Random Firings of Neurons

The rest of your life is going to be spent getting back up after life has knocked you down again. You might as well just get used to it.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Round Rock, Texas, United States

Wednesday, August 04, 2004

On theocracy

I should take some time to expound upon a philosophy that I discovered while reading a brief summary of the major philosophies of the world. What amazed me about this philosophy is that it is either the first or second most widely believed philosophy in the world, and I had never heard of it. Nearly half of the voting public in America believes this philosophy, and nearly all, if not all, of Europe is governed by this philosophy. It was the philosophy that used to govern more people in the world than any other philosophy, and I had never heard of it. I would be willing to bet, unless you have fallen asleep during a philosophy class, that you have never heard of it, either. The philosophy is NOT Communism. Communism is a form of government based on this philosophy. The philosophy is Dialectic Materialism.

Dialectic Materialism (or DM for short, since I am tired of typing it already) holds that individuals have no control over history. Only movements have any control over the fate of history. Individuals are merely cogs in a machine. They are either "haves", or they are "have-nots". The "haves", will try and remain "haves", by taking from the "have-nots", or even other "haves", if neccessary. "Have-nots" don't want to be "have-nots", so they are trying to become "haves". And they will do anything it takes to become "haves", including taking from other "have-nots". All that exists is a shark-infested pool of material, with the only food source being other sharks, according to DM.

DM also holds that only those who are "enlightened" (maybe not the term it uses, but it will suffice) can see the system for what it really is. No one wants to be thought of as "un-enlightened", so DM holds a particular intellectual elitist sway over it's adherents. They are smarter than the "un-enlightened", so they have an "obligation" to help those caught in the "have-have-not" quagmire. I will let you make your own conclusions about who believes in DM and who doesn't...

Now, what does DM have to do with theocracy? Simple. DM fails when confronted with one of the central tenets of Christianity, which is altruism. According to DM, Christians cannot be altruistic, because altruism only exists in people who subscribe to DM. Because DM is anethema to Christianity, Christians do not think the same way the DM adherents do, simply because Christians are incapable of that sort of thought. Christians believe that it is ONLY individuals who make a difference, through altruism and sharing their faith, while DM believes that individuals don't really exist, other than as pawns in a game. It is because of this that opponents of Christianity cannot see what Christians want for America.

Christians live in America, even though there are quite a few legal activities that we feel should be illegal. We will ignore the FACT that those activities were only recently declared legal, or that Christian morality has governed this country for most of it's existence. Those facts are actually irrelevant in this discussion. They make no difference. What DOES make a difference is the people who advocate those illegal activities are dismissing Christian's opinions out of hand, simply because those advocates feel that there is a "seperation of church and state" in the Constitution. (there isn't, but I won't go into that now, if ever. I would just be another voice in the cacaphony of voices saying the same darn thing. Of course, if you really want me too...) Where the DM v. Christianity debate comes into play is the belief that we Christians want to dictate our morality to others, because that is what the DM'ers would do, and ARE doing. Nope. Christians are just responding to the question "what kind of society do you want to live in?". That question makes no sense to DM'ers, because it presupposes that the individual's answer might be considered.

One rather sticky area in the (non-existent) "seperation of church and state" arguement is whether or not politics can be advocated from the pulpit. The answer to this is yes AND no. It is actually legal, under the Constitution, for a minister to campaign for a particular politician or policy from the pulpit, as that is his right as an American, covered under the 1st Amendment. Now, our current laws dictate that a minister cannot campaign for a POLITICIAN from the pulpit, while he can advocate a policy. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, it is a violation of the minister's rights to say he can't do that. On the other hand, I would be offended by a minister who did that, as the House of the Lord is not place to be holding up a sinner as a paragon of virtue. Now, if that minister were to lay out the hot-button topics of the day, God's Word on those topics, and where each candidate stood on each topic, that is something different altogether. Because then the minister is educating the faithful, rather than using his "authority" to dictate voting positions. The latter smacks of theocracy, while the former is just the minister's job. They both should be legal, though. Even thought they both are illegal.

Another facet of the DM v. Christianity arguement is the previously mentioned campaigning from the pulpit. DM'ers don't want Christians campaigning from the pulpit, becuase DM'ers campaign from the pulpit. Don't believe me? Where did the Rev. Al Sharpton do most of his campaigning for Democrats from? Where did the Rev. Jesse Jackson gain his fame for campaigning from? It wasn't on the normal campaign trail. It was from the pulpit. Even the Rev. Martin Luther King, JR. campaigned from the pulpit. DM'ers campaign from the pulpit because they have a captive audience, and they assume that Christians would act the same way, with the same motives, from THEIR pulpits.

If the DM'ers are so afraid of a theocracy, they should embrace Evangelical Christianity, as no other MOVEMENT on Earth has done more to fight theocracies than the EC's. Theocracies have been the bane of Christianity since Christianity's inception. It was theocracies that led to the Protestant Reformation. It was theocracy that led to the schism between the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Church, and between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican/Episcopalian Church. It was under theocracy that the greatest crimes committed in the name of Christianity were committed. (All by the Roman Catholic Church, but I will rant and rave about THAT at another time) It is under Islamic theocracy that we have people willing to kill themselves to kill others, all because the targets won't willingly convert to the theocracy's religion. Theocracy is anathema to Evangelical Christianity. Theocracies have persecuted EC's. Even Christian theocracies.

No, the real goal of EC's is to share the Word of God, in every manner at their disposal. And in America, one of those methods is at the ballot box. America is the first, and probably only, nation in the world where the ballot box is the best recourse for moral change.

Christians oppose the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle. Does that mean that Christians hate homosexuals? No, it does not. The VAST majority of crimes committed against homosexuals are committed by people who aren't Christian. The crimes against homosexuals are usually committed by people who don't like Christianity because it has all these stupid rules about how to act, the same reason most homosexuals don't like Christianity. Once homosexuals realize that their allies are actually their enemies, it could change how they view Christians. The EC stance on homosexuality is "I don't want to live in a society where homosexuality is advocated". EC's do NOT believe that homosexuals are to be punished for being homosexual, or that they are deserving of violence because they are homosexual. We just don't want to be forced to condone a behavior that we are told is abhorrent to God.

Christians also oppose abortion. Now, we don't hate women (most Christians are women, you trolls!), nor do we feel that women who have abortions are evil. We just think that abortions are the most avoidable type of murder in America, and we want people to stop doing the activities that lead to abortions. Such as pre-marital sex. Now, we also don't feel that people who have pre-marital sex are evil, but they are committing a sin. And then they compound that sin with another sin (murder). Again, the abortion question, as all other moral questions do, comes down to the basic question of "What kind of society do I want to live in?". Christians do not want to live in a society where pre-marital sex is extolled as virtuous, and abortion is just a way of avoiding the consequences of pre-marital sex. By making those two things happen, all the DM'ers have done is make Christians work four times harder to change the hearts and minds, and laws, of America. We know we are fighting an uphill battle, but God is on OUR side, so we know we will win. Eventually.

I am sorry if I am rambling. This is a topic that I am not sure I could do justice to in an encyclopedia-sized volume of books. I have a feeling I am going to keep coming back to this topic at later dates. It is too important to just ignore.

Semper Fidelis: Always Faithful, to God, Corps and Country