The Thinking ‘Kat: Democracy vs Theocracy
In the wake of a number of conversations with Citizen Tom, Derrick Thiessen of Theology Archaeology decided to wade in, and decided to argue in favour of a Christian Theocracy (well, that or a capitalist system, which betrays that Mr Thiessen does not understand capitalism is an economic system, not a political one, but I digress).
Derrick believes that a Christian theocracy would be superior to a democratic system. He argues – without specifics – that it would be better in terms of society, justice and mercy. However, this would only pan out to be true if everyone follows Biblical laws and instructions, something Derrick makes very clear:
There are no forced conversions or demands that everyone must be Christian to be a good American, Canadian, Russian, and so on. One freely chooses to obey the laws of theland or not. Those who choose the latter cannot complain because they know the penalties before they do the illegal act. They also know they will be punished correctly when caught.
In other words, if you are not following Christian rules, you will be punished. The theocracy will impose judgements upon you for wanting to live a life free from religious influence. This may be a utopia for Christians – well, Christians who worship and interpret the Bible precisely as Derrick does – but that’s about it. Derrick insists there would not be forced conversions, but if members of the LGBT community sudden have to hide who they are to satisfy the State, and risk punishment if they wish to be true to themselves, that pretty much is the expectation that everyone must be Christian (or pretend to be) to enjoy all the benefits of the State.
While this may sound like the coming of the false prophet and the one world leader, it is not. In that system, people are still persecuted and killed for not accepting the number of the beast. In the Christian theocratic system, people are not killed for not accepting the government’s stance.
They are only punished if they break actual laws. The upcoming one-world government will deprive people of life, liberty, and happiness, as shown by democratic, liberal, and socialistic/communistic governments of the 20th and 21st centuries, for just about anything.
Leviticus 20:10: ‘the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife … the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death’, while Deuteronomy 22:22 thundered, if a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then both of them shall die’.
Derrick is a Biblical literalist. He believes that the Bible is 100% literally true, without question and without any room for any possible deviation. With that in mind, he would also therefore believe that adulterer’s should be put to death. This is an extreme form of punishment for a ‘crime’ that involves the private business of two or more adults. Adultery is obviously distasteful, but is it worth killing over? This is but one piece of evidence that a Christian theocracy would not favour life and liberty. It would in fact rob people of independence and the freedom to make their own personal choices, for fear of violent reprisals.
The only way that everyone gets to enjoy this ‘perfect’ society is if everyone acts and behaves the same.
False accusations by anyone, including the government, are curtailed, thoroughly examined, and the false accuser faces punishment instead of the innocent, who often have their lives ruined by these false accusations. Alleged crimes are not reported 20, 30, or 40 years later, but reported right away when the evidence is still in existence.
Someone’s word is not taken as evidence, nor is a group of people’s word taken as fact. Real, credible, legitimate evidence must accompany anyone’s complaint. Many people claim that a group’s unsubstantiated complaints are evidence of a crime, but that is not so.
This is one of the worst suggestions in Derrick’s entire post, and it’s unclear as to where this philosophy is enshrined in the Bible. It has been explained – in detail and as simply as possible – to Derrick why victims of abuse do not report it right away. Coercion, intimidation and manipulation are all tools of the abuser, and they are frequently wielded to silence victims and destroy evidence. If we adopted Derrick’s approach to this, Epstein would never have been arrested. There are scores of powerful people who have evaded scrutiny over sexual crimes for decades, because they have used their power, wealth and influence to scare victims into staying silent.
What also happens is that when victims do come forward early, they are often doubted. Derrick is fond of saying ‘women lie’. Well, men lie too, and will happily lie to protect themselves and other men, as evidenced on a large scale by the Epstein scandals. Taking the immediate policy of doubting victims who do come forward will not encourage them to come forward at any stage. There is also the question of how any of this part of Derrick’s argument is actually relevant or Biblical, in relation to a theocracy.
There’s another problem. Derrick is a Bible literalist. Let’s say he is the ruler of this government, and ensures those writing laws and policies do so under his instruction to treat the Bible literally. What happens when Derrick is gone? The next ruler will interpret the Bible differently, as will the next, and the next, and the next. Despite Derrick’s frequent protests to the contrary, the Bible is subject to interpretation, as witnessed by countless scholars arguing about it for centuries. It is inevitable that someone will inherit leadership of this theocracy that does not share Derrick’s interpretation. Theocracies are subject to the whim of the rulerS.
Theocracies also do not represent everyone living within their borders. Consider the unrest in Iran, a theocracy in all-but name. Derrick may protest that Iran is an Islamic theocracy than a Christian one, but the same basic problems will emerge under any theocracy. A Christian theocracy requires that everyone obeys Biblical law, as filtered (in this instance) through Derrick’s personal interpretation of the Bible. What will happen to people who do not share Derrick’s values? What rights to expression will they have, if any? Theocracy might as well be a fluffy term for dictatorship. The end result is certainly the same.
I await Derrick’s thoughtful and constructive response.
‘Kat Comments