How many Americans would support a Theocracy?

[christine77]

I would only support it if it was ruled by God directly. Meaning in person.

I wouldn't accept any pastor or pope abusing any power on God's behalf.

I don't understand. Doesn't God already rule the world?

 

[drjean]

Nope. Satan rules the world. This is HIS domain (which is why he could offer Jesus a position during their chats on the mountain during the temptaions.) The BIG war of Armageddon is when Christ, having snatched the keys to death and hell from Satan during His resurrection, comes in to demand payment from Satan (so to speak) and battles earth from him. (God wins, btw, I read the Book )

Job 1:7 And the LORD said to Satan, From where come you? Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.

I Peter 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about, seeking whom he may devour

2 Corinthians 4:4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Nope. Satan rules the world.

Interesting.

I wonder why an all powerful God would allow his sworn enemy to rule his creation?

 

[drjean]

Interesting.

I wonder why an all powerful God would allow his sworn enemy to rule his creation?

To try us.... God didn't want robots (or just angels) for fellowship, but wanted willing participants, who would choose such. Once the testing is over, and those who will choose God have done so, HE will take it back out of the hands of satan, and put him in his rightful place.... and we will have a true Theocracy perhaps???

 

[Purge187]

I'm all for a Christian theocracy, but one that is led by Christ himself, which is what happens when He comes back to stop the Tribulation period. It wouldn't work with flawed, sinful humans like us at the helm.

 

[AceHero]

Our country was the first one to declare that Church and State should be separate entities. It would be a tragedy beyond comprehension if we decided to throw that legacy away.

The fact that we don't have a state church or religion is what makes us so great. We don't do well at a lot of other things, but religious freedom in the U.S. is amazing. Why get rid of that?

No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.. Europe was basically a theocracy during the Dark Ages.

And a lot of them still have state churches, which I don't understand.

I would support it if God stepped in as our direct leader, no doubt. If he made that clear that he wants to run the country directly, I would be supportive of removing all current governments to let God lead sovereignly.

I don't think we'd have much of a choice.

On a national level, no. On local levels, I believe we should let them decide.

How is that even constitutional?

I would never want theocracy on a national level, but if people decide on a local level they want one, then they should have that right. I would support one 100%.

I voted yes.

Right, I agree with this. For example a commune or an Amish community. If people of like mind choose to live in accordance a strict set of religious rules, its their right and none of our business.

Well of course. But starting an intentional community is a little different that your city council administering law from the book of Leviticus.

 

[1000Flames]

Over the course of the thread, kelkel, you have managed to proffer a very good case against a theocracy!

If the forum were not sitting somewhere on a server but was, in fact, our great nation, eventually citizens of this country would be held liable for their blasphemies!

One's "user account" could be citizenship, or even, life!

Well done!

Man, this is brilliant. Nice catch Pommer!

 

[TerranceL]

Theocracies are bad in every way, shape and form.

In non-theocratic governments you can question the will of the government (usually), you can even sometimes get the government to change its way of doing things.

When you have a country run by the church... well... "God is not to be questioned" and who speaks for God? Well the holy men... the same holy men who run the government.

You don't like the way the government is doing things? Why do you question your God?

I would most happily join any insurgency against such a government if I were forced to live under its rule.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A lot of the rhetoric around here about the state of American politics seems to bemoan the fact that the US is a secular state with freedom to have your own religious and moral views.

I am wondering who here would support a theocracy and why.

the·oc·ra·cy (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

Personally, although I support the concept of theocracy, I am only for it when Christ returns/rules directly since that is what the scriptures speak of on His kingdom and things no longer being like OT Israel in it having a King with God's approval and God directing the nation. Every attempt to have theocracies by force has always failed - although the Byzantine Empire stands out in the great success it had for centuries as a truly Christian nation.

The constitution of the Byzantine Empire was based on the conviction that it was the earthly copy of the Kingdom of Heaven. Just as God ruled in Heaven, so the Emperor, made in his image, should rule on earth and carry out his commandments. This was the theory, but in practice the state was never free from its Roman past, particularly the Roman law, and its heritage of Greek culture. Sir Steven Runciman's Weil lectures trace the various ways in which the Emperor tried to put the theory into practice - and thus the changing relationship between church and state - from the days of the first Constantine to those of the eleventh. The theocratic constitution remained virtually unchanged during those eleven centuries. No other constitution in the Christian era has endured for so long...and their work in philanthropy/looking out for others has been truly amazing (more shared here and here).

