Here I continue dissecting Dr. R. Scott’s Clark’s R2K rant against Theocracy.
“It is no business of the state where I worship or how and the state has no business imposing a religion upon me or in coercing—all taxation is coercion—me into funding another religious sect (I do not use the term sect here prejudicially but neutrally since, as far as the civil magistrate is concerned, all religions are sects).”
This sounds so noble. It is pure Americana. But let’s look at this closely before we salute this sentiment.
Is it really no business of the state where I worship? What if I worship in a mosque where they tell me that honor killing errant women is pleasing to Allah? Is it of no interest to the state if where I worship teaches that Allah is pleased with marrying 8-year-old little girls to grown adult men? Does the state have no interest when a synagogue is teaching from the Talmud Jesus is in hell boiling in excrement? Does the state have no interest when in worship the congregation is smoking peyote? (see Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith) Does the state have no interest when in worship marriage services are conducted marrying several women to one man? How about worship where child sacrifice is occurring? Does the State have no interest then?
You see, it is just not true that the State has no business where its citizens worship and it is not true that the State has no business in how they worship.
And does Scott really want to suggest that the monies he is taxed now do not go towards religious sects he disagrees with? What about all that money that is going to support the State humanist Churches called “Government schools?”
Next Scott tries to argue that the US Constitution is not a uniquely Christian document and while there is no doubt that the Constitution is lacking in a bold explicit affirmation of Christianity, Scott should not miss this clause,
“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a law, in like Manner as if he had signed it . . . “
Article I, Section 7Constitution of the United States of America
Sundays excepted is in the Constitution as a nod to Sabbath laws, which in America existed because of its status as a Christian nation. Scott should be careful with his sweeping generalistic statements.
Scott then goes on to insist that the American experiment of a neutral public square and religious pluralism has worked well. Since Scott seldom looks beneath the surface he can’t see how badly this mythic pluralism has been. He can’t see how putative religious pluralism accounted for the bloody civil war where the Unitarian “Christianity” of the North murdered, raped, and maimed its way across the Christian South. Apparently, Scott can’t see how this putative religious pluralism is now ripping the country apart. I can’t force the man to see what his glasses will not allow him to see.
Scott next makes an incredible boner of a statement when he asks,
Is not one purpose of the Bill of Rights to protect our liberty from theocrats and despots?
Actually, “no” Scott that was never to be one of the purposes of the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was drafted in its original intent to protect the Liberty of the States (not individuals) from those in the Federal Government who would seek to fix a uniform Christian Denomination on all the colonies. Most of the States in their State documents were explicitly Theocratic of one stripe or another and the Bill of Rights had the intent of making it clear that the Feds were not to mess with that. The Bill of Rights on this point was drafted with the express intent of protecting the State theocracies from any Federal interference. The States liked their theocracies that Scott so consistently laments.
So, given how wrong Scott is here how can his interpretation of American History be trusted at any other point?
Scott then makes, quite without knowing it I’m sure, the case for Secession when he acknowledges the impossibility of having a state Church in our modern context in America given the presence of so many false churches.
Next Scott with hostile intent violates the 9th commandment by slandering Reconstructionists with the Federal Vision brush. The man has been told constantly that Federal Vision does not equal Reconstructionism and yet he continues with the slander. This is another major reason I really really despise the man.
I may have one more go at Clark. His R2K analysis is so head up his arse on postmillennialism it is difficult to keep a civil tongue in my typing fingers. If I have another go at his article it will deal with Scott’s down’s syndrome understanding of Postmillennialism.