In FrontPage this morning I discuss the new fashion in the mainstream media: exposing the alleged plot to establish a theocracy in the U.S. -- the Christian plot, that is (news links in the original):
A new book that is climbing the New York Times Bestseller List warns Americans of a dedicated minority of religious fanatics who are hijacking a great religion and actively working to destroy the United States Constitution and set up a theocracy in America, in which nonbelievers will be discriminated against or even summarily killed. Nor is their nefarious vision confined to the United States alone: this small but influential and wealthy band of religious zealots is also trying to turn events in the Middle East to their own advantage, so as to advance their religious agenda there also.Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, Muhammad Atta? No, James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Tim LaHaye. The book in question is Chris Hedges’ American Fascists, which argues that America as we know it is under threat – not from Islamic jihadists, but from a small group of evangelical Christians who are determined to remake the United States as a Christian state. Warning about “Christianism,” a neologism coined to parallel “Islamism,” has become fashionable. Ranging from the merely hysterical to the ranting and paranoid, books sounding the alarms about Christian theocracy are appearing in large numbers. Among the crop published in 2006 alone were, besides Hedges’ book, American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips; The Baptizing of America by James Rudin; Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg; The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege by Damon Linker; Thy Kingdom Come by Randall Balmer; Piety & Politics by Barry Lynn; and Religion Gone Bad by Mel White. Other popular books sound many of the same themes, including The Conservative Soul by homosexual activist and blogger Andrew Sullivan and the atheist apologetics The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.
A general tendency of such books is to equate to varying degrees, often in an off-handed manner suggesting that the equivalence was self-evident, Christian and Muslim “extremists,” “radicals,” or “fundamentalists.” Hedges declared that “the Christian Right and radical Islamists, although locked in a holy war, increasingly mirror each other. They share the same obsessions. They do not tolerate other forms of belief or disbelief. They are at war with artistic and cultural expression. They seek to silence the media. They call for the subjugation of women. They promote severe sexual repression, and they seek to express themselves through violence.” Sure, we’re told, the Islamists are working to impose religious rule on their societies, but so are the Christianists, and the Christianists posed the far more immediate and serious threat. Some even charge that just as the Taliban practiced stonings and beheadings, so would these “Christianists” if they got half a chance.The threat is imminent. Hedges claims that “those arrayed against American democracy are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them to shred the Constitution in the name of national security and strength.” He even asserts that “those in the movement often speak about such a moment with gleeful anticipation.” For now – but only for now – the Christian Right is “forced to function within the political system it seeks to destroy.”
If there really is a domestic threat of religious authoritarianism that threatens to destroy the Constitution, this would be a matter of considerable concern. But as the Qur’an says, “Bring your proof, if you be truthful” (2:111; 27:64). Good advice.
In support of his claims that “those arrayed against American democracy are waiting for a moment to strike, a national crisis that will allow them to shred the Constitution in the name of national security and strength,” Chris Hedges offers only a single quotation from “right-wing strategist” Howard Phillips, who said in a speech to the Council for National Policy that “it is time to leave the ‘political Titanic’ on which the conservative movement has for too long booked passage” and to “build an ark so that we can and will be ready to renew and restore our nation and our culture when God brings the tides to flood.”
A call to shred the Constitution? Phillips’ words read more plausibly as a call to a conservative movement demoralized by defeat after defeat not to give up, but to develop a new strategy and await a day in which their message will be received more favorably.
The primary focus of the theocracy foes’ fears is a movement arising from Calvinistic circles in the United States, Christian Reconstructionism. According to the anti-theocracy writers, Christian Reconstructionism has insinuated its adherents into the highest levels of government, and want to replace the Constitution with laws mandating the stoning of homosexuals and adulterers. The proof for this comes largely from the writings of the intellectual guiding lights of the Reconstructionist movement, and the chief villains of virtually every piece devoted to exposing its enormities: two American Calvinists, Rousas John Rushdoony (who died in 2001) and his son-in-law, Gary North.
Rushdoony and North may be well cast in this villain’s role, for at least according to some reports they apparently do depart from Christian tradition in calling for capital punishment for crimes such as adultery and homosexuality, as specified in the Book of Leviticus. In a 1998 piece in Reason magazine, Rushdoony is said to defend Biblical punishments for a variety of offenders: “blasphemers, heretics, apostate Christians, people who cursed or struck their parents, females guilty of ‘unchastity before marriage,’ ‘incorrigible’ juvenile delinquents, adulterers, and (probably) telephone psychics.” North is quoted in the same article defending the ancient Biblical punishment of stoning: “Why stoning? There are many reasons. First, the implements of execution are available to everyone at virtually no cost.”