For more, one can go here, here or here:

• The Byzantine Theocracy: The Weil Lectures, Cincinatti

Others disagree, of course, in saying the Byzantine Empire was a theocracy and they have many good points - more shared here in Was the Byzantine State a Theocracy? : OMHKSEA.

With America, many think that those talking on "Seperation of Church and State" when saying it shouldn't be just Christians running things are simply trying to deny the "Christian" heritage that the U.S had...and thus, for them, it is paramount that we should fight to "take back America for God" and make the nation a Christian one. However, seperation of Church and State was never about the Church being unable to make laws, although it does mean there's not to be a enforced State religion placed on others. For good discussion on the issue, one may wish to consider investigating the thread entitled Politicizing the Gospel. The amount of times people quote "Seperation of Church and State" to hound Christians is wild, especially when seeing that the actual statement/phrase parroted by people was never intended to mean that those who are religious cannot shape the laws/be in government.

The entire issue of Seperation of Church/State, as stated by Jefferson, was to ensure that the government did not go about trying to establish a Church--a STATE Church, as it was back in England when the Church was effectively an arm of the government. As said best elsewhere (here and here):

The First Amendment says more about federalism than religious freedom. In other words, the purpose of the First Amendment was to declare that the federal government had absolutely no jurisdiction in matters of religion. It could neither establish a religion, nor prohibit the free exercise of religion. The FirstAmendment clearly erected a barrier between the federal government and religion on a state level. If a state chose to have no religion, or to have an established religion, the federal government had no jurisdiction one way or the other. This is what Thomas Jefferson meant by the "wall of separation." In context, the word "state" really referred to the federal government. The First Amendment did not apply to the states. It was only applicable as a restraint against the federal government.....Jefferson used the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" as a means of expressing his republican view that the federal or general government should not interfere with religious matters among the several states. In its proper context, the phrase represents a clear expression of state autonomy. Accordingly, Jefferson saw no contradiction in authoring a religious proclamation to be used by state officials and refusing to issue similar religious proclamations as president of the United States. His wall had less to do with the separation of church and all civil government than with the separation of federal and state governments. .......The "wall of separation between church and state" phrase as understood by Jefferson was never meant to exclude people of faith from influencing and shaping government. Jefferson would be shocked to learn that his letter has been used as a weapon against religion. He would never countenance such shabby and distorted use of history.​

George Washington (First President of the United States of America.)
"Every man, conducting himself as a good citizen, and being accountable to God alone for his religious opinions, ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."May 1789

Thomas Jefferson (Third President of the United States of America)
"Almighty God hath created the mind free; all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments of burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in His almighty power to do." Acts for Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia, 1785 "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, disciplines or exercises." Words of Thomas Jefferson, Vol 5, pg 236
​

​

Going to a very conservative Christian highschool, I'm very glad for excellent reads I had to study on the matter in highschool such as Original Intent: The Courts, the Constitution, and Religion ....The founding fathers were always for the concept of allowing others freedom of religion, as opposed to what has been discussed by many against Christians shaping laws when it comes to how they think the Constitution was about freedom FROM religion. What the founding fathers were never for having was a STATE/Government Church where all must conform to it or perish like it was in England when the CHurch had the Queen (or King) of England as its head--a reason that caused the pilgrims to flee from there when their religion was persecuted/they themselves had to find sanctuary.

For those saying they're not religious and simply dislike religious people leading things, there's no escaping the fact that secular humanism is by definition a religion---with man at the center---and thus, as secularized as the nation has gotten and secular humanistic perspectives have been a dominant worldview that many laws are based on, the reality is that it (the nation) has never stopped being religious. With Secular Humanism becoming more of the dominant viewpoint, IMHO, it is ironic to see the ways that they may say "Seperation of Church/State" exclusively toward anything of Christianity having influence and say they're simply trying to protect others from having their religious views disrespected----yet if they are spoken against and people say the state should be involved to help have their viewpoints heard above Secular Humanism, they get irrate. I'm not saying you're doing this, to be clear...but simply mentioning that to bring home the point that the "seperation of Church and State" is often not applied consistently when it comes to law.

