Secular Government vs. Theocracy

[mpartyka]

I was thinking of how to properly define the priorities of a secular government vs. the priorities of a theocracy, and how those priorities might shape what kinds of laws are passed under those forms of government. It occurred to me that the set of priorities established in the Declaration of Independence might do nicely as a basis for both:

Secular government – The governing principles are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A person’s life cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the life of another. A person’s liberty cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the life or liberty of another. Finally, a person’s pursuit of happiness cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of another.

Theocracy – The same, except the overriding governing principle of eternal life is placed at the head of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, a person’s eternal life cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life of another. A person’s life cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life or life of another. A person’s liberty cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life, life, or liberty of another. Finally, a person’s pursuit of happiness cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of another.

I think that if you cast theocracy in this light, all the laws and punishments of the Old Testament make perfect sense. This is why blasphemy, idolatry, apostasy, and sexual sins were all punishable by death under the Mosaic Law – because these things in particular threatened the souls of the community, if not also their lives and well-being in other ways, and therefore it was perfectly reasonable to take the lives of those involved in these sins so as to halt the potential harm to others’ eternal destinies.

And I think this is also why there is so much resistance to the continuance in today’s society of laws such as were found in the Old Testament: Because we (in the U.S., anyway, but the desire is almost universal in this day and age) live in a secular society, where separation of church and state is a fundamental principle, we only expect, require, and permit the government to be concerned for our temporal lives, not our eternal souls. Those activities which under a theocracy would be outlawed because they are damaging to the souls of those involved (e.g., heresy, adultery, homosexuality), despite any lack of discernable or convincing evidence for substantial temporal harm, are considered beyond the scope and jurisdiction of secular government.

This is what makes the current “culture war” in America so interesting, and a bit ironic. Social conservatives strive tooth and nail to prove that there is some kind of “harm” associated with the activities they want to see prohibited, but what they don’t realize is that the only kinds of “harm” that some of these activities might produce are those with which they themselves, in their fervent devotion to separation of church and state (at least in the one direction), would require that government have no dealings. If social conservatives insist it is not the province of a secular government to govern the souls of men – if that is something that must be left to the churches – then there are many things that must be permitted under secular government that social conservatives would rather not see permitted.

Interesting Catch-22, isn’t it? And no wonder that social liberals cry out, whenever social conservatives try to impose their view on the masses, that what social conservatives really want is theocracy – isn’t that, in fact, precisely the case, though social conservatives may be unaware of it?

 

[ConstantineTG]

It is not so much about secularism but about the lives of the people, especially leaders, being properly aligned with the Gospel. Remember David and Solomon ran a theocracy, yet they were sinful. Just declaring an official state religion is not enough.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

And I think this is also why there is so much resistance to the continuance in today’s society of laws such as were found in the Old Testament: Because we (in the U.S., anyway, but the desire is almost universal in this day and age) live in a secular society, where separation of church and state is a fundamental principle, we only expect, require, and permit the government to be concerned for our temporal lives, not our eternal souls. Those activities which under a theocracy would be outlawed because they are damaging to the souls of those involved (e.g., heresy, adultery, homosexuality), despite any lack of discernable or convincing evidence for substantial temporal harm, are considered beyond the scope and jurisdiction of secular government.

This is what makes the current “culture war” in America so interesting, and a bit ironic. Social conservatives strive tooth and nail to prove that there is some kind of “harm” associated with the activities they want to see prohibited, but what they don’t realize is that the only kinds of “harm” that some of these activities might produce are those with which they themselves, in their fervent devotion to separation of church and state (at least in the one direction), would require that government have no dealings. If social conservatives insist it is not the province of a secular government to govern the souls of men – if that is something that must be left to the churches – then there are many things that must be permitted under secular government that social conservatives would rather not see permitted.

Interesting Catch-22, isn’t it? And no wonder that social liberals cry out, whenever social conservatives try to impose their view on the masses, that what social conservatives really want is theocracy – isn’t that, in fact, precisely the case, though social conservatives may be unaware of it?

I don’t know where you live but the US has never had laws against heresy. Some states had laws against adultery and homosexual activity but these were very rarely prosecuted.

The primary “culture war” issue is the abortion of children. This has nothing to do with religion but rather is about the protection of innocent human life.

It is not Christians who are trying to force their religion on society, rather it is the secularists who are trying to force their views on us all.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It is not so much about secularism but about the lives of the people, especially leaders, being properly aligned with the Gospel. Remember David and Solomon ran a theocracy, yet they were sinful. Just declaring an official state religion is not enough.