Foes of theocracy point to statements like this one from the popular Presbyterian minister and writer George Grant: “Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in the civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion that we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That’s what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less….Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ. It is to reinstitute the authority of God’s Word as supreme over all judgments, over all legislation, over all declarations, constitutions, and confederations. True Christian political action seeks to rein the passions of men and curb the pattern of digression under God’s rule.”
Strong words. But do statements like these amount to a manifesto to subvert the non-establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution and establish Christian rule in the United States? The “theocrats” themselves deny this. Chris Ortiz of Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation explains: “The paranoid secularist reads this portion of Grant and links it with the political activism and lobbying of the Religious Right in order to assemble a frightening monster of religious fascism. But, Grant would likely be the first to argue that there is no theocratic conspiracy….In other words, don’t confuse the rhetoric or ideology of certain radical thinkers with the mass of conservative Christianity.”
Grant is indeed first to argue that there is no theocratic conspiracy, or at least, if there is, that he opposes it. Responding to claims that the passage above is a declaration of intent to destroy the U.S. Constitution, he wrote in an email to me:
1. My body of work demonstrates that I am an ardent defender of the 1st Amendment.2. I am an opponent of “state churches.”
3. I am an opponent of confusing, blurring, or overlapping the spheres of authority and jurisdictions between church and state and family. […]
The quoted passage is from a long discussion regarding cultural evangelism, not petty partisanship. It is from a discussion of ends, not means. The language is the culmination of a discourse in the realm of eschatological theology, not practical activism….
In a similar vein, Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation declares: “We propose an explicitly Biblical system of thought and action as the exclusive basis for civilization. Only by restoring the Christian Faith and Biblical law as the standard of all of life can Christians hope to re-establish Christian civilizations.” Theocracy? Maybe, but the statement goes on to say: “We believe that the source of godly change is regeneration by the Holy Spirit, not revolution by the violence of man…. No government in any form can make men Christians or truly obedient; this is the work of God’s sovereign grace. Much less should civil government try to impose Biblical law on an unbelieving society. Biblical law cannot be imposed; it must be embraced.”
In fact, much of the evidence that theocracy foes point to in order to establish their point that Christians intend to subvert the U.S. Constitution and replace it with Biblical law is actually evidence only that Christian pastors and leaders have for some years been reasserting the right and duty of Christians to participate in American public life, as over against the radical secularists who contend that any political activity by Christian groups constitutes a violation of the Establishment Clause.
The more conspiracy-minded among the theocracy foes, of course, brush aside such denials. The whole thing is a secret plot, you see – what else would you expect but that the plotters would deny their plotting? After all, according to Chris Hedges, the American values of “compassion, tolerance and belief in justice and equality” are “being dismantled, often with stealth…” There can be no rational response to such paranoia, or any definitive refutation of it, but it is noteworthy to compare these denials to the open statements by Muslim leaders about the Islamic supremacist imperative. For while there is no shortage of Muslim spokesmen who proclaim their rejection of terrorism, those who are pursuing the jihad are generally quite open about their intentions – in stark contrast to the flat denials from the very Christian leaders who are supposed to be leading the push for theocracy.
Before he left Britain one step ahead of law enforcement and returned to his native Lebanon, the jihadist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad often boasted of his intention to “transform the West into Dar Al-Islam” and establish Islamic law on British soil. “I want to see the black flag of Islam flying over Downing Street,” he said, and his now-disbanded al-Muhajiroun group was dedicated to this goal. The transformation of Britain into an Islamic state could come in two ways, he explained: “if an Islamic state arises and invades,” in which case “we will be its army and its soldiers from within.” But if no such Islamic state arises, Bakri said that Muslims would convert the West to Islam “through ideological invasion...without war and killing.”