Of course, there's the other present danger that got many to react so violently to anything is when people also do the silliness (IMHO) of trying to "take back America for God!!!"--never realizing that in many ways the U.S has NEVER been a Christian nation by Biblical definition...and when people within politics try to make the nation akin to a theocracy and never realize where it was never meant to be that, one must take issue. In light of how many of the founding Fathers were themselves Diests while others were "Christian" in the sense of being religious/believing that God was active in his working with the world, they never were trying to make a Christian nation (as seen here , here, here and here and here)--and I have to take that seriously. Gregory Boyd discussed some of that in his book "The Myth of a Christian Nation" when sharing the difference between getting involved politically to help others in the name of the Gospel...and having involvement under the belief that the nation was once "Christian"/trying to convert it to Christ instead of seeing it's roots.

While America did not have a Christian Founding in the sense of creating a theocracy, its Founding was deeply shaped by Christian moral truths. More important, it created a regime that was hospitable to Christians, but also to practitioners of other religions. Mark David Hall, Ph.D. said it best in his article entitled Did America Have a Christian Founding?. It seems that with there being a "Christian" nation dynamic, what can be confused in terms is "Christian principles."

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A lot of the rhetoric around here about the state of American politics seems to bemoan the fact that the US is a secular state with freedom to have your own religious and moral views.

I am wondering who here would support a theocracy and why.

the·oc·ra·cy (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

Many may wish to have a theocracy by man...but it always goes crazy when failing to ask "Whose theocracy?" since there's the reality of how many times other Christian groups persecuted other Christian groups disagreeing with them - and even many who were persecuted, if they became dominant at some point, did the same persecution to their persecutors as well as anyone else who disagreed with them.

There was a good review on the issue elsewhere in an excellent article entitled Monumental Myth « The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ..one of my dear brothers in Christ who pointed out the ways that people often have no clue what it means to be a "Christian NAtion" and where the U.S was often divorced from it. In his words:

I would like to present my case that the founding fathers were not seeking to establish a Christian nation. This is most clearly evidenced by an absence of any reference to Jesus in the founding documents, and the Treaty of Tripoli, which sets forth that the U.S. was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Were some of the early leaders Christian? Well, sure. They were white weren’t they? There wasn’t much else those days for white Westerners. It can hardly be denied that some of them were simply nominal Christians—carrying on their religion like a family tradition. Thanks to Constantine in the 4th century, Europe had considered itself “Christian” for about 1400 hundred years—even during the Crusades, Inquisitions, and the drowning of Anabaptists. [Insert sarcasm now] So yeah, they were “Christian” alright… every single one of them.

Deism was the new way to be fashionable as a Westerner during the Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries. Deism holds a belief in a “Creator” or “nature’s God” who rarely intervenes in human affairs, though he might show up to bless nationalistic endeavors. Deism was a growing religious philosophy that believed that miracles would violate nature (hence, “supernatural”). Therefore, deists believed that miracles are not possible. They also rejected divine revelation. Deists believed that the Bible should merely be used to further lawful societies and to encourage some level of morality within the culture.

I’m not going to discuss each founding father here, but I should mention a few key fathers. George Washington was a freemason and a deist. He wouldn’t take communion with his wife. We have no correspondence of him mentioning Jesus or faith in Christ. John Adams spoke harshly at times about Christianity and religion in general in his private correspondence. He was a Christian Unitarian that believed the church service was good for everyone because it promoted morals and values among the masses.

Yes, there’s ample evidence that John Jay was an evangelical Christian. He actually tried to keep Catholics from holding office. And Patrick Henry was indeed vocal about his Christian faith as the leader of independence in Virginia. Nevertheless, we should not be so quick to conclude what we hope or wish to be true because of a few that were more vocal about their faith. Politicians do this all the time today. Do you still believe that Bill Clinton is a Southern Baptist?

Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were deists. Franklin admits it in his writings, when he wasn’t drunk or inventing something. Jefferson went so far to deny the divinity of Christ. He even created his own compilation of Jesus’ life from the gospels, which he entitled, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” He removed all evidence of the “supernatural” for a presentation of Jesus as a good moral teacher who is only to be admired, not worshipped. Rationalism at its finest!

Let’s be clear about this. The founding fathers sought to establish a nation free from big government, burdensome taxes, and state-sponsored religion. Religious nation? I’ll grant that much. Christian nation? Huh, what’s that? The major shapers of America concluded that it’s not even possible.

What about the pilgrims you say? Oh, you mean the glorified stories of the Puritan fundamentalists? Well, you see, they wanted to enforce OT laws and create model theocratic cities. They are the ones who first hijacked the “city on a hill” language that Jesus used to describe the church. Instead, they used it to describe their new theocratic societies in America (e.g. Massachusetts Bay Colony led by William Bradford).

The Puritans claimed that America was the new Israel, the Indians were the savage Canaanites, and that God had given them the command to kill in his name. Many politicians throughout the years have used this sort of religious rhetoric to pander to fundamentalist evangelicals who still embrace the Christian nation myth. It’s also great for demonizing your enemies and gaining support for the expansion of empire when “God is on our side!”

Except for the fundamentalist Puritans, the rest of the colonialists acknowledged that the “Christian” state had been a total disaster in Europe. Roger Williams, who began the first Baptist church on American soil, rejected the theocratic view of the Calvinistic pilgrims, detested the idea of a Christian nation, and argued for religious liberty and separation of church and state–an idea that the Anabaptists had been ruthlessly persecuted for a century earlier. It finally caught on!

What you have here are Christian revisionists trying to build a case for an American Christian heritage based off of a glorified retelling of the pilgrim landing and the Puritan idea, singling out a few lone patriots who said some things about Jesus, the vague deistic references to God in founding documents, and the celebration of biblical virtues that even the atheists in that day advocated.

A person has to ignore the larger social, economic, political, and religious climate of early North American colonialism to advance the Christian nation myth.

​

So, if you want to “go back to the beginning” and find a nation embracing biblical morals and values, you will find some of that for sure. But if your eyes are wide open, you’re also going to find war, lies, greed, genocide, slavery, witch trials, and manifest destiny.

If you’re honest, you will, much like Pliny the Roman historian, seek to dig up the glorious past of Rome in order to inspire the citizens of the day to embrace moral reform, only to discover that the history of empire is a bloody shame.
​

For more:

• "Reflections on an Idolatrous Bible » Blog » Greg Boyd ..."( )
• Why Diverse Leadership is Good for America « A Better Covenant
• "Painted Idolatry: “One Nation Under God » Blog » Greg Boyd ...” ( )
• "Washing Osama’s Feet - blog post 8/28/07 » Blog » Greg Boyd ..."( )

Apart from that, there's also the sad reality of how FreeMasonry was accepted by the Founders in our country since day 1---something else that has NEVER been Christian in our nation and has harmed the U.S since it was allowed and participated in---no different than Israel when it allowed idolatry and witchcraft into the land. All of that is something that goes along with the theocracy dynamic since men accepted FreeMasonry believing they could still have God lead/rule the nation through them...and that's never cool.

And it's present everywhere. It's no surprise that the land has always had the drama it has and has landed up where it is today since many cursings were brought in from the very beginnings-----for it was already an issue when a curse was brought due to the bloodhshed/mistreatment of other groups in the U.S (something many noted would bring God's judgement)....but the evil of Freemasonry sealed a lot.


And when seeing many global issues arising, you'll often see FreeMasonry arising in the background as being connected to and a part of it. For more:




For reference:

• "Mystical Sites - U.S Captitol / Vigiliant Citizen" ( )
• "Educate Yourself /Vigiliant Citizen"
• THOUSAND LIES - THE NATIVE AMERICAN
• Sins against Native Americans - PoliticsInHeaven"
• -"The Hidden Hand that Shaped History | The Vigilant "( )

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind​

Eye of the Phoenix: Secrets of the Dollar Bill
Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings I: The New Atlantis
Secret Mysteries of America's Beginnings II: Riddles in Stones - The Secret Architecture of Washington DC​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

A lot of the rhetoric around here about the state of American politics seems to bemoan the fact that the US is a secular state with freedom to have your own religious and moral views.