Exactly. That’s why Bl. Pope John Paul II said the church wasn’t calling Europe back to a confessional state in Ecclesia in Europa–because Europe is no longer properly aligned with the Gospel. That’s needed first before the state can profess to be Catholic.

To the OP: I think most people who know me would classify me as a social conservative if you had to put me in a box, but I don’t agree with what you call ‘separation of church and state’ (meaning the secular state is completely tied off from religion). And as a social conservative I believe the government should be concerned about the salvation of the people it is governing, but that doesn’t follow I am for a theocracy, because I’m not.

:twocents:

 

[devoutchristian]

Secular government – A government which ignores the existence of religion or which makes no distinction between the true religion and false ones as condemned by Pope Pius IX

Theocracy – A government where clerics hold political power in violation of canon law

The best form of government would be a non-theocratic confessional state.

 

[mackbrislawn]

And no wonder that social liberals cry out, whenever social conservatives try to impose their view on the masses, that what social conservatives really want is theocracy – isn’t that, in fact, precisely the case, though social conservatives may be unaware of it?

As if social liberals didn’t want to impose their own view on the masses. Social liberals want a theocracy as well, but theirs would be a secular theocracy with Caesar as their god.

 

[CopticChristian]

I was thinking of how to properly define the priorities of a secular government vs. the priorities of a theocracy, and how those priorities might shape what kinds of laws are passed under those forms of government. It occurred to me that the set of priorities established in the Declaration of Independence might do nicely as a basis for both:

Secular government – The governing principles are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A person’s life cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the life of another. A person’s liberty cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the life or liberty of another. Finally, a person’s pursuit of happiness cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of another.

Theocracy – The same, except the overriding governing principle of eternal life is placed at the head of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, a person’s eternal life cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life of another. A person’s life cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life or life of another. A person’s liberty cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life, life, or liberty of another. Finally, a person’s pursuit of happiness cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of another.

I think that if you cast theocracy in this light, all the laws and punishments of the Old Testament make perfect sense. This is why blasphemy, idolatry, apostasy, and sexual sins were all punishable by death under the Mosaic Law – because these things in particular threatened the souls of the community, if not also their lives and well-being in other ways, and therefore it was perfectly reasonable to take the lives of those involved in these sins so as to halt the potential harm to others’ eternal destinies.

And I think this is also why there is so much resistance to the continuance in today’s society of laws such as were found in the Old Testament: Because we (in the U.S., anyway, but the desire is almost universal in this day and age) live in a secular society, where separation of church and state is a fundamental principle, we only expect, require, and permit the government to be concerned for our temporal lives, not our eternal souls. Those activities which under a theocracy would be outlawed because they are damaging to the souls of those involved (e.g., heresy, adultery, homosexuality), despite any lack of discernable or convincing evidence for substantial temporal harm, are considered beyond the scope and jurisdiction of secular government.

This is what makes the current “culture war” in America so interesting, and a bit ironic. Social conservatives strive tooth and nail to prove that there is some kind of “harm” associated with the activities they want to see prohibited, but what they don’t realize is that the only kinds of “harm” that some of these activities might produce are those with which they themselves, in their fervent devotion to separation of church and state (at least in the one direction), would require that government have no dealings. If social conservatives insist it is not the province of a secular government to govern the souls of men – if that is something that must be left to the churches – then there are many things that must be permitted under secular government that social conservatives would rather not see permitted.

Interesting Catch-22, isn’t it? And no wonder that social liberals cry out, whenever social conservatives try to impose their view on the masses, that what social conservatives really want is theocracy – isn’t that, in fact, precisely the case, though social conservatives may be unaware of it?

M,

John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor says that some think of Theocracy however we believe and promote a participatory Theonomy…I don’t support Theocracy.

 

[Vouthon]

I support the separation of church and state, a “healthy secularism” that is positive regarding the role of religion rather than negative:

Why Church and State Must Be Separate excerpt from “Theology and the Church’s Political Stance” in Church, Ecumenism and Politics (NY, Crossroads, 1987). Ratzinger notes that “the origin and the permanent foundation of the Western idea of freedom” lies in the “separation of the authority of the state and sacral authority”.

Why Church and State Must Be Separate
by Benedict XVI (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger)

An excerpt from “Theology and the Church’s Political Stance” in Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger Church, Ecumenism and Politics: New Essays in Ecclesiology (NY: Crossroad, 1988).

