Now for Jordan Sekulow’s post itself.
He’s pissed off because the pesky leftwing atheist media have been saying Dominionists are Dominionists.
Whether it’s Governor Rick Perry calling for prayer for our nation, Congresswoman Bachmann discussing her “calling” to run for elected office, or Governor Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith, it is now acceptable for many in the media to ridicule the religious beliefs of one particular group of Americans – conservatives.
The new insinuation is that conservative Christians are engaged in a concerted effort to establish a theocracy here in America. Under the guise of so-called ‘Christian Dominionism,’ our alleged goal is, “replacing American law with the strictures of the Old Testament.”
Nothing could be further from the truth.
As I have explained before, Christians who seek to participate in the political process do so not as an attempt to install some type of theocratic rule, but to ensure that the government fulfils its God-ordained role in society to promote justice, provide security, and protect the God-given freedoms of its people.
Uh…………………………..
I fail to see the difference.
I see the difference in the wording, yes, but the difference in the wording doesn’t amount to a difference in the substance. Thinking and saying (and insisting) that government has a “God-ordained role in society” is theocratic. Working to enforce that idea is working for theocracy. Thinking and saying (and insisting) that freedoms are “God-given” is theocratic – it entails thinking that only the freedoms you consider consistent with your idea of what “God” wants are to be protected; all others are to be eliminated. This includes for instance the freedom to stop being pregnant. It includes the freedom to attend school if your Amish parents want to take you out of school. It includes the freedom to marry someone of the same sex.
Ouch!
That quote reminds me of “Islamic human rights”. People have permission from Allah to do certain things, and duties imposed by Allah to do certain things. These are then dressed up to look superficially like human rights. “Islamic human rights” are simply Sharia Law.
“God-ordained role” and God-given freedoms” appear to be the equivalent. The quote is describing the Christian equivalent of Sharia Law.
Scary!
Exactly. It’s very reminiscent of “the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights” – which is not a good thing.
The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam
A few samples
ARTICLE 2:
(a) Life is a God-given gift and the right to life is guaranteed to every human being. It is the duty of individuals, societies and states to protect this right from any violation, and it is prohibited to take away life except for a Shari’ah prescribed reason.
ARTICLE 10:
Islam is the religion of unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of compulsion on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to convert him to another religion or to atheism.
ARTICLE 16:
Everyone shall have the right to enjoy the fruits of his scientific, literary, artistic or technical production and the right to protect the moral and material interests stemming therefrom, provided that such production is not contrary to the principles of Shari’ah.
ARTICLE 22:
(a) Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.
(b) Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah
(c) Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.
If you at all interested, I have lots of pages of analysis of Islam on my website that can be reached from my blog.
Those pages include commentaries on both the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and its predecessor Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights.
Frankly, I suspect you would be familiar with most of it. Indeed, I cited Edmund Standing’s article on Butterflies and Wheels for my commentary on “Inspired by Muhammad”. But it might add some perspective from the UK.
I lol’d.
How is that not “theocratic rule”?
This passage seemed completely ludicrous as I was reading it, but it isn’t the least bit comical when folks who think their god is the one true god say things like this.
“Pastafarians who seek to participate in the political process do so not as an attempt to install some type of theocratic rule, but to ensure that the government fulfils its FSM-ordained role in society to promote justice, provide security, and protect the FSM-given freedoms of its people.”
I am interested, Barry. And don’t be shy about linking.
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/gods/index.htm
I think there’s a problem with defining theocracy this way: one could say “the god-ordained separation between church and state” and it would still be theocratic by this measure. Rather than take this tack we should, I think, point out the theocratic tendencies of and ideas espoused by the ACLJ et al. The poorly homophoned Sekulow is simply dissembling–the notion of God-given freedoms is pretty different from the freedoms we have now. I remember reading in the 1912 Catholic encyclopedia that Natural Law prohibits the reading of books damaging to faith, even if one has gotten permission from the catholic hierarchy to do so.
The guy, and his ill, are pushing for a move toward theocratic definitions of law and rights.
IMHO the root of all this, both, all flavors, of religion, come from the concept that God (assumed to exist) grants rights. Which makes the rights subordinate to God and law subordinate to rights. Which sets up the human desire for law, order in general, as depending on rights and God. Effectively stuffing God and rights down the throats of anyone desiring law.
I suggest that this is all backward. It is people coming together to establish law that makes rights possible. Fact being that it is the law, an intellectual framework establishing the rights of a people to govern themselves, and people’s willingness to establish, support, and be governed by, the law, that establish rights.
Rights do not exist outside someone’s willingness to establish, and fight for them. Your right to vote is entirely meaningless unless it is established in law and the law is backed by someone willing to commit violence to uphold it.
Of course, God has nothing to do with any of this. God doesn’t create laws, or rights, and God has never stepped up to protect any right or law.
The theocrats want you to believe in:
God —> Rights —> Law
It keeps God, the ultimate abstraction, at the top where only the select ballsy, arrogant, malevolent few can ‘hear’ he/she/it and let the un-anointed masses know what God thinks.
The idea that rights are ordinate to law also established a priesthood, one of lawyers who listen to the secret meanings and interactions of rights, and let the un-annointed masses know what it means.
Instead it is far more logical to maintain the order as:
People —> Law —> Rights
For it is the people who write the constitutions, a form of superordinate law, that establish rights. And it is the people, acting through government and their representatives, that protect rights.
it is now acceptable for many in the media to ridicule the religious beliefs of one particular group of Americans – conservatives.
If you insist on bringing your religious beliefs into the public space of politics then don’t be complaining when they get ridiculed.
And that includes any opinion, trot it out in public, expect it to be criticized
Can’t handle the criticism ? Keep your special relationship with your invisible friend to yourselves.
Wow. The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights is Orwellian from the name on down.
double plus ungood
Sekulow more succinctly: God-given freedoms are simply those behaviors that my cult has not yet decided to condemn. And the government’s God-ordained role is to put my particular delusion on a pedestal.