneous, random occurrences.

Now, regardless of what set of presuppositions are held, the intellectually honest person, whether a creationist or an atheist, will examine the evidence and take it wherever it leads him.

The thing is, the atheist will look at evidence that indicates an intelligent design and utterly reject that hypothesis, no matter now much sense it makes, no matter how much the alternative is clearly impossible. Examples of this include irreducible complexity (the mechanics of some organisms are so complex that they could not have evolved over time—they would not function at all until all pieces were in place at the same time), life from lifelessness (Gregor Mendel proved over 100 years ago that life does not spontaneously spring from nothing, as atheists claim happened), or the big bang (all matter coming from no matter—without cause—denies every natural law known to man).

But while the atheist has a myriad of insurmountable problems with his theory of how the universe came to be as we see it, the creationist has relatively few problems.

Creationists claim that God created the universe from nothing some 6000 or so years ago. The evolutionist says, “Aha, this creative act violates all scientific laws, so it couldn’t have happened.” Well, if God is the Master Programmer—meaning he controls the programming laws and is not controlled by those laws as we are—then he can do that if He wants to. (A web page can’t change itself or create another web page…but a web programmer can). Meanwhile, the atheist has just condemned his own argument as impossible, since his theory allows for no outside “master programmer,” so he must explain how those scientific laws got violated with no outside intelligent designer.

Atheists also look at supernatural events like the global flood of Noah, or the supernatural works of Jesus, or any of the other miracles of the Bible and say, “These things couldn’t have happened: they violate the laws of science. You Bible thumpers just believe in fairy tales that couldn’t have happened.” Again, if I as a programmer build a web page, and later I want to change—even temporarily—how it functions, I can go into the code and do that. I can add a picture to the page, or I can delete a table, or I can just for today make the web page pop up a box that says “Hi” that won’t show up tomorrow. If you’re not a web programmer, you might look at the web page and say that, because of the programming present in it, it would be impossible for these new things to happen. But if I’m the programmer, I can change it and make it do whatever I want. Just like God did when he flooded the entire earth, or when Jesus healed a blind man or raised Lazarus from the dead.

The atheist looks at the universe and the life in it and surmises that, if there was no supernatural force involved, it must have taken a long, long time for an infinite number of random chances to result in the organisms we see today. Accordingly, if we need that much time to evolve complex organisms, then the earth, the stars and everything else must be commensurately old, too.

So they look at things like the decay rate of elements and try to determine the age of rocks and other elements. In doing so, they assume that the current rate of decay of things like potassium, argon, etc. HAVE ALWAYS DECAYED AT THIS RATE. This is a part of the doctrine of UNIFORMATARIANISM which says processes in the universe have remained UNIFORM since the Big Bang (this is, of course, contradictory to other theories they hold, since the natural laws as we observe them are completely insufficient for things like star formation, matter formation, spontaneous generation, etc.). These assumptions they make about the rate of decay of elements assume that the rate of decay has always been constant, and that no external factors (e.g. water, air pressure, cosmic rays, the presence of other elements, etc.) can or did affect that rate of decay.

In doing so, they come up with ages of rocks that are millions or billions of years old. But then those flies get in the ointment like the reading of the 25-year-old lava dome at Mount St. Helens that was dated at 2.8 million years. The explanation: well, something affected that reading and made it unreliable. But your reading of that rock that we can’t empirically verify the age of…well, somehow we know that nothing affected the reliability of that reading. Uh huh. If your child made wild assumptions like that, you’d correct them. But if some guy in a white coat and some letters after his name makes illogical assumptions like that, well that’s called “science.”

Tell me: is it unscientific to look at a clock and assume someone created it? If you found a watch out in a field, miles from any human habitation, would it be “scientific” to conclude that this watch evolved from the dirt to reach its current state of complexity, just because a potential creator of the watch was not immediately visible? Would that be “scientific?” Of course not. So why do we consider this approach “scientific” when we look at the wondrous complexity of a tree, a human being, a star, or a galaxy?

While there is much more that could be said on this subject, it comes down to intellectual honesty. If the majority of the evidence said the universe is far too complex to have come about by random chance (and the evidence does say that, and a number of atheistic scientists have come to that conclusion), then is it intellectually honest to continue pretending it’s impossible…just to satisfy an attractive worldview that tells you that you aren’t accountable to a Supreme Being for your conduct?

Whether you agree with the presuppositions, whether you agree with the conclusions, creation science is NOT theocracy. It does NOT violate the First Amendment and it doesn’t constitute “Congress [making a ] law respecting an establishment of religion.”

Take It Home and Plant It in the Garden of Reality!