[W]e must take a clearer look at the relationship of the Church to the political sphere. For this Christ’s words remain fundamental: “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (Mt 22:21). This saying opened up a new section in the history of the relationship between politics and religion. Until then the general rule was that politics itself was the sacral. Admittedly the later ancient world knew free religious groups, what are termed the mystery cults, whose attraction depended on the decline of the state religion. But tolerance with regard to them rested on the presupposition that the state was recognized as the bearer of a supreme sacrality. It safeguarded the ethical binding force of its laws and with this the human guarantee of its cohesion by these laws and in them the state itself appearing as the expression of a sacral, divine and not purely human will; because they are divine they must continue unquestionably and unconditionally to bind men and women.

This equation of the state’s claim on man with the sacral claim of the universal divine will itself was cut in two by the saying of Jesus we have quoted above. At the same time the whole idea of the state as cherished by the ancient world was called into question, and it is completely understandable that in this challenge to its totality the state of the ancient world saw an attack on the foundations of its existence which it avenged with the death penalty: if Jesus’s saying was valid the Roman state could not in fact continue as it had done up till then.

At the same time it must be said that it is precisely this separation of the authority of the state and sacral authority, the new dualism that this contains, that represents the origin and the permanent foundation of the western idea of freedom. From now on there were two societies related to each other but not identical with each other, neither of which had this character of totality. The state is no longer itself the bearer of a religious authority that reaches into the ultimate depths of conscience, but for its moral basis refers beyond itself to another community. This community in its turn, the Church, understands itself as a final moral authority which however depends on voluntary adherence and is entitled only to spiritual but not to civil penalties, precisely because it does not have the status the state has of being accepted by all as something given in advance.

Thus each of these communities is circumscribed in its radius, and on the balance of this relation depends freedom. This is not in any way to dispute the fact that this balance has often enough been disturbed, that in the middle ages and in the early modern period things often reached the point of Church and state in fact blending into one another in a way that falsified the faith’s claim to truth and turned it into a compulsion so that it became a caricature of what was really intended. But even in the darkest periods the pattern of freedom presented in the fundamental evidences of the faith remained an authority which could be appealed to against the blending together of civil society and the community of faith, an authority to which the conscience could refer and from which the impulse towards the dissolution of total authority could emerge.

The modern idea of freedom is thus a legitimate product of the Christian environment; it could not have developed anywhere else. Indeed, one must add that it cannot be separated from this Christian environment and transplanted into any other system, as is shown very clearly today in the renaissance of Islam; the attempt to graft on to Islamic societies what are termed western standards cut loose from their Christian foundations misunderstands the internal logic of Islam as well as the historical logic to which these western standards belong, and hence this attempt was condemned to fail in this form. The construction of society in Islam is theocratic, and therefore monist and not dualist; dualism, which is the precondition for freedom, presupposes for its part the logic of the Christian thing. In practice this means that it is only where the duality of Church and state, of the sacral and the political authority, remains maintained in some form or another that the fundamental pre-condition exists for freedom.

Continued…

 

[Vouthon]

Where the Church itself becomes the state freedom becomes lost. But also when the Church is done away with as a public and publicly relevant authority, then too freedom is extinguished, because there the state once again claims completely for itself the justification of morality; in the profane post-Christian world it does not admittedly do this in the form of a sacral authority but as an ideological authority – that means that the state becomes the party, and since there can no longer be any other authority of the same rank it once again becomes total itself. The ideological state is totalitarian; it must become ideological if it is not balanced by a free but publicly recognized authority of conscience. When this kind of duality does not exist the totalitarian system is unavoidable.

With this the fundamental task of the Church’s political stance, as I understand it, has been defined; its aim must be to maintain this balance of a dual system as the foundation of freedom. Hence the Church must make claims and demands on public law and cannot simply retreat into the private sphere. Hence it must also take care on the other hand that Church and state remain separated and that belonging to the Church clearly retains its voluntary character.

This also defines in its fundamental outlines the relationship of the Church’s political stance and theology. The Church’s political stance must not be directed simply at the Church’s power; according to what has been said this can become a direct contradiction of the Church’s true nature and would consequently go directly against the moral content of the Church’s political stance. It is guided rather by theological perception and not simply by the idea of increasing influence and power.

It must incidentally, following our considerations so far, take care for the safeguarding of the dual structure with regard to theology; the Church’s ministry should not become a central committee of the party in relation to theology, a body that scrutinizes the party’s ideology for the strategy of gaining power. As we have established, the Church understands itself rather as the actual environment of reason in its search for meaning.