Al-Qaeda’s second in command, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri, articulated a global vision in the summer of 2006: “War with Israel is not subject to a treaty, cease-fire, Sykes-Picot Treaty agreements, patriotism or disputed borders, but it is jihad for the cause of God until the entire religion is for him only. Jihad seeks the liberation of Palestine, the entire country of Palestine and to liberate every land that used to be a territory of Islam, from Spain to Iraq. The entire world is an open field for us…With the grace of God, we have now returned to the field….Dear Muslim brothers everywhere, today we must target the Jewish and the American interests everywhere.”[1]
Until November 2003, when adverse publicity compelled them to take it down, the Islamic Affairs Department (IAD) of the Saudi Arabian embassy in Washington carried this statement of Islamic supremacism and belligerency on its website: “The Muslims are required to raise the banner of Jihad in order to make the Word of Allah supreme in this world, to remove all forms of injustice and oppression, and to defend the Muslims. If Muslims do not take up the sword, the evil tyrants of this earth will be able to continue oppressing the weak and [the] helpless…”[2]
In other words, if a country is perceived to be hindering the spread of Islam, Muslims are obliged to wage war against it. The spread of Islam must continue at all costs. There can be no half-measures or peaceful coexistence with unbelievers as equals on an indefinite basis. As the Egyptian jihad theorist Sayyid Qutb (1906-1966), whose works are still widely influential among Muslims worldwide, put it in his jihad manifesto Milestones (Ma’alim ‘ala Al-Tariq), which has circulated throughout the world and been published in well over a thousand editions: “Islam cannot accept any mixing with Jahiliyyah [the society of unbelievers]….Either Islam will remain, or Jahiliyyah: Islam cannot accept or agree to a situation which is half-Islam and half-Jahiliyyah….Command belongs to God, or otherwise to Jahiliyyah; God’s Shari’ah [Islamic law] will prevail, or else people’s desires. ‘And judge between them according to what God has revealed, and do not follow their opinions, and beware of them lest they confuse you in matters which God has revealed’ (Qur’an 5:50)…‘And if they do not respond to you, then know that they are following their own opinions; and who can be more misguided than one who follows his own opinion against the guidance from God? Indeed, God does not guide the wicked people.’ (Qur’an 28:50)….The foremost duty of Islam in this world is to depose Jahiliyyah from the leadership of man, and to take the leadership into its own hands and enforce the particular way of life which is its permanent feature.”[3]
The jihadist website Khilafah.com puts it succinctly: “Islam makes it a duty upon all Muslims to work to change their countries from Dar al-Kufr [the land of unbelief] to Dar al-Islam [the land of Islam]…” It exhorts Muslims to “carry Islam to the world through invitation and jihad.”
Andrew Sullivan, while sounding the alarm about Christian theocrats, concedes that Christian Reconstructionists are “marginal, extremists, and largely disowned by the fundamentalist mainstream.” Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the Islamic jihadists, who are active in numerous countries around the world, and whose version of Islam is not being effectively combated by any significant movement of peaceful Muslims anywhere.
Should we turn our attention away from a real threat to an imagined one? That is what Chris Hedges and the other anti-theocracy writers are asking us to do. While fiction has always competed with reality in the public discourse about the Islamic jihad, the Christian theocracy scare books represent projection on a massive scale. Unfortunately, while Chris Hedges leads the hunt for Christian theocrats under our bed, real theocrats continue to advance a violent supremacist agenda worldwide. We ignore or dismiss that at our own risk.
Notes:
[1] “A Video Speech from Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri Regarding the Events in Lebanon and Gaza – 7/27/2006,” SITE Institute, July 27, 2006.[2] Steven Stalinsky, “The ‘Islamic Affairs Department’ of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, D.C.,” Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Special Report - No. 23, November 26, 2003.
[3] Sayyid Qutb, Milestones, The Mother Mosque Foundation, n.d., pp. 130-131.
Among the crop published in 2006 alone were, besides Hedges’ book, American Theocracy by Kevin Phillips; The Baptizing of America by James Rudin; Kingdom Coming by Michelle Goldberg; The Theocons: Secular America Under Siege by Damon Linker; Thy Kingdom Come by Randall Balmer; Piety & Politics by Barry Lynn; and Religion Gone Bad by Mel White. Other popular books sound many of the same themes, including The Conservative Soul by homosexual activist and blogger Andrew Sullivan and the atheist apologetics The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins and Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris.
Confronted with a real enemy, a terrible and frightening enemy, these writers are projecting the threat over to a benign "enemy" that they can understand.
I didn't understand that the recent crop of antiChristian tracts was so big. The Moslems really have these guys worried.
And picking on such a safe target. Betcha there's not a fist fighter in the bunch.
APF, spot on analysis, except that the term is not "projection" but "displacement" - "a way of avoiding dealing with a really threatening and/or painful truth by focusing on a less threatening object" to quote from the excellent Dr Sanity (Pat Santy).