The United States of America has been, for far longer than many of us have been walking this earth, known as the melting pot. A country that held open its arms to those who sought a life of freedom. Freedom that actually included the freedom of religion and freedom from persecution. For all the flaws that may have existed as our country grew towards adulthood, the fight to allow religious freedom and practice of faith has been constant. It has been an effort that has been a vital part in keeping this country strong and united in the "...pursuit of life, liberty, and justice for all". But... I guess it got too boring, because we now have those who would suggest that even the mention of God, except in terms of using the name in vain, is destructive and an intrusion upon the rights of others. And this argument has what supporting evidence?

No one was forced by the government to either be of a particular religion, to be of any religion, or to even believe in God. That remained, and continues to remain, personal choice -- at least for now. It seems as though some would wish the Christian not to take the belief in God into hiding, but rather, to rid us all together of the belief that offends them. Yes, it seems they would wish for the government offices to be void of any that might possibly be of a Christian faith, least religion be forced upon others by the person (through their actions/decisions/presence) while carrying out the duties of office. Heaven forbid.

On the other hand it seems...

All non-Christian and no-religion is now the fad and quite acceptable? The non-Christian and no-religion people do not have their decisions influenced by their beliefs, thereby likewise forcing them upon others? No? Only people of one of the Christian religions do that? Amazing! I didn't know all the Christian religions worked so closely with each other to force all Christian religions upon the unsuspecting. Bet that gets a bit complicated. (Would be interesting to learn just how that would be accomplished.)

As I said before, I find it utterly amazing how we have come to a point in time where it is freedom of speech if someone uses God's name in vain to a person, but infringing upon the rights of others if one should say "God bless you!" A good and positive thought is an infringement, while hateful words are a sacred right? And the supposed logic is....???

We have come to a point where a person's religion is considered to unduly influence decisions and thereby impose said religion upon others, unless that religion is non-Christian?

Christian religion is to be considered inappropriate, though, according to some, there is a tolerance expected for the satanic worshipper? (Meaning those who literally and intentionally worship Satan.)

Any and all influences are game, as long as they have nothing to do with the beliefs of Christians?

To continue with how life has been here in the United States, with it's religious freedom, is to suddenly to be a threat of potential wrongful theocracy at the hands of Christians? Why not the satanist or the spiritualist or atheist? How come it took so many centuries to get a' feared of Christians changing our government into a theocracy forced upon all? Maybe because it is an illusion created out of boredom and need to push the envelope somewhere... anywhere?

Whatever is behind this "against theocracy" blogging -- the "timing" was obviously meant for it to be an insult too extreme! What point does this prove, except the rudeness and game playing of some? Oh, I forgot. It also shows what vulgar cuss words they know and are willing to call others by. I would say that I am impressed, but actually ... I AM NOT!

Sunday, April 8, 2007, is Easter Sunday! It is a day that is a rejoicing in rebirth and hope for tomorrow, even by some who do not see it as a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ (and all that means) in particular. It shall be! It shall be and that is an absolute one can take home and plant in the garden of reality!

Religion Not Allowed Attitude Defies 1st Amendment

The constitution makes it quite clear that forcing a specific religion upon the people is not allowed. In other words, people in power are not allowed to pick the church of their choice and force it upon the population. The First Amendment does make it clear that people have freedom of choice -- the freedom to choose and express their religious beliefs. How then can any suggest that religion is not allowed?

For any to suggest there is a movement towards theocracy in this country, would appear to be the results of boredom and a "let's pretend such and such is happening and we have to save the world by convincing the people it is bad" game. It would certainly be difficult to believe it was anything more.

Threat of theocracy in this country?

Prayer was taken out of the classroom. Lawsuits have been brought simply because a child was told (something to the effect) to be quiet during quiet-time because it was a time for prayer and reflection. Some schools can no longer decorate and have Christmas pageants (that had been long-time traditions) because it is offensive to non-believers. And so on and so on.

With the trend to remove anything even remotely resembling religion being stripped all around us, we are to then believe that religion is actually over-powering and threatening a "take-over" the government? Rather a far jump from reality to such a possibility in the minds of any.

The irony to the situation as it now exists is that the First Amendment granted freedom of religion -- freedom to practice (or not) the religion of one's choice. However, the anti-religion fighters have actually stripped people of that freedom, rather than claiming the freedom for itself had not been adequately (and equally) enforced.

Rather than to demand a child not be forced to participate in something religious, because it is that child's right not to -- it was a demand to deny the other children (that wish to participate) and thereby deny their right to freedom of religion. Even a moment of silence has been challenged, because one said something such as "prayer & reflection" or because it is simply implied it is actually a moment of prayer.

Mention of Jesus is not allowed in speeches even by students? Where is the freedom of speech? One may, after all, talk against the influence of religion in government. So rather than religion being forced upon people -- there are those who are adamantly working to force anything religious, whether by word, action or symbol, to be taken behind closed doors, least it taint and offend the non-believers. Never mind that the non-believers are actually forcing (against the First Amendment) their religious beliefs upon others. Forcing! Imposing!

The possibility of theocracy in this country? Only if it is the religion of not believing in religion!