In keeping with this it must on the one hand warn reason against an abstract independence that becomes fictitious, but on the other hand it must respect the proper responsibility of reason asking questions within the environment of faith. Just as in the field of the relationship of Church and state it is here also a question of safeguarding the duality as a fruitful functional relationship.

Just as in that case two fundamental distortions of this relationship are possible. One is to be found when the Church’s ministry cuts away the autonomy of theology and leaves it merely the task of looking for proofs of what the teaching authority has proposed; theology in that case is degraded to the function of a party ideology. But another distortion occurs when theology dissolves the Church or only accepts it as a supportive organization without spiritual content. Then it no longer reflects the spiritual basis of a living community; in this case its active agent is merely the private reason of the individual scholar, and that means, as has already been shown, that it becomes either positivist or ideological. But then it ceases to be theology. That means that by making itself completely autonomous it attains not some higher level but its destruction as theology. Whenever one of these two voices, that of the Church’s ministry or that of theology, loses its autonomy then the other side also loses its essential content.

In concordats this particular relationship is translated into the legal form of the nihil obstat. As representative of the Church’s ministry the bishop does not take a positive part in choosing the occupant of a professorial chair, but he has the negative function of a right of objection, whereby the freedom of theology on the one hand and its link to the Church on the other is in my opinion expressed with complete accuracy.

If I have been right in what I said earlier about the significance of theology for the existence of the university and if for its part theology cannot exist without reference to the Church, then such an order of things ultimately serves the university as such and as a whole. Of its essence this relationship of tension will always be critical. But as long as it is critical it is also alive; this critical liveliness is ultimately what the relationship of the Church’s political stance and theology is concerned with

 

[Vouthon]

Why Church and State Must Be Separate excerpt from “Theology and the Church’s Political Stance” in Church, Ecumenism and Politics (NY, Crossroads, 1987). Ratzinger notes that “the origin and the permanent foundation of the Western idea of freedom” lies in the “separation of the authority of the state and sacral authority”:

From now on there were two societies related to each other but not identical with each other, neither of which had this character of totality. The state is no longer itself the bearer of a religious authority that reaches into the ultimate depths of conscience, but for its moral basis refers beyond itself to another community. This community in its turn, the Church, understands itself as a final moral authority which however depends on voluntary adherence and is entitled only to spiritual but not to civil penalties, precisely because it does not have the status the state has of being accepted by all as something given in advance.
Thus each of these communities is circumscribed in its radius, and on the balance of this relation depends freedom. . . .

Benedict goes on to suggest something which might be brought to bear on the recent attempt to establish constitutional democracy in the Middle East and the necessity of preserving the Christian foundations of Europe:
The modern idea of freedom is thus a legitimate product of the Christian environment; it could not have developed anywhere else. Indeed, one must add that it cannot be separated from this Christian environment and transplanted into any other system, as is shown very clearly today in the renaissance of Islam; the attempt to graft on to Islamic societies what are termed western standards cut loose from their Christian foundations misunderstands the internal logic of Islam as well as the historical logic to which these western standards belong, and hence this attempt was condemned to fail in this form. The construction of society in Islam is theocratic, and therefore monist and not dualist; dualism, which is the precondition for freedom, presupposes for its part the logic of the Christian thing. In practice this means that it is only where the duality of Church and state, of the sacral and the political authority, remains maintained in some form or another that the fundamental pre-condition exists for freedom.
Where the Church itself becomes the state freedom becomes lost. But also when the Church is done away with as a public and publicly relevant authority, then too freedom is extinguished, because there the state once again claims completely for itself the justification of morality; in the profane post-Christian world it does not admittedly do this in the form of a sacral authority but as an ideological authority – that means that the state becomes the party, and since there can no longer be any other authority of the same rank it once again becomes total itself. The ideological state is totalitarian; it must become ideological if it is not balanced by a free but publicly recognized authority of conscience. When this kind of duality does not exist the totalitarian system is unavoidable.

 

[exnihilo]

I would say a theocracy is a government where religious leaders are the state power. The Vatican would be a theocracy. I don’t think a theocracy need be anything more than that.

When you investigate the claims of supposedly secular positions you’ll find most people appeal to some transcendental morality as the reason for most laws. This is really a religious or at least supernatural belief and claim. Secular government just means a separation of church (or religious institute) and state. But the state is always supreme because it dictates what are acceptable religions and practices within those that are approved.

