Theocracy?

by Jimmy Akin

in Islam

The last few years we’ve heard a lot of total nonsense about American democracy becoming a theocracy.

NO, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A DEMOCRACY BECOMES A THEOCRACY.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 60 comments }

James February 21, 2007 at 7:24 am

When God rules, (theocracy) I sure hope He makes a better fist of it than the present US or UK governments. Or any others for that matter!

Tim J. February 21, 2007 at 7:33 am

This is the kind of thing that can make common adulterers look like heroes. Don’t it just make you want to vacation in Indonesia? Burkas, I hear, are very slimming.
What’s wierd is, here in the West we have spies that turn in people for wearing crucifixes, or having some kind of God Bless You trinket hanging in their cubicle.
Being outed as a virgin in school is a humiliation.
What’s the opposite of a theocracy?

Tim J. February 21, 2007 at 7:35 am

This is the kind of thing that can make common adulterers look like heroes. Don’t it just make you want to vacation in Indonesia? Burkas, I hear, are very slimming.
What’s wierd is, here in the West we have spies that turn in people for wearing crucifixes, or having some kind of God Bless You trinket hanging in their cubicle.
Being outed as a virgin in school is a humiliation.
What’s the opposite of a theocracy?

Jimmy Akin February 21, 2007 at 7:37 am

An atheocracy, I’d assume.

Publius February 21, 2007 at 7:43 am

The last few years we’ve heard a lot of total nonsense about American democracy becoming a theocracy.
To such people, “theocracy” is merely a pejorative, much like “fundamentalist.”

Dr. Eric February 21, 2007 at 8:17 am

“What’s the opposite of a theocracy?”
The EU! :-p

Nathan Tyler February 21, 2007 at 9:43 am

Whenever I hear the phrase “American theocracy” used in a serious manner, I literally cringe. Not at the prospect of it happening, but out of sheer embarrassment for the individual who actually sees the United States as being in danger of becoming a theocracy. How out of touch with reality would one have to be? How insanely paranoid and hateful of religious faith and religious persons? These people are mad.

bill912 February 21, 2007 at 9:54 am

Not “mad”, but “bigoted”. They are anti-Christian bigots, who react with charges of “Theocracy!” whenever Christians speak out and try to get laws passed. “How dare those Christians act like Freedom of Speech and democracy apply to them!”

Anonymous February 21, 2007 at 10:02 am

I’d say for those who want to see a real theocracy is visit Utah for some time.

Bilos February 21, 2007 at 10:14 am

A theocracy is what George W created when he took out the secular Baathist and relatively tolerant to Christians Iraqi regime and replaced it with anarchy, violence, chaos and a more repressive and religious Shia pro-Iraqi regime.

Perry February 21, 2007 at 10:15 am

This is why I’m glad the U.S. has seperation of Church and State. As long as this is in place, a theocracy can never happen.

John February 21, 2007 at 10:27 am

Though not possible because of the errors of man and his penchant for sin, the perfect rule on earth as in heaven is a monarchy with Christ as King, though the past history of monarchs have produced a few saints, but for the most part have not fared well
The US government as established in 1776 led by George Washington and Ben Franklin were staunch Masons and totally anticatholic

bill912 February 21, 2007 at 10:27 am

Bilos: Please define Theocracy.

Gilbert February 21, 2007 at 10:49 am

George Washington was so NOT anti-Catholic. He stood up for Catholics and religious freedom. And thought, openly, that “pope’s day” was ridiculously un-American.

J.R. Stoodley February 21, 2007 at 10:54 am

If I’m not mistaken traditionally a Theocracy would be a state ruled by clergy. Is that not right? Post-Babylonian exile Judah and the Holy See would be examples, so they can’t be all bad.
That said a government should probably be made up of laypeople who acknowledge religious truth but allow a practical freedom of religion. Elected positions should probably be open to all people to prevent coercion to adhere to Catholicism just for practical reasons, but I wouldn’t have a problem with a law that monarchs and hereditary lords must be Catholics in good standing since it is no ones natural right to hold such an office.
In any case though the idea that the United States is a theocracy or has any chance in the near future of becoming one is preposterous.