Sorry APF, the error was not yours:
final paragraph of the article: "...the Christian theocracy scare books represent projection on a massive scale." They represent *displacement* on a massive scale.
I've come to the conclusion that the most hated man in history wasn't Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Napolean, any of the Ceasers, none of the despots that tortured the world throughout history.
The most hated man in history was Jesus of Nazareth.
I'm not sure why this should be the case as this individual never murdered anyone. Even those who hate him acknowledge that he helped his contemporaries by healing them in so many ways.
As a matter of fact, because of Jesus of Nazareth and those who followed his teachings, mankind excelled in every field of the arts, literature, and science; giving the greatest cultural achievements the world has ever known.
Civilization would not have ascended to the heights it has attained without Jesus of Nazareth simply because there would have been no reason whatsoever to ascend.
Look at the islamic lands -- crude, filthy, dirty, and murderous just like the despicable founder, mohammad; although a few cosmetic western enhancements seem to mask over the underlying rot.
So why the frontal assult on Jesus and everything that follows from him?
The rabid assult on this most hated man in history is not merely occuring on the front mentioned here; but everywhere.
Perhaps because the attackers fear no backlash?
There real enemy will overtake them soon enough and they will mourn the passing of these days when life was sweet and good.
Once these fools have extinguished the light, it will never be rekindled for them; and the darkness that they long for, they shall have forever.
Sure, the Christian movement cannot compare to Islamic fanaticism and terrorism. But when the Texas Republican platform calls America a 'Christian Nation', I worry. At the very least, this is highly offensive to non-Christians. And it is not going to far to call the Republican Party the Party of Jesus. They certainly go out of their way to talk like that.
And we should worry about civil liberties in the war on terror, e.g. suspending Habeas Corpus for citizens, etc. The same concerns as voiced by CATO, by the way. And look at all the redneck commentators at this site who equate the struggle against Islamic terrorism with a literal Christian Crusade. Ignorance survives. We must be vigilant. Here's a good link:
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
Oh, and there's the issue of whether the Constitution is inspired by the 'Judeo-Christian' tradition. It most certainly is not! Clearly the founding fathers drew their inspiration from the European Enlightenment, which was all about secularism and separating Church and State. The Church was the biggest obstacle to the development of secular democracy. Only an ignorant homeschooled revisionist would think otherwise.
Yes, Islam is an extreme danger, but the American conservatives aren't as intelligent, informed and enlightened as I would like. (The liberals have their flaws, but excessive religiosity isn't one of them.) Robert Spencer is kind of a smokescreen, since he is always sweet reason, without really being typical of the cranky, pious, combative, sanctimonious, conservative mentality in America.
benjamin wrote "The Church was the biggest obstacle to the development of secular democracy. Only an ignorant homeschooled revisionist would think otherwise."
Only a poorly educated, liberally indoctrinated public schooler would make such an erroneous and ridiculous statement.
Conservatives may not be as intelligent as you would like (they really don't care what you would like, by the way) but at least they aren't as arrogant and condescending as liberals. And they read history as it was, not as you wish it had been.
Anyone who honestly believes that America, in today's social and political climate, is in danger of becoming a Christian theocracy, is a fool.
The theocracy scare is just another political tool.
It was used against JFK. It was used against the pro-life movement. And today it appears to have gained the additional use of shifting attention away from the forthcoming Sharia, which actually is a theocratic system.
Congratulations Left, you've convinced society that any moral belief stemming from a politically undesirable religion is "theocracy" and therefore lacks credibility, is unconstitutional, etc. That's how people who deviate from the party line on abortion and homosexual marriage get lumped into the same category with those who really do want to replace the U.S. Constitution... with Sharia.
Yes, Islam is an extreme danger, but the American conservatives aren't as intelligent, informed and enlightened as I would like.
My goodness, you must be all wise and knowing.
Oh, and there's the issue of whether the Constitution is inspired by the 'Judeo-Christian' tradition. It most certainly is not! Clearly the founding fathers drew their inspiration from the European Enlightenment, which was all about secularism and separating Church and State
Obviously, you haven't read the Federalist papers or have no comprehension as to what they are talking about; nor have you read any
of Jeffersons letters regarding the separation issue.
The Church was the biggest obstacle to the development of secular democracy.
Really? It didn't seem to stop secular democracy from flourishing in Europe. Now the secularists have bigger fish to fry -- shariah law.