When people claim that some men want to impose a theocracy they are misusing the term. The simply disagree with the morality those they oppose wish to make law. Notice in the US while buggery is no longer a crime now in many states beating a brute animal is now a felony. A new morality has been imposed typically by people who make the odd claim there is no objective morality. Our society has judged harming animals to be more detrimental to your soul than sodomy. Whether we are right depends on the supernatural truth, but we have made the decisions we have not because everyone denies supernatural truth but because our specific beliefs about them have changed.

 

[mpartyka]

Ratzinger notes that “the origin and the permanent foundation of the Western idea of freedom” lies in the “separation of the authority of the state and sacral authority”.

A Western idea, yes – but is it necessarily a Christian idea? Granted, Jesus said, “Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s,” but he was speaking of a pagan government, not a Christian government. There was no such thing as a Christian government as yet, nor would there be for another 300+ years until Constantine converted. At that time the Church gained unprecedented access to state power, and clearly used it. Pagan religions were suppressed by the state much in the same way the Christian religion was suppressed by the state in years past. On what grounds do we have reason to claim the newly Christianized Roman Empire was wrong to suppress paganism in this fashion given that the divinely-ordained theocracy of Israel included laws to do exactly that – and let’s not forget the teaching of Paul, who wrote:

Romans 13:1-6 – Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing.

Far from separating church and state, Paul suggests that church and state are and should be God’s two hands – the church preaching the morals, and the state enforcing the morals (even though the state at that time was in pagan hands). So why wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, the state exist in the capacity of moral enforcer for the Church?

The idea that there is some notion of “freedom” safeguarded by the dual system of church and state seems not to hold up under much scrutiny, given that in every society going back all the way to Eden, man has always been free to turn from the truth and sin. What man has not been free to do is escape consequences and punishments for sin. That there should exist temporal penalties for sinning against the truth in no way detracts from the essential freedom of man. If that were true, the fact that we attempt to thwart and punish murder would make our society unjust, in that these attempts inhibit freedom.

If we are to maintain this dualistic system, doesn’t it make more sense to consider the definitions of theocracy and secular government that I have given above and determine that the split in jurisdiction between church and state should occur precisely at the point of divergence in the two systems? I.e., the church should be concerned predominantly with eternal life (and provide whatever unofficial assistance to those who are suffering attacks on life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness), whereas the state should concern itself exclusively with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, without regard to moving people in the direction of eternal life, seeing how that is the church’s province?

Should Christians, in other words, seek a Christian way of life for the Church, but a libertarian form of government for the state – i.e., a constrained way of life (“the narrow road that leads to eternal life”) within the Church, but as much freedom as possible outside the Church in the realm of the state (e.g., legalization for gay marriage and incest, pre- and extramarital sex, drugs, prostitution, contraception, etc)? That way the morality of the Church would have its place in the Church: “Outside these walls, the authorities will allow you to live however you want so long as it doesn’t harm others, but within these walls a higher way of life is expected from you, and we have our own authorities and our own laws to which you will be subject!” And then the choice will be clear: Belong to Christ or don’t – you are free to choose. And the Church’s only concern with the state will be to ensure that living the Christian life remains just as possible outside the walls of the Church as within.

 

[exnihilo]

The idea that there is some notion of “freedom” safeguarded by the dual system of church and state seems not to hold up under much scrutiny, given that in every society going back all the way to Eden, man has always been free to turn from the truth and sin. What man has not been free to do is escape consequences and punishments for sin. That there should exist temporal penalties for sinning against the truth in no way detracts from the essential freedom of man. If that were true, the fact that we attempt to thwart and punish murder would make our society unjust, in that these attempts inhibit freedom.

Freedom, as most people use the word, does not mean the ability to do anything you want. It means the ability to do anything that is right or moral to do. Freedom is inseparable from morality. A government protecting freedom is engaged in moral judgment. Since morality is then a part of the law the state can not escape metaphysical judgments. The metaphysical is the realm of religion so the state will have some connection to religion.

Should Christians, in other words, seek a Christian way of life for the Church, but a libertarian form of government for the state – i.e., a constrained way of life (“the narrow road that leads to eternal life”) within the Church, but as much freedom as possible outside the Church in the realm of the state (e.g., legalization for gay marriage and incest, pre- and extramarital sex, drugs, prostitution, contraception, etc)? That way the morality of the Church would have its place in the Church: “Outside these walls, the authorities will allow you to live however you want so long as it doesn’t harm others, but within these walls a higher way of life is expected from you, and we have our own authorities and our own laws to which you will be subject!” And then the choice will be clear: Belong to Christ or don’t – you are free to choose. And the Church’s only concern with the state will be to ensure that living the Christian life remains just as possible outside the walls of the Church as within.