I am wondering who here would support a theocracy and why.

the·oc·ra·cy (th-kr-s)
n. pl. the·oc·ra·cies
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.

I wonder, if supporting a theocracy, if that theocracy others may want would support those who are Indigenious peoples/"First Nations" people who are believers. FOr it often seems that discussion of theocracy often leaves out the fact that many Native Americans and others are often not considered as those who'd be leading the way if they trusted in Christ.

For more information, the Puritans originally came to America in order to gain freedom of religion, freedom from the persecution that they were experiencing at the hands of an antagonistic Church of England. And so they fled. In their fleeing they encountered all kinds of hardship and tribulation, and yet they endured and finally made it to the ‘Promised Land’. It was these kinds of experiences, and the relative success of establishing a new nation, that imbued Puritan pastors and theologians with the notion that Divine Providence had carried them into the new land of promise. Indeed, many (if not all) of the Puritans believed that they were truly the new Israel of God, and that they had been given Divine sanction to sack the native Americans (like the original Israel did with the Canaanites), and take their lands (manifest destiny)

Many tend to have a postmillennial view of heritage that believes that America has its rootage in Divine favor and blessedness—as God’s covenant people [As a side note, the interesting thing about this is that most American's who appeal to this age as constituting a "Christian" heritage to our nation are not postmillennial, but premillennial dispensationalists, which is completely at odds with postmil thought]. And it is this kind of mindset that believes that America is exceptional, that is, because we have been blessed of God (as his covenant nation), and thus we can offer things to the rest of the world (even if that means that we, in a utilitarian and pragmatic way impose ourselves on other nations for the greater good; i.e. which is the preservation of God’s new Israel, America) that the rest of the world needs. By the logic of others, we are the dispensers of God’s covenant promises after all

. But people fail to realize that other nations have been exceptional as well and it's theological error trying to assume that a nation being exceptional at many points is either exceptional at ALL points or "exceptional" according to the standards of the Lord. ....and as it concerns God rulling the nation, one would have to see a radical shift where God is honored at ALL points in order for any talk on theocracy established by men to be possible.


There's actually a good book on the issue entitled "Between Babel and the Beast" addressing the issue very well (more here ).

​

And for more, one should consider investigating the work of Roger Olson who has provided a mini and partial review of Peter Leithart’s book, Between Babel and the Beast. (more here ).Leithart challenges a religion that he (amongst others) has labeled Americanism (or the worship of America as God’s special nation, like the new Israel).

And for others who've spoken on the issue. One is Soong-Chan Rah in his work The Next Evangelicalism: Releasing the Church from Western ... - Page 449..and another is Andrea Smith of Native Americans and the Christian Right: The Gendered Politics of Unlikely Alliances. Also, as Richard Twiss said best:

Richard Twiss: A Theology of Manifest Destiny

Richard Twiss: Hope For the American Church​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I don't think anyone would directly state that they want a theocracy. But when they say that they'll only vote for a candidate of one faith who enacts laws based on scripture and governs according to the Bible, well... If it walks like a duck...

It has often seemed, IMHO, that many on the Conservative Evangelical side have long expressed desires for a theocracy in no uncertain terms..especially when it comes to the reality of culture wars dominating the Evangelical landscape for a long time and others seeking to promote their ideas of how the nation should be run from a Christian perspective.

However, there are many interesting factors that've arisen to actually open the door for Evangelicals to have a theocracy that's really not what they were expecting - as seen in what often happened when many said they'd NEVER support someone who was Mormon due to it being against Christian values and yet went with it anyway, justifying it because a Mormon was the head of the party they tended to place their Chrisitan values at squarely - and thus, they ended up advocating for the idea that a Mormon could lead the nation as God's representative of the Christian values they held to....and essentially, giving Mormonism the pass it needed to promote itself as God's Divine Ideal of what Theocracy looks like.


