“The Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy.”
Representative Christopher Shays — Connecticut
Given the way that Bush has invoked God in a recurring fashion during his presidency one can hardly fault people for connecting the Republican Party with Theocracy. In point of fact I couldn’t agree more with Rep. Shays. The difference between myself and Rep. Shays, I would guess, is that Rep. Shays thinks that theocracy in the Republican party as it governs is a bad thing that can be avoided while I think that theocracy in all political party’s which desire to govern is a inevitable and unavoidable thing that is good or bad depending on which God (Theo) the government or power (cracy) is serving.
As I have said ad nauseum all political arrangements are Theocracies. The trick is always being able to identify the god or gods in the arrangement. President Bush has taken neo-con ideology and has coated it with Jesus talk and has given us a neo-con Theocracy. If Barack Hussein Obama were elected we would get a Theocracy shaped and fashioned by black liberation theology and socialist and neo-liberal political theory, coated with the requisite Jesus talk. If Hillary Clinton were elected we would get a Theocracy shaped and influenced by radical feminist theology and socialist and radical liberal political theory. At least with Hillary I don’t think we will get the Jesus coating.
In many respects this election is being reduced to a battle of the (false)gods vying for supremacy, and the policy pursued will depend which of the representatives of the respected gods is elected. Once one of the gods is elected the consequence will be that his (or her) adherents will get the best government teats to suck on. Another consequence will be that with the rise of a new Theocracy, particularly if a Democrat is elected, the bottom rail will be on top — which is to say that the priests and priestesses of the god who is elected will displace the priests and priestesses of the present god in charge. This will mean that if Obama is elected that Black people, who embrace liberation theology, of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s mindset, will be favored in the Theocratic halls of power and only people who agree that black ‘Louis Farakhan’ type folk should be on top will have influence, while if Hillary is elected, radical feminists will be favored in the Theocratic halls of power, and only people who agree that the God of radical socialist feminists should be on top will have influence. The point to see here is that since these candidates have the views they have because of the Theology they believe — which stems from the God they serve — the consequence of their election will be continued Theocracy.
Now what is interesting is that the media will smell this out in those candidates perceived to be ‘conservative’ while leaving the radical Democratic party theocrats alone on the issue. For example, Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee (both really liberals) had this God issue before them all the time. This reveals that the media only sees the danger of Theocracy coming from putatively conservative Christian or putatively conservative psuedo-Christian sources. The media fails to see the Theocracy that either Obama or Hillary would rule over.
Let’s look at Obama for a second. Obama has appealed to the Christian vote, making innuendo that the Christian Right has hijacked the Christian faith and that faith needs to be appealed to again to bring people together. Obama has made appearance in some very large Evangelical Churches in order to speak (Rick Warren’s Church comes to mind.) Further Obama has sprinkled his speeches with Christianese. Obama clearly is influenced by something he is calling Christianity. Now given that this version of Christianity is only a shell that has been infused with the heart of a liberal social gospel, and the lungs of black liberation theology, and the kidneys of socialism, sustained with the convictional flow of blood that white people are evil, one can only wonder why the mainstream media isn’t concerned about the Theocracy that Obama represents.
Now, as I said, Hillary hasn’t coated her campaign with all the Jesus talk that Barack Hussein has but none the less she is still campaigning as a representative of her feminist god. This god, like all gods has a social gospel that it wants to see the government help implement. Hillary and her feminist god for example desire to involve the government ever more deeper into family life as seen in her yet to be denounced earlier efforts to harness the States power to insure that children could divorce their parents. In a 1973 article entitled ‘Children Under The Law,’ Hillary criticized the,
“pretense (that) children’s issues are somehow beyond politics,” and scorned the idea that “families are private, non-political units whose interests subsume those of children
Twenty three years later she could bang that drum again,
“As adults we have to start thinking and believing that there isn’t really any such thing as someone else’s child…for that reason, we cannot permit discussions of children and families to be subverted by political or ideological debate.”
This stance on children serves Hillary’s feminism in the theocratic use of Government to be the universal mother to children that belong to everybody thus freeing women to become the fully realized human beings they can’t become if they don’t make work or career a priority over being a housewife and mother.
Also given other consistent stances it is clear that Hillary’s Theocracy would pursue the non-Christian economics of socialism, yoking mega Corportism with mega Statism.
The over arching point here is that Theocracy is inevitable and unavoidable. Some god or gods will be that which the government is organize around and beholden to. Whether it is B. Hussein Obama or Hillary or McCain, we will continue to have a Theocracy.
Since this is true, isn’t it reasonable for Christians to desire a government that is in some shape, way, and fashion, organized around Christian convictions and beholden to the omni-benevolent God of the Bible? Certainly no Christian government will ever fully manifest all that God’s people will find in the ultimate city of God — a city that God has in store for those that love Him, but just as the fact that our own personal sanctification will never be perfect in this life doesn’t keep us from pursuing that perfection, so the reality that we will never build the perfect Christian city that God has in store for us in the fullness of the eschaton shouldn’t keep us from pursuing that excellence as God gives us strength.
Further, since Theocracy is a inevitable and unavoidable category why should we, as Christians, try to keep thinking that governments can be Theocratically sanitized? Even when Christians promote a putatively benign pluralism we have to see that such a government is headed by a panoply of gods, who in their ruling theocratic consortium, forbid any uniquely singular God to rule. This is the theocracy of polytheism, which, when examined closely, is really a Theocracy where the State rules as God determining how far the competing gods can go in the pluralistic culture that it has created in the name of polytheistic pluralism.
The reason that I close with such thoughts is that the Reformed world continues to have gentlemen like Dr. R. Scott Clark of Westminster West, as seen in a recent Heidleblog entry, who insists that it is possible to have non-theocratic government. To keep insisting such a thing is to keep whistling past the grave yard that such willful ignorance will land us in if we don’t contend for the crown rights of King Jesus in the civil realm. And when this insistence of pluralism continues in the face of exhaustive explanation it is hard to see how such advocacy doesn’t end in treason to King Jesus.
Scholastic,
I understand what you are getting at but I would say that we must recognize that the founding fathers allowed for each state to have their own preferred State recognized denomination. The forbidding in the Constitution was a forbidding of the Federal Government to have a State recognized denomination thus forcing the individual states to comply with the Federal demand. Thus it might be argued that the breakdown began when the Bill of Rights was applied to the States, when it was originally supposed to apply to the Feds.
Though, I do think other arguments can be made about the deficiency of the Constitution and how it has led us to where we are. See Gary North’s ‘Political Polytheism.’
Yes, I am persuaded that on the whole the anti-Federalists was right.
Patrick Henry’s nose did not fail him when he smelled a rat in Philadelphia.
Still, we must keep in mind that the ‘American System’ (Mercantilism) wasn’t written into the Constitution and for many years it was vehemently resisted.
Bret
After working all day I visited this website and guess what? I sound this source and I don’t feel tired any more! It’s the best entertaining source!
Humph. Someone has to force me to read this post. It’s too big and boring. Brevity is the sister of talent, remember that.