Theocracy: Government of a state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example. The theocracy lasted till the time of Saul. –Webster’s 1828 Dictionary (the original American Dictionary)
Question: Do you think our government should be a theocracy?
Answer: American Government should absolutely rule by the moral standards of the Judeo-Christian God and thus, it will be a protection for those who walk in obedience to His Law.
Explanation: A Theocratic government, as so many Islamic nations mimic, forces conversion that in turn develops fear and resentment towards God. If a man is forced to worship a God he does not love, God will despise his worship and the government of tyranny is all that will benefit. Islam seeks to force man’s conscience to do what only God can, and for that reason they destroy what they claim to build. This is no different than the Roman Catholic tyranny in the dark ages, the Church of England’s tyranny over the citizens of England during the time of the colonization of America, Lutheran tyranny in Germany post reformation, etc.
Government can most definitely enforce the moral conduct laws that God has clearly defined because God is the Author of Law. Government cannot, however, take from a non-religious man the rights that Nature’s God has granted so long as his behavior stays in line with the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. When a man breaks a moral law, he forfeits the liberty that law protects.
Freedom of Conscience: For the same reason Government cannot convert a man’s conscience, it cannot force a man’s conscience to believe, respect, or worship God in any form, non the less force him with threat of consequence to make a certain confession of beliefs.
The purpose of Government is not to make a man a Christian, it is to penalize by statute and justice those who seek to inflict violence upon the liberties God has given to man. Government may also penalize a man who irreverently blasphemes the God who gave us those liberties. However it can never be used as a tool to convert a man, for God does not convert by force, but rather compels through redemption. Government, like a schoolmaster, is to guide a man to the love of the God who gave rights, and who jealously guards those rights with an impenetrable wall of Law.
Government exalts Law because it (government) was given authority from God, and it (government) is a servant of God that will benefit mankind. If Government were to separate itself from the God who ordained it, it will corrupt, for no man has another man’s interest in mind without the moral constraints given by the God who redeemed mankind.
Answer: American Government should absolutely rule by the moral standards of the Judeo-Christian God and thus, it will be a protection for those who walk in obedience to His Law.
To claim America should be forced to follow the ‘morals’ (a term i use loosely) from any religion is absurd. I cannot imagine how convoluted such reasoning is.
First, there is no credible evidence your god exists. Claiming the bible is proof is circular reasoning. It is about as credible as a statement written by a thief claiming he didn’t commit the crime. When asked for proof he points to his statement. The difference between your bible and talking animals in Mother Goose is your bible has no corroborating evidence. Mother Goose talking animals are corroborated by your bible.
Second, morals do not come from your bible or your god. They come from humans. Who thinks it’s moral to beat infants against stones until their dead, destroy someone’s house and rape women? (Psalm 137:9; Isaiah 13:16) Every person not suffering from a psychosis, that’s who. With that being the case then morals come from somewhere besides your god.
Third, the founders were in a position you are not. They had first-hand experience what life was like under an official state religion. Pennsylvania Quakers hanged for crossing over into Anglican Virginia. Can’t testify in court unless you proclaim publicly you’re a christian. Non-christians were second-class citizens. If you missed church one Sunday a rope was tied around your ankles and stretched behind your back with the other end tied around your neck. You stayed that way for a day. Miss twice and you become a community slave for a week. Miss a third time and you are a slave for a year. What is the moral lesson in that?
I don’t believe mythical gods exist so I’ll ask a hypothetical question. Is something moral because god says it or does god say it because it’s moral? If it’s moral because god says it then morals change all through your bible. Killing every man, woman and child in a town doesn’t seem moral to me but god ordered it several times. If you don’t think such actions are moral then morals come from outside god. If god says something because it’s moral then, again, morals exist outside your god.
Having a god makes morals flexible. The christians that bomb medical clinics use religion as their justification. Crusades, inquisition, burning witches and killing everyone that does not convert to a christian are not moral acts yet they were carried out with the blessings of the church. I am a born-again atheists. I do not believe bombing medical clinics or killing doctors in their churches is moral. I never will. I don’t need religion to be moral.
Religion breeds bigotry and intolerance. You christians think there should be prayer in schools and anyone that chooses not to participate be sent out of the room. You see no problem with that. I see it as divisive. Children thrown out of the classroom because they don’t believe in the right god puts them into a different category and christian children think it OK to bully them. Christian children see them as second-class citizens. It’s as wrong as separation because of race or national origin.