J.R. Stoodley February 21, 2007 at 10:57 am

Gilbert,
George Washington was however a freemason, a slave owner, and (arguably) a traitor. Not the marks of someone who I’d call a hero.

Marty Helgesen February 21, 2007 at 11:41 am

Here is the defintion of “theocracy” from Webster’sThird New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged: “1a: government of a state by the immediate direction or administration of God b: government or political rule by priests or clergy as representatives of God 2: a state governed by God or by religious officials.” The definition behind most claims of a theocracy today seems to be “a society in which religious believers are allowed to vote”, sometimes, “a society in which politically conservative religious believers are allowed to vote.” When politically liberal religious believers take their beliefs into account in deciding how to vote, they are not accused of theocracy. They are praised for putting their faith into action.

David B. February 21, 2007 at 11:48 am

“What’s the opposite of a theocracy?”
A Demoncracy?
BTW, I think that a confessional state(one that’s Catholic. of course) is the best way to go.

John Damascus February 21, 2007 at 12:20 pm

A major difference between Islam and other world religions is that their founding figure gained political power. Muhammad then did what most absolute rulers ‘have’ to do to keep power. He also killed POWs after they surrendered, kept slaves and had sex with them, married a 9 year old girl as well as many acts of kindness. Not necessarily a problem to us today (many Christian rulers have behaved worse) except that the Quran says Muhammad is the perfect human being. Most Muslims are only aware of Muhammad’s good acts which they try to imitate.
Jesus did not attempt to gain political power. It took over 300 years before Christians gained political power. Jews have not even had a state for most of their history. Thus Christians and Jews can *theoretically* separate church and state into separate spheres of responsibility, even though there are overlaps.
From the beginning, Islamic jurisprudence, tradition and precedents have presumed that Muslims were in charge; the the only concession was how to accommodate other minority religions as second class citizens who knew their place as Dhimmis. Only today do significant numbers of Muslims live in pluralistic ‘secular’ democracies as minorities – something new in Islamic thought, especially for the intellectual leaders, most of whom live under dictatorships.
Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but there there is no theological equivalence in the theocracy allegation against Christianity and Islam.

Cajun Nick February 21, 2007 at 1:28 pm

J.R. Stoodley,
I appreciate very much your contributions to these forums. I know that you have done a lot of study on a lot of topics.
Therefore, when you wrote that George Washington is arguably a traitor, I didn’t dismiss it right away (as I might have done if it were Anonymous or some other poster).
Could you please provide me with a reference that would help me to investigate your position concerning Washington’s patriotism? I would love to see evidence that could be used to reach that conclusion.

J.R. Stoodley February 21, 2007 at 3:09 pm

Cajun Nick,
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m not saying George Washington was a traitor agains the United States of America. I’m saying he was (arguably) a traitor agains his true country, the Brittish Empire.
It is complicated because colonial Americans, while still considering themselves English (with a few French, German etc. immigrants of course and some Native Americans who were integrating into English colonial culture), were begining to develop a distinct identity and were being mistreated somewhat by Parliament, and also from a Catholic perspective one could argue that the Jacobite pretender was still the rightful King of England and therefore King George was a false King and Parliament criminals.
It’s a difficult situation so I’m not 100% confident of my longstanding Loyalist leanings.
By the way certainly now that our independance is recognized by the UK and the heirs to James II do not claim their right to succession but rather acknowledge the current Queen, the governments of both countries are now legitimate. I’m proud to be an American, but also proud of my English ancestry and not sure which side of the American Rebellion (the first American Civil War) was actually in the right.

J.R. Stoodley February 21, 2007 at 3:12 pm

How did I write “agains” instead of “against” two times in a row? Be assured that I know the word has a t and I wasn’t trying to imply something stupid about cajuns or fellow Americans or whatever.

David B. February 21, 2007 at 5:01 pm

“Jacobite pretender ”
How was he a “pretender”? He was the true, rightful heir to the throne.

