Right now, there are six theocracies or countries with theocratic aspects in the world*: Iran, Andorra, the Tibetan Government in Exile, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Vatican City. Given those examples, I can't quite figure out why the Disciple Nation's Alliance wants to change our fine representative democracy into a theocracy.
I suspect their reasoning goes something like this (you may remember this meeting from various tea parties): I was fine with big government and removal of civil liberties until a democrat/black guy/muslimTERRORIST!!!1!!one!! became president, and now I want to burn it all down.
As a result, I can't figure out if I'm more offended/disturbed by the following on the basis of patriotism, aversion to racism or atheism.
The Lordship of Christ Over All over everyone, including people who totally don't worship Jesus, aka Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, atheists, agnostics, and well, everyone who isn't christian. You know, about 1 out of every 4 USians. Yes, let's make them all subject to a Christian Theocracy. That totally makes sense.
The first of our DNA Core Beliefs i'm going to click on that after taking a valium. is the “Jesus is King.” good for you. it's not my core belief, and I'm every bit as USian as you. It is first, because it is the very foundation for everything we believe, write and teach. again, good for you. leave me out of it. As pastor Barry Seagren says in this powerful sermon, the Lordship of Christ is: for christians?
. . . one of those things that no [sincere Christian] can object to. not even an entire sentence and we've got a logical fallacy: No True Scotsman. No one believes in the Lordship of Christ over half of life. wtf? But it is not as straightforward as it may seem. i'll give you that, theocracy is a rather straightforward concept. Why not? Because in Western culture there is a dichotomy, a sharp division which has affected us deeply. separation of church and state.
The most common is the division between the sacred and the secular. believe what you want, leave it out of lawmaking. oh, no, that's not all that complicated. Religious or spiritual things are on one side of the line; normal, everyday matters are on the other. for a good reason. Another way to express the split is the private versus the public. Religion is fine, but it’s a private matter, and it must be kept private. To let it impinge on the public sphere is known as “shoving your religion down someone’s throat.” i liken religion to genitals: it's fine to be proud of them (mine are fabulous!), but you keep them hidden unless someone asks to see them. Christopher Reeve, the actor, made this comment about stem cell research: When matters of public policy are debated, no religions should have a place at the table. In other words, you can have your religion, if you need that sort of thing, but keep it to yourself. seems obvious to me. Reeve’s statement is a big con, picking on the dead and disabled guy. classy. because what it actually means is that only one religion gets a place at the table, namely secular humanism. secular humanism is not a religion. not. a. religion. To give another example, perhaps someone has said to you, “Well, that may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” exactly.
This dichotomy is what keeps Christianity boxed up to a tiny religious area, i wish. totally private and completely innocuous and irrelevant. oh, yeah, you guys are so private, innocuous and irrelevant. in my dreams. This is what strips the Gospel of its power to permeate the whole of our lives, and strips it of its power to challenge and redeem the whole of our culture. because that's what the US has been missing: theocracy.
Well said. Read the rest of his sermon here. It is well worth your time!
-Scott D. Allen
what's really scary is these people vote. and they really want to vote to not be able to vote anymore.
*feel free to correct me, that's all I could find
Ah, the old No True Scotsman fallacy...
ReplyDeleteBack when I was a Christian I was also a historian (kinda). I guess this isn't allowed, because I had this bad habit of knowing what past theocratic regimes looked like. I didn't even have to go with Muslim regimes or anything. I just tossed out the words "Oliver Cromwell," "John Calvin," and "Salem Witch Trials."
Sadly, it seems that Christian theocrats either don't know what those words mean, assume they'll do it better, or think we made a mistake by not keeping on with the earlier governments...
Salem Witch Trials anyone? We don't need to go down this road, we already know where it leads.
ReplyDeleteI actually see Humanism as being equivalent to religion. Atheism isn't, not even similar, but Humanism has religious aspects. I don't mean this in the negative way. I am not a Humanist but I admire the Idea and have given it some consideration.
ReplyDeleteThe guys lie is that Secular Humanism is given "a seat at the table" which is just false.
When it comes to public policy no one should have any special place. We all have one vote. If you want to vote according to what your religion says, then go for it. As long as you don't step on the Constitution that is cool. I vote my philosophical beliefs, Christians can to.
They don't want freedom to vote, they have that. They want freedom to convert by the sword. Which just isn't happening. Laws that restrict free choices or repress groups of people simply because of religious prejudice can and will be stopped.
That is what a Christian means when they say they are persecuted. They mean they are being prevented from persecuting everyone else.
These are the people that make me afraid to admit in real life what my actual religion is. Because these people? Would happily burn me. It doesn't matter that what I believe doesn't affect them at all, what matters is that I'm not thinking what they want me to think.
ReplyDelete"equivalent to religion" i would certainly allow, but not a religion in its own right.
ReplyDeleteand i have always felt that christianity's persecution complex comes from their inability to persecute others. just look at the gay marriage debate and the hate crime dustup. basically, their arguments amount to "what do mean i have to be respectful to homosexuals?!"
leigh: i don't admit to being atheist in real life. for the same reason.
If you consider theocratic aspects to include having a religious figure of head of state, then many more can be included. Queen Elizabeth II is head of the Anglican Church, and including religious figure in the definition of theocratic aspects would include any country that recognizes her as head of state. There might even be a case for this as the Queen and her Governors General have more power than the Bishop of Urgell.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that I'm reading your blog, but it does make me smile that I see you've linked to us occasionally. We love you and all of your friends and we don't want anyone burned at the stake. I hope your eyes will also be opened that when you speak of hatred, racism, etc, you express these thoughts very clearly toward us while we do not toward you. Grace and peace to you -
ReplyDeletetimothy
Is Anonymous with DNA?
ReplyDeleteum. they LIE.
ReplyDeletethey most certainly *DO* want to forcebly convert, and if that fails - or in the case of Leigh, myself, and other Pagans - they will return to the stake.
listen to yourselves, Timothy! you want me to believe you don't hate us? THEN QUIT SAYING HOW MUCH YOU HATE US AND HOW YOU WANT TO PUNISH US.
for Christ's sake, man, follow you own goddamned religious law! Don't Judge! Love Everyone Equally! Show Mercy And Charity! Don't Brag About Your Religion and Don't Shove It Down People's Throats!
Jesus said that it was better to come to God with a clear heart in a closet than it was to come to God in public with Pride, because doing it in public is like bragging.
shut up already. if - *IF* - Christians actually start acting like the actual Christ, i might - *MIGHT* - consider being one. my problem isn't with Christ, after all; just with the people who corrupt and cheapen His words.