Finally, I would like to know this: if the founders meant for The United States of America to be a christian nation then why are the words christian, salvation, god and jesus nowhere to be found? Why does the preamble begin with “We the people…”. Why is it the Declaration of Independence, a document that has no force of law even though christians seem to think it does considering the way they mis-quote it, explicitly state: “That to secure these rights, GOVERNMENTS are INSTITUTED among MEN, DERIVING THEIR just POWERS from the CONSENT of THE GOVERNED.” No mention of any gods there. The only two times religion is mentioned in the Constitution are both in the negative. The presidential oath of office DOES NOT end with ‘so help me god’. That’s an addition some president give it while a great many others did not.
So, I don’t agree that the country should be run by christian morals. Look at what a disaster the medieval times turned out to be once the church got power. Iran is a theocracy. Why don’t you go live there for a while so you will know, first hand, what life under a theocracy is. I’ll bet you won’t like it. A christian theocracy would be no better.
Theocracy is very dangerous to any country and it doesn’t matter what type of relilgion it is is….it is just dangerous. I agree
with but also we need to bring up the treaty of Tripoly Article 11 which states United States of Ameri ca is in no way a christian
nation, period. You Theocracy people are very dangerous for any society.
“[W]e need to bring up the treaty of Tripoly Article 11 which states United States of America is in no way a christian nation, period.”
The text referred to actually reads…“the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” not that “is in no way a Christian Nation”, which is a conclusion completely inconsistent with the prior Barbary Treaties recognizing the United States as a “Christian Power.”
Nevertheless, honesty is the best policy as everyone knows that Article 11 doesn’t exist in Barlow’s original translation of the Arabic, nor does it is exist in the original Arabic itself, or the Italian either. There is no Article 11.
There is no discussion of this matter in any of the diplomatic correspondence surrounding the negotiations of the Treaty itself. It is unknown how the spurious Article came to exist in the published copy, but it only exists in that particular English rendition, and is of no consequence being an Article of Treaty with no one. Contrary to Silas’ claim, Treaty’s must be made with a foreign nation, a dubious article inconsistent with the intents of both parties and only existing in a translation of one party does not serve as a “quasi-Amendment,” as Silas attempted to use it preying upon the ignorance of the reader. That whole idea is in error and would violate Article V of the Constitution. It’s just a silly worn out piece of propaganda that proves nothing.
Moreover, however, Silas’ point doesn’t have anything to do with the author’s argument or the actual history; I don’t know of anyone that argues that the Federal Constitution was intended to embody or sanction ecclesiastical powers, although the covenantal structure is modeled after Presbyterian Church government. The authors argument is juridical, not religious as he is falsely accused, and while certainly theonomic it is neither an ecclesiastical or theocratic argument. While he used the term “morals” his argument is an ethical argument, which it is indisputable that the Common Law, every State Constitution and the Federal Constitution are resting upon distinctly Biblical ethics derived from the Protestant Reformation.
The argument by “Jerry M” of Aug 1, 2011 is incomprehensible as there is no such thing as morals not derived from religious principle. In contrast to the author who was making an ethical argument against theocracy, Jerry M is clearly theocratic to the core holding that democracy is Sovereign, hence there is no appeal beyond mans and the pinnacle of his power, the State. While Jerry M may be a humanist he’s overtly religious, he just denies that because his religion is anti-christian, and is a political religion mimicking the paganistic political religions of antiquity.
His argument attempting to point out that the Constitution did not establish an ethical order is correct, he’s just interpreted it exactly backwards reading an establishment of his political religion into it. Cute trick, but so 1950′s, and like Silas another silly worn out piece of propaganda that proves nothing. Does anyone even fall for such shallow and infantile thinking anymore?
The Constitution is a document of express powers, it does not establish an ethical order but is covenantal and established upon the already existing ethical order of English Common Law which was general Christianity. Properly understood there is no power to change this established in the Federal Constitution, hence the Federal government was never granted any power to disestablish the Christian ethical foundation of law; and, further the First Amendment absolutely barred any attempt to do so through the rubric of interpretation by expressly prohibiting that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
While humanists and atheists are free to build little idols of the Capitol Building and dip them in gold setting up little shrines in their homes if they want to, the Constitution properly understood, interpreted and applied prohibits the humanistic conversion of the general government into a political religion as much as it prohibits the establishment of a national christian denomination in exclusion of others.