Cajun Nick February 21, 2007 at 5:10 pm

JR Stoodley,
Gotcha!
Thanks for responding so soon.
I see what you mean. As it turns out, George Washington is one of my favorite presidents. I haven’t done much in-depth study of his life, but I am impressed with his reluctance to accept and keep power. He could have been president as long as he desired, but he willingly stepped down after two terms; there was a movement to make him King, which he rebuffed. I don’t know if I could have done the same.
Now, back to our regular programming….theocracy.

Cienwen February 21, 2007 at 5:19 pm

In some defense of Malaysia, I would like to say that this whole “spy” thing is mostly isolated to the state of Terengganu. Out of 13 states Terengganu is the only one that has elected fundamentalist leaders to their senate. They do some freaky things there that make the rest of the Malaysian people and the government shake their heads with embarrassment. I think it was last year they tried to enact some legislation to require men and women to use separate lines at the grocery store. I spent 5 weeks in Malaysia and you could not have paid me to set foot in that state!

Some Day February 21, 2007 at 6:20 pm

Well, the monarchial form of government is more compatible with nature, and the supernatural.
No lion votes for a president, and the Pope and God are kings not presidents.
The problem is that the monarchies and nobility of the revolutions were in decadence.
Monarchy should not mean absolutism.
Tradition and customs of the people should reign more than just laws.
So in that respect, the U.S. concept of law is more organic, just that it went to another extreeme, which is the dictatorship of the judges.
The king must influence more than command. The Pope does not shout out orders, only when it is neccesary. He teaches, by his mere existance, example and didactic teachings.
Kings should do the same.
But the last kings of the world were soft, absolutists. They believed it was their job to sit and chat. So when the satanical French Revolution came about, they could do nothing.
Precursor to communism and many other evils in todays world.
Monarchies were pretty weak starting in the Rennaisance.
And then came the rise of republics.
Now democracy could be legitamate, contrary to most ultradox people’s ideas.
The only problem it lends itself to more errors.
Esspecially when the wrong type of elites set the pace. By elites I mean the people who have influence or acumen, or even the vocation to lead the people. In this country, morality has not been a strong point. And regardless of what the candidates may argue, the way you live is important in how you will use your power.
So when the goverment officials aren’t pious Catholics, the country will reflect that.
And thus you have the republics of today.
But an example that a Catholic democracy can exist is Gabriel García Moreno, Ecuadorian president, who promoted the Church in everything, and who died in honors of sanctity and hopefully if not already a process will be opened for his beatification.
Here is what Bl. Pius IX errected in his memory at a college in Rome:
Religionis integerrimus custos
Auctor studiorum optimorum
Obsequentissimus in Petri sedem
Justitiae cultor; scelerum vindex

Some Day February 21, 2007 at 6:29 pm

King George was a false King and Parliament criminals.
Hmm. False no. He was the legitamate king.
Criminals and heretics yes. That calls for a rebellion, and not a revolution. Revolutions are evil, because Satan is its father.
Now rebellions can be legitamate, but under the right circumstances. It must go to something better. You can’t kill a king and then say that monarchies are bad. No, you can depose the king with the Church’s permission and blessing ,because the king rules in the name of Christ and His Church, and they were annointed, so much so that the kings (at least in France) were annointed and were also made clerics (not priests though) and they were ministers of Holy Communion, and they even cured people miraculously on their crowning day.
That is a reason why the French Revolution was wrong. But that is not something that it is prudent to go into at depth becaus most will blindly defend “liberty”and democracy as the only way to go.

J.R. Stoodley February 21, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Some Day,
I would recommend you do some reading on the Jacobites. I think you will find it quite interesting. Unless that is you have learned about them and concluded that they were not the true kings of England, but that would surprise me given your general worldview.

Esperanto Christopher February 21, 2007 at 7:30 pm

J.R. Stoodley:
George Washington was however a freemason, a slave owner, and (arguably) a traitor.
A traitor…to the British.

Some Day February 21, 2007 at 8:12 pm

… to the British
THE LEGITAMATE GOVERNMENT!

JonathanR. February 21, 2007 at 9:34 pm

A monarchy’s greatest flaw is that it is too reliant on the virtue of the monarch to be effective. Unless the monarchs are superhuman, monarchy is difficult to sustain as a definitive form of government.