They would have been better under the yoke of Jesus than the burden of Mohammad; which the pc/multi-culturalist secularists are now embracing.
Only an ignorant homeschooled revisionist would think otherwise.
I can tell Ben wasn't homeschooled; he's an idiot. Most homeschoolers including the secular ones, are not.
I would not write off leaders of the so-called Christian Right just yet. Some of them do want a theocracy. I suspect some of them admire the theocracies in Iran and Saudi Arabia. Watch what they will say after a major disaster hits America. They will say God is angry with America and will push for morality laws. People will still be in a state of shock and will not oppose them. Hell, Jerry Falwell already said this after 9/11. I'm not saying this is an organized conspiracy but these leaders of the Christian Right will unwittingly bring about a theocracy. They may mean well but the results will be sinister.
Then again, this may be the influence of Seventh Day Adventist theology and Ellen White's books.
Okay, that last sentence should read "Then again, this may be me under the influence of Seventh Day Adventist theology and Ellen White's books".
People with views such as Richard Dawkins or poster-"Benjamin" use the word "pious" as anexpletive. This had me wondering what's in a name and can it give us insight into a mindset? Its root is the Latin "pius" meaning dutiful. Could it be that it is acknowledging this duty to Someone higher and greater that really rankles the secular purists among us?
There was a famous angel whose name meant "light bringer" who declared unto his Master: "I WILL NOT SERVE." It seems that those who claim to be clothed in a mantle of "light" from the Enlightenment cry out the same "I WILL NOT SERVE" into their self-imposed darkness. Perhaps it is the very word pious/dutiful that scares the Hell out of (and ironically into) the ME Generation.
Wrathofasma: "Push for morality laws"????? All laws reflect an underlying moral order. Why would we have laws allowing us to put car thieves and murderers in prison or enabling us to sue negligent companies and professionals, if not for beliefs about stealing, killing, and neglecting one's duty as being wrong? All cultures are planted in some "cultus"; a system of what and whom is worshipped gving rise to what virtues are held in high esteem and which actions/behaviors are repudiated and punished.
Morality encompasses more than simply the sexual, though I suspect it is laws having to do with inhibiting the "fun" that the Sexual Revolution has produced to which you were actually referring.
You can indeed rid this country (USA) of the Judeo-Christian moral order BUT some other moral order WILL rush in to replace it. No society of humans can build themselves upon a base of a moral vacuum. So be very careful what you wish for AND remember to lock your doors and engage your car alarm.
All the best, Bevc
Benjamin, the US IS a Christian nation, founded by Christians. Most Christians like me oppose a theocracy, otherwise it would have happened already. I have no fear of a Christian throcracy, and outside of some small, marginalized groups, there is no credible movement to do so. Only a lot of people making up non-existent conspiracies trying to deflect attention from those (Muslims) who really are working to establish a theocracy.
I see their tactics, use the MSM to scare the Islamaliberal Americans into believing the unbelievable, all the while the ACLU is doing a bang-up job of separating America from its heritage.
I would think that most legitimate biblical scholars listed as 'theocrats' would include in their worldview Peter's and Paul's exhortations to obey the civil authorities and the belief that the believer's citizenship is in heaven and that they are only talking about a cultural non-government-backed revolution.. Anyway.. Also coming to mind are David, Josiah and Hezekiah- godly leaders of Israel and Judah respectively- who had all civil authority but whose kingdoms were still a shambles because the peoples' hearts were not turned toward God.. Remembering this always stops me from believing that a solid-christian civil leadership would have any affect on a region's culture at large...
Hedges declared that “the Christian Right and radical Islamists, although locked in a holy war, increasingly mirror each other.
Yeah, the number of abductions, suicide bombings, car bombings, beheadings, et al of the Christian Right around the world is absolutely staggering.
Oh wait.
Wrathofasma, you've convinced me with your compelling logic and I now believe that we are sitting on a theocratic timebomb.
At first I thought it was absurd, but after careful consideration I've realized it is just waiting to happen. Imagine this scenario (just one plausability of many):
California falls into the sea.
Jerry Falwell is given a nation-wide platform by the media and he denounces America's immorality, which he claims caused this disaster.
The vast majority of Americans, liberals, atheists, non-christians, libertarians, and conservatives alike, are so shocked that they demand that the government take away their rights to drinking, gaming, pornography, sodomy, contraceptives, and dancing.