One of my brothers in CHrist alerted me to an article his friend had written that had given a very interesting critique of the Republican party and the ways it seemed to have split identity when it came to theocracy established and how often that shifted. In his words, as it concerns their choice on Romney to begin with:

Now that Mitt Romney has secured the Republican Party nomination, one major constituency group within the GOP will find itself wrestling with party vs. faith. The party leaders have asked conservative evangelicals to vote for a Mormon. Now for me and other religious progressives who have been hard at work establishing and working within ecumenical groups and dialoguing with all faiths, this does not pose a problem. For us, religion is about a faithful and authentic response to God and humankind. How one discerns the Divine in one’s life is in the final analysis, a personal decision. Moreover, we do not believe that one’s religion should effect how one should vote for president or any political office. Policies matter—ones the candidate believes in and ones that the candidate’s party supports and promises to deliver if elected to office.

However, this is not the case with conservative evangelicals. They are dogmatically Christian, believing that a candidate’s religion must reflect their own. Many conservative evangelicals do not believe that Romney is Christian—believing that the Mormon faith is not a Christian faith. Furthermore, many of these same conservative evangelicals believe that a Romney presidency may help “legitimize a false religion.” In 1998, the Southern Baptists, at their Convention held in Mormon rich Salt Lake City, went door to door evangelizing Mormons and promoting a book Mormonism Unmasked. Religious conservatives (evangelicals) rallied earlier in the year in Texas to try to support a candidate not named Romney. Santorum emerged as their pick (a Roman Catholic and not a Protestant) but earlier there was even a flirtation from evangelicals with the spectacularly flawed Newt Gingrich.

To be sure, Romney was anathema to many conservative evangelicals. Conservatives brought this out in the open when early in the campaign conservative evangelical declared Mormonism a “cult” and said to an audience "born-again followers of Christ should always prefer [a] competent Christian to a competent non-Christian like Mitt Romney." Commentators have even noticed that Santorum is less than enthusiastic about supporting Romney.

However, not all of this has stop conservative evangelicals from lining up and supporting Romney. In a recent article, Jonathan Merritt writes about the unexpected evangelical silence on Romney’s religion. In the article, he notes that one reason why conservative evangelicals are supporting Romney is theirs and Mormon’s support of “traditional marriage” and other political conservative ideals. Nevertheless, this should not make a difference, because theologically, conservative evangelicals should not vote for a person who is a non-Christian.

Maybe therein lies the rub. Maybe conservative evangelicals were hiding behind religious faith family values all along. Maybe it was never about any of that anyway. Maybe it was all about politics, winning offices, and promoting a conservative agenda. If it was about theology, faith, and religion, drawing upon the teachings of conservative evangelicalism, they should line up supporting Obama. Obama is the “Christian” who has “accepted Jesus Christ in the pardon of his sins.” He is the one baptized into the faith who has affirmed that Jesus is Lord and Savior. Obama repents of his sins and affirms the Triune God of Christianity.

Studies show that Obama talks about faith, religion, Christianity, God, and the church more so than any other president in modern history. His speeches are full of religious rhetoric, the speeches at the prayer breakfasts constructs what I call a rhetorical theology aimed at inviting his audience to understand faith. If there is one candidate in the race that conservative evangelicals should support, based on their own previous criteria and theological presuppositions, it is President Obama.

However, conservative evangelicals are going to support Romney is overwhelming numbers and somehow reconcile teachings about Mormonism that call the religion “false,” a “cult,” or “non-Christian.” As an ecumenical religious leader, I want to say that maybe conservative evangelicals are evolving (again something else that would be anathema to many of them) toward ecumenicism and to having inter-religious dialogue. I would like to say that maybe conservative evangelicals would not be so dogmatic in their beliefs—open up to hear others and become more tolerant to faiths different from theirs. We can hope, but I am afraid that this is only temporary. Conservative evangelical support for Romney is more anti-Obama than pro-Romney and as long as conservative evangelicals believe that President Obama is a Muslim, they can feel good about supporting Romney.
​

Moreover, as he wrote in reflection of the election results and how others felt:

As I reflect on the 2012 election, the first group that comes to mind is conservative evangelicals who, despite their former beliefs and protestations about Mormonism, supported Mitt Romney, a devout Mormon. As I wrote about earlier when I began to see this trend happening, there is nothing wrong with conservative evangelicals supporting a Mormon candidate. I even suggested that maybe some in the conservative evangelical wing of the Republican Party were evolving to some sort of ecumenicalism that would lead to a more inter-religious dialogue. This would not be the case however, as many of them—who before believed that Mormonism was a “cult,” “non-Christian,” dismissed those ingrained beliefs and convinced others to do the same.