Esau February 22, 2007 at 12:48 am

That calls for a rebellion, and not a revolution. Revolutions are evil, because Satan is its father.
Some Day:
How can you say that?
If anything, rebellions (not revolutions — actually, that depends) are evil and, perhaps, it can be said (using your phrase) because Satan is its father since more often than not, it occurs due to pride.
Have you ever heard about the Rebellion that took place in Heaven?
I believed it involved some guy named Lucifer who, because of his pride, incited rebellion against God in an attempt to usurp his throne and, thus, ended up a fallen angel.
Isaiah 14: 12-15
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, who didst rise in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?
13 And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the covenant, in the sides of the north.
14 I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the most High.
15 But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the pit.
Thus, St. Michael’s “Who is Like Unto God?”

Tom February 22, 2007 at 1:45 am

“Don’t it just make you want to vacation in Indonesia?”
Or indeed, er, Malaysia, which is where the news story is actually from.
Having said that, as Cienwen pointed out upthread, Malaysia mostly isn’t that bad. Indonesia, on the other hand, is institutionally anti-Christian -Hindu and, well, anti-notMuslim. Luckily for Indonesia’s non-Muslims the current president is very much against the Bronze Agers, but was forced to take on a severe Bronze Ager as his number two (much to the dismay of the Christian population in particular).
Let’s all hope Bambang doesn’t suddenly have to resign due to ill health, as that would put Jusuf Kalla (already more powerful than the President in many ways) in charge.
Sorry, I seem to have rambled into an entirely different topic there. But I think my original point was “Malaysia isn’t a theocracy”. Although they do have punitively high taxes on alcohol.

John February 22, 2007 at 5:44 am

I agree with JR Totally
One of the greatest misconceptions that is still being shoved down our childrens throats is the French Revolution of 1789. It was Ben Franklin who spent much of the American Revolution in France coddling with his Masonic cohorts, and added fuel to their fire that eventually they took to the worse level of hate and destruction for the Catholic church in which the Jesuits were exterminated, clergy killed and the Catholic king and Queen beheaded and Church land to this day confiscated and owned by the government, that which was not sold off
This was really the begining of the end for the church and her domination over the thoughts and consciousness of the European continent, culminating in Italy when the Papal states were reduced to what it is today as King Emmanual took over all in the late 1800’s (1870 if I recall).
I know many do not like the talk of Masons, but they were a severe threat to the church and have actually succeeded in what they wanted to do, which is to have an open secular immoral society in which thought and reason and a feel good live for today mentality overthrows any though of sin and eventual damnation

Tim J. February 22, 2007 at 6:10 am

“Or indeed, er, Malaysia, which is where the news story is actually from.”
Er… my bad. Malaysia, not Indonesia.

Andy February 22, 2007 at 7:38 am

“George Washington was however a freemason, a slave owner, and (arguably) a traitor. Not the marks of someone who I’d call a hero.”
He was a man that stood with his brothers against tyranny. Not a traitor, a Patriot. George Washington can also be thanked for several of his presidential precedents that he set, including the addition of “So Help Me God” to the end of the presidential inauguration.

bill912 February 22, 2007 at 7:55 am

Washington acquired the slaves by marrying Martha Custus. He freed them in his will. He didn’t free them beforehand because Virginia law required a man who freed a slave to pension that slave for the rest of his own life. The law was enacted specifically to deter the freeing of large numbers of slaves by virutally assuring that any man who did so would impoverish his own family. The only way around this law was for a man to free his slaves in his will.

Kris February 22, 2007 at 9:12 am

Traitor or not, I’m still glad ol GW was around when he was. Seems more fitting to be paying taxes to D.C. than to be sending them to London. Saves on postage too!