I generally think the state should be very limited in scope if for no other reason than a powerful state will do more harm than good. But we need to tighten up our definition of ‘harm others’. Does that mean immediate physical injury? Does that mean mental suffering? Does the victim have to be a person or can it be society? Does it mean not paying a laborer a certain hourly wage or giving them contraception?

Practically speaking most people want a big, powerful government. When the church, as it is today, is advocating for specific social welfare programs it seems problematic to say at the same time the law should not in other ways reflect a Christian morality by prohibiting certain actions. The problem in the US today is that both conservatives and liberals want a big government for religious reasons and they get what they want. What we end up with neither accomplishes the stated goals or seems to make anyone very happy in a worldly way.

 

[aragonjohn1]

I was thinking of how to properly define the priorities of a secular government vs. the priorities of a theocracy, and how those priorities might shape what kinds of laws are passed under those forms of government. It occurred to me that the set of priorities established in the Declaration of Independence might do nicely as a basis for both:

Secular government – The governing principles are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A person’s life cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the life of another. A person’s liberty cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the life or liberty of another. Finally, a person’s pursuit of happiness cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of another.

Theocracy – The same, except the overriding governing principle of eternal life is placed at the head of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, a person’s eternal life cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life of another. A person’s life cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life or life of another. A person’s liberty cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life, life, or liberty of another. Finally, a person’s pursuit of happiness cannot be taken away unless he/she threatens the eternal life, life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness of another.

I think that if you cast theocracy in this light, all the laws and punishments of the Old Testament make perfect sense. This is why blasphemy, idolatry, apostasy, and sexual sins were all punishable by death under the Mosaic Law – because these things in particular threatened the souls of the community, if not also their lives and well-being in other ways, and therefore it was perfectly reasonable to take the lives of those involved in these sins so as to halt the potential harm to others’ eternal destinies.

And I think this is also why there is so much resistance to the continuance in today’s society of laws such as were found in the Old Testament: Because we (in the U.S., anyway, but the desire is almost universal in this day and age) live in a secular society, where separation of church and state is a fundamental principle, we only expect, require, and permit the government to be concerned for our temporal lives, not our eternal souls. Those activities which under a theocracy would be outlawed because they are damaging to the souls of those involved (e.g., heresy, adultery, homosexuality), despite any lack of discernable or convincing evidence for substantial temporal harm, are considered beyond the scope and jurisdiction of secular government.

This is what makes the current “culture war” in America so interesting, and a bit ironic. Social conservatives strive tooth and nail to prove that there is some kind of “harm” associated with the activities they want to see prohibited, but what they don’t realize is that the only kinds of “harm” that some of these activities might produce are those with which they themselves, in their fervent devotion to separation of church and state (at least in the one direction), would require that government have no dealings. If social conservatives insist it is not the province of a secular government to govern the souls of men – if that is something that must be left to the churches – then there are many things that must be permitted under secular government that social conservatives would rather not see permitted.

Interesting Catch-22, isn’t it? And no wonder that social liberals cry out, whenever social conservatives try to impose their view on the masses, that what social conservatives really want is theocracy – isn’t that, in fact, precisely the case, though social conservatives may be unaware of it?

many of the founding fathers including Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were for the churches helping the state expound and teach natural law and to help define morality.
too bad a few officials may have forgotten many of the founder’s principles and the real definition of separation of Church and state.

Merry Christmas
God bless Y’all

 

[devoutchristian]

I support the separation of church and state, a “healthy secularism” that is positive regarding the role of religion rather than negative:

You don’t believe that the State should endorse Catholicism?

 

[Brendan]

You don’t believe that the State should endorse Catholicism?

The role of the State is to promote and enforce the Natural Moral Law.

The role of the Church is to promote and enforce the Revealed Moral Law.

The two are distinct, as part of the Revealed Moral Law in the revelation of God as a Person engaged in Love, it is a free relationship. It must be entered into with no temporal coercion.

 

[devoutchristian]

It must be entered into with no temporal coercion.

The Church doesn’t say that the State should coerce people to convert.

 

[Bradski]

You don’t believe that the State should endorse Catholicism?

Maybe a vote would be in order. First past the post?