My thought is that many of them still do believe this and now will have to reconcile the fact that they rejected their own teachings about their faith. For many, it will cause some major theological cognitive dissonance. Before this election year, conservative evangelicals reminded their followers that they should support candidates who shared their beliefs and values. In short, they must support a Christian. That candidate, based on the conservative evangelical belief system, would have been president Obama.


However, they decided to support someone who they heretofore believed did not share their faith because of their own anti-Obama feelings. I imagine some may be wrestling with this because, for many conservative evangelicals, the faith is paramount; one should practice it unflinchingly and waveringly against all manner of temptations. In this instance, the temptation of replacing Obama as president was too good to pass up. So not only did they not adhere to their own principles embedded in their theology, but they also shirked their Christian beliefs by acting in ways that were not “ Christlike” because of their disdain for the President. But their efforts seemed to work because Romney received 79% of the conservative evangelical vote.


The other group I am reflecting on this morning is the group of African American clergy who led efforts to get black Christians not to vote for Obama because of his evolved position on marriage equality. Led by Rev. William Owens and Bishop Harry Jackson, this group of black clergy led their own voter suppression campaign as they attempted to appeal to congregants within the black church to get black people to vote for anyone besides Obama or just not to vote at all. Their attempts of voter suppression seemed not to work because the president received 95% of the African Americans church vote, up 1% from 2008.


Moreover, these would be leaders will also have to go back to their congregations in the aftermath of this election and explain to them why they would participate in an act that many (church going) African Americans feel as sacred. They also will have to explain their seemly selective critique of the president—namely why of the different policies that clergy leaders could and some would argue rightfully justify as a substantial critique, would they select this one? When one remembers that the president’s evolution was only a personal opinion and not policy, I believe one has the right to be suspect of Rev. Owens and Bishop Jackson’s “concern.”


However, this may all be for not. In talking with R3 contributor Earle Fisher on a panel this morning as we reflected on the election, he suggests they these two conservative groups would not have to offer any mea culpas or to use a religious term “confess.” His reasoning is that they do this knowing that their theological positions on paper have never matched their actions. You know, he is right. Conservative ideology and its kissing cousin, conservative theology has always been about maintaining the status quo; clogging up progress, grinding the forces of change. While both of these conservative groups, in an ideal world, have an opportunity to reshape and reconfigure their theological thought processes, chances are that they will not take advantage of the opportunity. Many will just double down on a more conservative interpretation of their own opportunistic shifting theology and in the process add to the growing number of dissatisfied former Christians looking for something relevant in their lives.
​

__________________

 

[Gxg (G²)]

I'm all for a Christian theocracy, but one that is led by Christ himself, which is what happens when He comes back to stop the Tribulation period. It wouldn't work with flawed, sinful humans like us at the helm.

 

[mpok1519]

I would never want theocracy on a national level, but if people decide on a local level they want one, then they should have that right. I would support one 100%.

I voted yes.

So if your local government ordered that no one is allowed to be Muslim (or any other religion) you would support it?

Even though that is a violation of the first amendment?

 

[mpok1519]

I'm calm, so are the 100 forum members reporting you and your little friend for blasphemy right now.

Go to an atheist forum if you want to mock the Christian God.

No one is mocking the faith by saying they don't believe in it.

 

[mpok1519]

That's a silly assumption. If people want to set up religious communities with a theocracy, they should have the right to do so. If a person feels they are being religiously oppressed, they can leave. Simple as that.

We're the United States. Not the divided townships of America. That's why your fantastical idea is simply that, an idea.