Jennifer February 22, 2007 at 11:27 am

Jimmy I wanted to comment on the being excused from abstinence based on medical reasons. Generally I agree, there are plenty of non-meat protein sources. But there are a couple situations where a person who is vomiting a lot needs to eat anyway — severe morning sickness and chemotherapy come to mind. In that situation 1)you need to eat whatever stays down 2)the sick person may be unable to get to the store to buy non-meat items even if they would stay down.
Those types of situations are rare, and certainly one ought not excuse oneself lightly. But just in case there were any here prone to scruples, yes indeed there are cases where avoiding meat isn’t a prudent option.
****
Also re: pregnancy: true fasting can bring on premature labor. Bad idea.
Jen.

Some Day February 22, 2007 at 12:59 pm

revolutiónis
Revolution in latin.
The “rebellion” should be revolution, though they are very similar.
Revolutions are against the order of the universe established by God.
Rebellion can sometimes restore that order.

My Cat's Name Is Lily February 22, 2007 at 1:04 pm

George, Elector of Hanover, was as much the king as my cat is the President. He was the real pretender.
The Jacobites were deposed from the throne of England because they were Catholics. (This did not matter to a lady named Susanna Wesley, mother to John & Charles, of Methodist fame. She was so vehement in her support of the House Of Stuart, that her husband became an itinerant preacher for a year, to get away from being regularly accused of treason for swearing the oath of allegiance to said Elector George).
The last true heir to the throne of England died a Catholic Cardinal.
Oh, yes, & as for George Washington, his religious tolerance was all but unequalled by any in his day. He was a patriot & a gentleman. It was the “loyallists”, so-called, who were traitors.
There really do seem to be an extraordinary lot of bad history books doing the rounds lately….

Marion (Mael Muire) February 22, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Wasn’t the form of government that man had in the Garden of Eden – theocracy?
That ended with the first sin, which also coincided with the first political revolution – the overthrow of theocracy.

John February 22, 2007 at 5:09 pm

When reading this article, and day in and day out the hatred of Muslims for the Christian world not to mention other muslims of a different sect, why must I hold Moslems in “High esteem”? as ordered by Our Popes and a Council? Why do we need to even befriend them? They are damned and that is simple as they deny Jesus as Lord and savior but for some reason the Church feels a need to reach out to these crazies. I was watching Scott Hahn late one night last week on EWTN talk about this anticipated debate with a Moslem “theologian” which Scotts brother brokered, and how the Moslem banged the table repeatedly as Scott mistakenly used the term “Father” for “God” which the Moslem said was blaspheme
Not trying to deviate from the topic here but the Vatican continues to talk about how great the Popes visit to Turkey was, what a success, etc etc when all he said was the truth that Islam has and continues to be spread by the tip of the sword

Esau February 22, 2007 at 5:15 pm

John:
About what you said:
Not trying to deviate from the topic here but the Vatican continues to talk about how great the Popes visit to Turkey was, what a success, etc etc when all he said was the truth that Islam has and continues to be spread by the tip of the sword
Just because you introduced your tangents with a disclaimer “not trying to deviate from the topic” doesn’t actually mean you didn’t intend to.
For example —
Just because a person says: “I don’t mean to insult you, but I think you’re fat!” doesn’t really take away from the fact that that person’s intention was actually to insult the other.

Esau February 22, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Marion (Mael Muire)–
About your comment:
That ended with the first sin, which also coincided with the first political revolution – the overthrow of theocracy.
The term rebellion would be more fitting (just as it was in the case of Lucifer) since it denotes the very fact that humanity had rebelled against God by not humbly submitting themselves to God under the virtue of obedience but, rather, seeking to become gods themselves:
Genesis 3:5
5 For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

J.R. Stoodley February 22, 2007 at 10:19 pm

It was the “loyallists”, so-called, who were traitors.
There really do seem to be an extraordinary lot of bad history books doing the rounds lately….

