Our Religious Theocracy

Our Religious Theocracy
by Mark Anderson, Columnist

May 28, 2002

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical." -Thomas Jefferson

Routinely, we hear the left denouncing the "Christian Right" as wanting to set up a religious theocracy. Yet, we don't have any Christian government schools. We have only non-Christian government schools. Let me repeat that: we have only non-Christian government schools.

I am all opposed to a religious theocracy. However, the left has tailored the definition of religion to fit their agenda, which is a religious theocracy itself. When the left calls for separation of church and state, that can be translated to mean separation of Christianity and state, not separation of religion and state - all the while, still forcing Christians to subsidize the non-Christian speech through compulsory taxation.

Imagine for a moment if the roles were reversed. We have nothing but Christian government schools. Then the non-Christians protest and we Christians rebuke them by saying, "You can go to your private schools." Meanwhile, the non-Christians are still paying for the Christian government schools. There would be a revolution by tomorrow.

First, let us get our definitions straight. I will start by using the definition of religion straight from the dictionary. I am doing this because, even as arbitrary as a dictionary is, if I make my argument first, as valid and right as I may be, most people lack the intellectual capacity to understand what I am saying. People have this idea that religious speech is exclusively Christian speech, or Islamic speech, etc. - as wacky as that is that two groups of people, who worship different gods, can both fall under the category of religious by the standard of the confused mainstream (I will come back to this).

Re-li-gion = A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Dictionary.com/religion

It is a safe assumption that the majority of the people believe that religious speech is anything to do with God, and that everything else is just, well, speech. It is this distinction between "religious speech" and "speech" that is the source of the problem. It would be safe to assume that atheists regard anything which claims a divine source as being religious, while their speech is not religious. But isn't that a self-defeating argument from the perspective of the atheist? One, if only us "God people" are religious, but there is no God according to the atheists, then how are "God people" really "God people?" If there is no God, then isn't Christianity just as manmade as, say, environmentalism?

I am sure that there would be a consensus on the idea that Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc., are all religions. However, some of those religions don't believe in any divine being, while some have a plurality of gods, but they are all different, and thus worship different gods. So if we establish the premise that it matters not what the object of your worship is, then my case that all ideas are, and all speech is, religious is already made. If religious speech doesn't mean the worship of a certain god, then why stop at four or five different gods? And who doesn't have a god?

In fact, the Bible even warns us against following other gods. The first commandment says, "You shall have no other gods before Me." Substantively, anything that is the object of your affection can be considered to be your god. I am not saying don't love your wife. However, even the Christian is supposed to love his wife as he is doing this unto God. A proverb of many Christians, in order to discern whether or not something is sinful, is to ask, "What would Jesus do?" Or another one is, "If it can't be done unto God, then it isn't right." Obviously, you can love your wife and be right with God. God commands husbands to love their wives. Back to my point. Anything that is the object of your affection can be a god to you. For example, an environmentalist worships the earth (dirt) and a socialist worships government. And believe me, government is a very jealous god! Tithing to the church of government isn't an option, it's mandatory. Everybody has something that serves as number one in their life. Everybody also engages in certain behaviors and expresses certain ideas based on those relationships with their number one love. Nobody can actually see or hear my relationship with God. What they do see and hear are my behaviors and ideas based on my relationship with God. Whether or not somebody has a god is not the question. The only question is, do you serve a creature, creation, or the Creator?

All ideas relate to the nature of God and man somehow. Furthermore, the non Christians have their own doctrines and code of sin which they have been working to impose on everybody. Homosexuality is no longer a sin in their world view. However, saying that homosexuality is a sin, is a sin - for homosexuality now equals heterosexuality. "Judging" behavior is a sin. However, it is okay to judge the behavior of judging behaviors. Preaching the Gospel of Christ is intolerant and bigoted. However, preaching against the idea of preaching the Gospel of Christ is perfectly acceptable. Make no mistake about it, secularists are some of the most extreme religious wackos, who have their own ministers, their own set of "truths," and their own set of sins. Of course, since they don't believe in God, then their "truths" are, admittedly, inspired by man and thus, they are actually assuming the role of God. If there is no God, then what makes anybody's "truth" more right than anybody else's, except by claiming to be god yourself?

Time and time again, we hear people denouncing the idea of somebody's Christian views actually guiding somebody's political ideology. If Christians must give up their Christianity in their decision-making, then should secularists give up their secularism and become.... Christians?

It is obvious that you socialist secularists are not for separation of religion and state. You are for separation of Christianity and state. You lefties denounce pro lifers as "religious extremists." However, to you lefties, it is perfectly okay to campaign for saving trees, whales, spotted owls, bald eagles and even suckerfish with the force of law. And it is perfectly okay for the government to subsidize that speech as well. If your non Christian schools are so great, then they should be able to do very well competing in the free market, the way Christian schools do.

I am sorry, but I will stick to worshipping the Creator before I worship any of you lefties. Speech is speech. If some speech is religious, then all speech is religious. And if you Christophobes, the bulk majority of you who are still caught up in promoting the ancient practice of human sacrifice in so called "family planning clinics," really want separation of religion and state, then you would favor the free market. Translated, that means, on the issue of education for example, that you favor separation of school and state. All ideas are inherently religious, and to hell with our Christophobic, heterophobic, infantophobic, gunophobic and free marketophobic religious theocracy.

www.sepschool.org

Photo of the author courtesy of staff files