Buehner: Single Women Under Father’s Control »« Royce Lamberth Just Became My Favorite Judge

Another Virginia Republican Theocrat

On Tuesday, Al Bedrosian won the Republican primary for a seat on the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. He ran largely on a platform of being in favor of opening that board’s meetings with prayer, which has been a matter of some controversy. The Roanoke Times reprints an article Bedrosian wrote in 2007 where he made clear that he is a Christian theocrat.

As a Christian, I think it’s time to rid ourselves of this notion of freedom of religion in America.

Now that I have your attention, let me take a moment to make my case. Freedom of religion has become the biggest hoax placed upon the Christian people and on our Christian nation.

When reading the writings of our Founding Founders, there was never any reference to freedom of religion referring to a choice between Islam, Hindu, Satanism, Wicca and whatever other religions or cults you would like to dream up. It was very clear that freedom to worship meant the freedom to worship the God of the Bible in the way you wanted, and not to have a government church denomination dictate how you would worship.

Christianity, by its own definition, does not allow freedom of religion. A Christian is defined as a follower of Jesus Christ.

First of all, he’s absolutely wrong about what the Founding Fathers wrote on the subject, especially in his own state of Virginia. In 1786, James Madison ushered to passage the Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in the Virginia Assembly. That act was written by Thomas Jefferson in 1779, but it did not pass at that time. Madison revived it in response to a bill written by Patrick Henry that would have established a tax that all Virginians had to pay for the support of Christian churches (with each taxpayer deciding which church would get the money). During the debate on the passage of the Jefferson-Madison bill, an attempt was made to amend it to add specifically Christian language and it was rejected. This is what Jefferson wrote about those attempts:

The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally past; and a singular proposition proved that it’s protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan [Islam], the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.

The men most responsible for bringing religious freedom to Virginia and the nation as a whole, Jefferson and Madison, clearly did not believe that religious freedom should only belong to Christians.

I know that my stance is even unpopular among Christians. If you took a poll in America and asked just Christians if we should allow any religion to be practiced in America, I guarantee that 99 percent would say yes. They would be proud to state that freedom of religion is the pillar America was founded on.

Yet these are the same Christians who will be protesting in the streets against the homosexual agenda, abortion, removing God from our schools and from our pledge.

Somehow many Christians have not been able to connect the dots. Don’t we see that when we allow other gods into America, those other gods start influencing our culture and our laws? And soon we are allowing laws and regulations to be enacted that are totally opposed to our belief system. And the sad thing is that we knowingly allow them in the name of “freedom of religion.”

So you want a theocracy where religion alone decides what people can and can’t do. Just like Osama Bin Laden and the reactionary Muslims do. How ironic.

Comments

  1. gshelley says

    Don’t we see that when we allow other gods into America, those other gods start influencing our culture and our laws? And soon we are allowing laws and regulations to be enacted that are totally opposed to our belief system.

    So one of the reasons that SSM is now passing is the influence of Islamic thought?

  2. says

    Yet these are the same Christians who will be protesting in the streets against the homosexual agenda, abortion, removing God from our schools and from our pledge.
    Somehow many Christians have not been able to connect the dots.

    Well, he’s right, there is some real inconsistency here. It’s just that most sane people would prefer the inconsistency to be fixed on the other side.

  3. jaxkayaker says

    So, is Bedrosian just an ignorant sack of shit, or is he a lying sack of shit?

    People like him essentially want sharia law, they just don’t want to call it that.

  4. says

    I’ll give Al credit for at least being open about his theocratic desires. Most other theocrats in this country claim to be for freedom of religion so as you don’t try to build a mosque in their town or threaten Christian privilege.

  5. says

    “When reading the writings of our Founding Founders, there was never any reference to freedom of religion referring to a choice between Islam, Hindu, Satanism, Wicca and whatever other religions or cults you would like to dream up.”

    Obvious bullshit is obvious: “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” Thomas “Founding Father” Jefferson

  6. Stevarious, Public Health Problem says

    @theschwa

    Isn’t “Virginia Republican Theocrat” redundant?

    Not necessarily. Many virginia republicans are plutocrats, and just pay lip service to theocracy so their base will reelect them.

  7. Abdul Alhazred says

    There I was, getting ready to complain about the too broad usage of the word “theocrat”.

    And then there is it in black and white. He explicitly rejects freedom of religion.

    Yep. Theocrat.

  8. theguy says

    In a way, I almost prefer when these theocrats are upfront and honest about their politics, instead of all this “We’re being oppressed!” nonsense.

    Although, he still goes on about that faux-persecution a bit in the full letter.

  9. says

    Randomfactor,
    Good to see Karen throwing her bonnet into the ring as the “Not a fucking chance in hell of winning” candidate.
    Believe it or not, she would have to go full Bachmann* to not be perceived as the “moderate” candidate among the current crop of critters.

    * “Never go full Bachmann.”

  10. slc1 says

    I wonder how this asshole feels about Virginia Congresscritter and Rethuglican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is not a follower of Yeshua ben Yoseph of Nazareth.

  11. kagekiri says

    @5 jaxkayaker:

    People like him essentially want sharia law, they just don’t want to call it that.

    Yeah..it’s pretty much:

    Christian nut: “Religious discrimination against me is bad, but against anyone else? I want that discrimination to be GOVERNMENT ENFORCED!”

    Secularists: “Isn’t that basically Sharia? I can’t see much difference..”

    Christian nut: “This isn’t Sharia, it’s *Christian nationhood*! What do you mean you fail to see the difference? This one is better for Christians (who are exactly like me)!”

  12. Hercules Grytpype-Thynne says

    I wonder how this asshole feels about Virginia Congresscritter and Rethuglican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, who is not a follower of Yeshua ben Yoseph of Nazareth.

    He’s one a them there Judeo Christians.

  13. alanjc says

    Did anybody else notice something here? The quote supposedly from Jefferson/Madison talks about the “homosexual agenda” and removing “God from out schools and our pledge”. How does this happen when the pledge is about a hundred years after either gentlemen, and its”removal of God from the pledge” coudln’t predate the 1950s? And when did either founding father EVER talk about the “homosexual agenda”? I agree with the direction of this post; just the supposed quotes to support it!

  14. dan4 says

    I wonder if this column was well-known/publicized before Bedrosian won the primary.

Leave a Reply