Indeed there are a lot of bad history books around, ones that demonize Loyalists and encourage people even not to think about how the winning side may not have been right. The English colonies were just that, English. They were founded by Englishmen, under the King of England, and remained under his juristiction.
A bunch of rebels under the influence of Enlightenment/Masonic philosophy rebelled against their king, fought against loyal Brittish troops (their own countrymen, whether born in the motherland or the colonies) executed those who remained loyal to their king or forced them to flee to Canada, and ultimately forced Great Britain to release its rightful claim on its colonies.
Once that recognition was in place the US could be its own country and a true patriot could now support the American government, but not before. A true patriot is loyal to KING and country.
The only reasonable justification for a rebellion that I can see is if you accept the Jacobite claim and rebelled against George in favor of King Charles. However, as far as I know the rebels did not in fact accept the Jacobite claim and did not make any attempt to subject themselves to him after winning the war. I therefore have to conclude that they rebelled against the man they believed to be their king, whether he was ultimately a rightful king or not. They would therefore still be guilty of treason.

bill912 February 23, 2007 at 6:19 am

“A true patriot is loyal to KING and country.”
You want to think about that before I start posting the names of some absolute rulers?

John February 23, 2007 at 7:18 am

Esau
I was simply stating that I have a hard time understanding how a council, guided by the Holy Spirit could state such a thing regarding Islam that Catholics must hold them “In high esteem”, and Popes such as JPII and B16 have such an infactuation with these Moslem clerics to actually care what they think of them and the Catholic church to go and appease them on their turf. If these clerics would come to the Vatican and pray with the Holy father then I could see that, but to go to Turkey and do as JPII did I think that something is amiss here
The topic was Theocracy as represented by Islam and I just have a hard time understanding-possibly you could explain to me the above?

Esau February 23, 2007 at 9:23 am

J.R. Stoodley:
“A true patriot is loyal to KING and country.”
And yet St. Thomas More, by a certain draconian standard based solely on such an absolute premise, can be labelled as a traitor to England and to his King (and friend, I might add), Henry VIII.
Although, just as had been rightly interpreted by certain exegetes, he had actually been faithful and, above all, loyal not only to God but also to King in his perceived action of treason.

bill912 February 23, 2007 at 9:33 am

Other absolute rulers: Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Nero, Caligula, Diocletian, Decius, Castro, Pol Pot, Saddam, etc. Good people to be disloyal to.

Esau February 23, 2007 at 9:52 am

bill912:
Spot on, brother!
Great point!

Esau February 23, 2007 at 10:20 am

“A true patriot is loyal to KING and country.”
J.R. Stoodley:
bill912’s comment reminded me of the fact that if such is the case; then what do you make of the Roman citizens who thereby converted to Christianity and turned their backs on their King and the Empire (i.e., their country)?

Fabio P.Barbieri February 26, 2007 at 5:49 am

I am disgusted by the ignorant, pseudo-historical, arrogant, vain, stupid, head-in-the-air attitudes of the idiots who post here and disgrace the name of Catholic. The trouble is that too many people have posted rubbish to answer them all as I would wish; so I will just say that I agree with Esau and Bill912. I would like to ask: in the Spanish Civil War, would you have taken the side of the “legitimate” government – which butchered Catholics – or of the “revolutionary” Carlists of Franco – who, for all their other sins, did protect the Church from massacre? I find both sides equally disgusting, but if I really had to choose, I would probably – with a bad taste in my mouth – choose Franco.

Eileen R February 26, 2007 at 7:16 am

Oh wow, you believe in the divine right of kings, people? I think the more traditional monarchial view is that kings derive their authority from the people. Not as a voting thing, but as a protector of their rights and interests.

James Ellis February 26, 2007 at 10:37 am

I was not surpised by the responses in this forum, it is as I might believe, a place of moderation. I write only to ascertain why, given what evidently is a growing and very powerful popular form of US Theocratic Dialouge currently in its political ascension, that neither of the following subjects was mentioned:
The first describes the religous training of American children through the apparatus of Evangelical Jesus Camps throughout the US (youtube.com/results?search_query=jesus+camp);
The second point refers to the dominionist arguments put forth in Chris Hedges’s latest non-fiction entry: “American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America”;
Moderates are under assault, my friends.