Because, you know, they're all so shocked.
Like, California-just-fell-into-the-sea-and-I-feel-guily-but-I-can't-control-my-own-vices-without-government-intervention-and-forget-about-the-rights-of-other-people shocked.
Why don't religious people understand that those who don't believe just *don't believe*?? One can't force oneself to believe. Duh!!
While the idea of a theocratic timebomb seems extreme, if someone, of any religion, spouts stuff about me being stoned for premarital sex, and my gay friends being killed for being gay, I do find it alarming. It's basically a kind of 'death voucher' - 'if we had enough power, we'd kill you for what you are'.
So obviously I don't want people like that to have much power. Simple really.
BevC
I'm not just talking about laws limiting debauchery. Hell, I could care less if abortion et al is restricted if not outright outlawed. Ever heard of Sunday laws? The puritan colonies had it, and I'm sure in the early days the first states had it on the books as well. Church worship was forced on the people, and it may well come back. As Cheeky Human put in his sarcastic (I think) post, it could take a disaster of biblical proportions to force this stubborn country onto its knees, asking God to forgive them.
Perhaps a trip to Mecca would enlighten some as to the colossal difference between what some religious people say and what some religious people do, oh, and that is a one-way ticket to Mecca, no return flight needed.
This is beyond ridiculous. Can anyone name a single country where christian fundamentalists instituted a theocracy in past century? By contrast, how about totalitarian take overs by muslim or leftist movements? Dozens. In the latter case, the leftists severe religious persecution of innocent christians was almost always accompanied and justified by the false canard that they were plotting a theocratic takeover. So this type of false accusation being trotted out by anyone should have all christians immediately on guard. Standard marxist accusation.
I shouldn't fear the so-called Christian Right. They are annoying, even to my, a Christian. But they are just that, annoying. I do have a feeling that they could come to power and try to enforce piety if they had the chance, but that may be the influence of Seventh Day Adventist theology. Their way of studying prophecy, especially Revelations, focuses on Rome. From Rome, they say, the anti-Christ will come. They think the anti-Christ will be the Pope (maybe not Benedict). The little horn on one of the beasts (there are many in Revelations) is said to be the Catholic Church.
Frankly I don't know who is right anymore. Is the anti-Christ going to come from the UN (as that idiotic Left Behind series postulates)? Will the anti-Christ be the Mahdi that Ahmadinutjob prays for every day? Will the anti-Christ come from the Holy See? I'm sick and tired of studying Revelations now. At this point, God only knows what will happen. I'll just live and let live.
I agree with witness.
Secondly, how many atheists and Jews do you know of living in the non-Israeli part of the ME? None! Where are the free thinkers when you need them? Do atheists and leftists come from a specific lineage? No! In the ME, except in Israel and Lebanon, you either be a Christian, Jew, Muslim, or not there. That should scare the liberals, lefties, gays, and commies more than anything else, astronomically more so than a Christian theocracy, which cannot, does not, and will never exist.
It never ceases to amaze me the ignorance of Western anti-Christians. You fools are living in a Christian system. Most people here are Christian, or Christian-like most of the time. When stupid people decry that they are being taught Christian principles, to coin Rosy, “it annoys me to no end,” because I know first-hand what places void of Christian principles are like.
Lili get over yourself! What kind of nonsense are you spewing? Do you see Jews, who place their faith in the Torah, advocating such punishments? Get real, man! No one is perfect. Judgment is assigned to Jesus to whether you really live or die. You are not, however, free to commit all sorts of immorality, because nothing displeases God more than a Mad Max like world or a ME like world.
Well, while I recognize that the Reverend Pat Robrtson isn't calling for beheadings, I still think he's a casual blasphemer who spouts "The LORD told me..." without regard for book, chapter, and verse, or for his own having been dead wrong on certain occasions (he once "prophesied" that the Berlin Wall would come down before the 'seventies were out). Deauteronomy 18 clearly teaches us that such men are blashphemers.
Also, a theocratic vision of society might just be very wary of putting too much power into the hands of sinful mortals. That was the burden of Samuel Rutherford's _Lex Rex_ (1644), which came out roughly a generation before Locke. And nobody can accuse the Scots Covenanters of being non-theocratic.
True Christianity is not involved with politics, socio-economics, war and the military, medicine, art, culture,dominionism or the affairs of the world!!!
Neither is it Old Testament, Old Covenant Judaism!!!
True Christianity is not/never a theocracy!!!