Esau February 26, 2007 at 10:52 am

Actually, Eileen R., I believe that Sir/Saint Thomas More made the point abundantly when he attempted to address the very elements evident in the Magna Charta itself:

“Forasmuch as, my Lord” (quoth he), “this indictment is grounded upon an Act of Parliament, directly oppugnant to the laws of God and his holy Church, the supreme government of which, or of any part thereof, may no temporal prince presume by any law to take upon him as rightfully belonging to the See of Rome, a spiritual pre-eminence by the mouth of our Saviour himself, personally present upon the earth, to St. Peter and his successors, bishops of the same see, by special prerogative, granted, it is therefore in law amongst Christian men insufficient to charge any Christian.
And for proof thereof like as amongst divers other reasons and authorities he declared that this Realm, being but one member and small part of the Church, might not make a particular law dischargeable with the general law of Christ’s holy Catholic Church, no more than the City of London, being but one poor member in respect of the whole Realm, might make a law against an Act of Parliament to bind the whole Realm unto: so further showed he, that it was contrary both to the laws and statutes of this land, yet unrepealed, as they might evidently perceive in Magna charta, Quod Ecclesia Anglicana libera sit et habeat omnia jura sua integra, at libertates suas illaesas, and contrary to that sacred oath which the King’s Highness himself, and every other Christian prince always at their coronations received, alleging moreover, that no more might this Realm of England refuse obedience to the See of Rome, than might the child refuse obedience to his natural father.
For as St. Paul said of the Corinthians, “I have regenerated you may children in Christ,” so might St. Gregory Pope of Rome (of whom by St. Augustine his messenger we first received the Christian faith) of us English men truly say, “You are my children, because I have given to you everlasting salvation, a far better inheritance than any carnal father can leave unto his child, and by spiritual generation have made you my spiritual children in Christ.” Then was it thereunto by the Lord Chancellor answered, that seeing all the bishops, universities, and best learned men of the Realm had to this Act agreed, it was much marvelled that he alone against them all would so stiffly stick and vehemently argue there against.

Some Day February 26, 2007 at 2:19 pm

true patriot is loyal to KING and country.”
You want to think about that before I start posting the names of some absolute rulers?
Absolute regalia is not the perferct form of government.
In Medieval times, it was an organic monarchy, and there were institutions and traditions that had power. Tradition was a force, and the laws reflected that. Not like now, that random laws come out like bullets out of a machinegun.
The king consulted, and influenced more than he commanded. Influence was the greatest role of the monarchy, not power. Absolutism is a decadence, bypassing the organic nature of the peoples.
AND FOR THE GENIUS WHO MENTIONED ALL THOSE NAMES WORTHY OF HATE, THEY ARE NOT KINGS RULING IN THE NAME OF CHRIST!

Some Day February 26, 2007 at 2:24 pm

And a theocracy cannot be ruled by a human.
The only theocracy that has ever existed on this Earth is when God told the Israelites what to do.
This ended with King Saul.

Esau February 26, 2007 at 3:46 pm

AND FOR THE GENIUS WHO MENTIONED ALL THOSE NAMES WORTHY OF HATE, THEY ARE NOT KINGS RULING IN THE NAME OF CHRIST!
Some Day:
You seemed to have missed the point of bill912’s comments.
The fact of the matter is that J.R. Stoodley’s remark below carries with it a false impression of truth, which, I believe, bill912 was attempting to point out.
“A true patriot is loyal to KING and country.”
Again, as I attempted to follow-up in my subsequent post above:
J.R. Stoodley:
bill912’s comment reminded me of the fact that if such is the case; then what do you make of the Roman citizens who thereby converted to Christianity and turned their backs on their King and the Empire (i.e., their country)?
Posted by: Esau | Feb 23, 2007 10:20:12 AM

Kris February 26, 2007 at 4:47 pm

It seems to me that to have remained loyal to “king and country” in the early colonies would have been an injustice of sorts. The colonists had plenty of reasons to rebel against the British monarchy—unjust taxation, an inequitable justice system, conscription, etc…
Violent rebellion was not the first option taken by the patriots. As the Declaration of Indepence puts it “in every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms…” They were not quick to separate themselves from England.
Independence was declared, Independence was rejected, and the fight was on. By definition, the early patriots were traitors–but that does not make them inherently wrong.
In summation “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

Previous post:

Next post: