Not for the first time, Paul of Blogging Theology has suggested that democratic rule is incompatible with religion. It seems that he is putting forward an idea he’s tried before, more than once. It also seems that Paul does not believe democracy can be a reasonable form of government. Indeed, one of the blog entries is titled The Selfishness of Democracy.
However, if we’re to follow Godly laws, the question always becomes ‘which version?’ Are we to based a system of governance and rules for society upon Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Sikhism, or Buddhism, to name but a few religions. Once we’ve reached a consensus upon a specific faith (which all, have holy, immutable texts that are not necessarily compatible with one another), we must then ask, which version of that religion (for many have different interpretations, often relatively minor theological differences that nonetheless create considerable consternation).
There’s also the issue that theocratic forms of government tend to fail a great many of their citizens (see Iran, for instance). Now, Paul (among others) might argue that the rulers of Iran are not truly following God’s law, and instead filtering it through human eyes… but that is inevitable. It’s all well and good to say ‘follow the exact text of <insert holy document here>’, but no one can agree on what that text truly means!
I’ve asked Paul to explain how we determine which religion forms the basis of government, and it’s not a surprise to me that he not only hasn’t answered the question but gone off on an unrelated tangent, though part of me suspects I know why. He asked me if I am an atheist (I’ve answered him more than once on that subject and yet he continues to ask it, despite failing to ever provide a reasonable context for the question). I suspect his aim is to associate atheism with a lack of morality, hence why (in his view) democracy (a secular form of government) is apparently immoral too.
Now, the link between Paul’s anti-democracy arguments and atheism is tenuous at best, but if he’s trying to suggest that religiously pious people are better people than people who aren’t religious, he should open a history book. I’m going to be quoting from Creation Theory (composed by Michael Wong), a site primarily looking at evolution vs creationism, but it contains some excellent articles about morality as well.
Atheists have been and continue to be the targets of a vicious, tireless smear campaign. For example, after informally questioning my co-workers, I realized to my chagrin that most of them think Adolf Hitler was an atheist! Not one of them realized that Adolf Hitler had a strict Catholic upbringing (of the type that supposedly produces moral, virtuous people), or that he was an altar boy in his youth, or that he once told General Gerhart Engel that “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so”. None of them knew that his infamous “Mein Kampf” contains phrases such as this: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (among many, many other things; see my page on Hitler’s Religion for more). None of them knew that Nazi soldiers wore belt buckles inscribed with “Gott mit uns” (God is with us).
Hitler (despite numerous claims to the contrary) had a deeply religious upbringing and that inspired, at least in part, his genocide against the Jews.
Michael also addresses the question of whether or not someone can be moral without God:
Fundamentalists are fond of saying that humanist morality isn’t “universal”. They argue that we humans cannot distinguish right from wrong without divine guidance, so humanist ethics are essentially a rudderless ship, with each person defining his own version of morality to suit his convenience. The problems with this argument (apart from its bigoted attitude) are easy to see, because they fail to ask the obvious question: to paraphrase Socrates, is something righteous because the gods deem it so, or do the gods deem it so because it is righteous? Fundamentalists argue the former, while humanists (not to mention most polytheistic religions) argue the latter: that morality transcends even the gods. If you are fundamentalist and you lean toward the former, then answer this: since your religion is not universal, then how can a system of morality which requires your religion be universal?
These are but two quotes from robust arguments that I would be fascinated to see Paul confront (and whilst Paul’s doing so, I’d be intrigued to hear David of Theology Archaelogy’s view, given his deep Christian perspective).
To swing back to the original topic, the argument that we cannot rely on human judgement to form governing policy doesn’t hold water. You do not have to be devoutly religious to be moral (indeed, immoral behaviour inspired by religion can be seen throughout history), and basing a government upon religion relies upon a consensus that wouldn’t exist and wouldn’t grant rights and protections to everyone – far from it.
I will think about the topic and re-read the above before I make an answer. I probably will post it on my website unless you want me to do a guest post without editing.
I’d be more comfortable with you posting a response on your own site. I look forward to reading it.
In thinking about it I will just post a short response here in the comment section to address the key issues. When it comes to democracy, it is the weakest form of any political governing system in existence today. The reason for saying that is because anyone with any ideology has the capability and ability to persuade the majority to vote in favor of their ideology no matter how liberal or conservative it gets.
Under socialism, totalitarianism, theocracy, and communism that is not possible unless you go to open revolt. Then democracy generally follows the moral rules set out in the Bible whereas those other systems generally follow the morals of a specific individual or group of people. That includes a theocracy that follows a false religion or one of the many bad protestants, cultic or other religions associated with Protestantism.
The problem with the response given in the above article is that it does not account for the presence of evil in the world, its influence, and how many people are wolves in sheep’s clothing. Nothing is untainted by evil unless one follows the one true God and his ways correctly which most people refuse to do.
Thank you for your reply David. I will give it some consideration and come back to you in due course.
It’s an interesting way of looking at democracy (namely that it’s weak). I prefer to look upon it as the fairest form of government, one that allows people to act upon new information and developments, and one that allows people to hold governments and politicians to account.
You speak of following the ways of the one true God, but as we know by now, there is no consensus on what that is. If I were to ask such a question of the video’s creator (Paul), he would lean towards Allah as per the Qur’an, whereas you would argue for a specific interpretation of the Bible. In your minds, you are both absolutely right, basing your judgement on infallible sources, and you’d never come to an agreement. Magnify that disagreement by the various religions (and interpretations of those religions) all claiming complete righteousness and then ask how to decide which gets to form the basis of governing a country.
How do we choose?
” to act upon new information and developments”
this does not guarantee those people are doing what is right, that the information is true, correc5t or even close to being moral. it is just new and with no absolute standard to follow, people will err.
“one that allows people to hold governments and politicians to account.”
this means nothing as to what standard are those politicians and governments being held to? As we have seen by the examples of the democrats, liberals, and leftists this action is purely hypocritical, subjective, and allows for hate to influence all proceedings. There is no attempt at honesty, justice, or fairness.
“you’d never come to an agreement. ”
no, but then you forget about the influence of evil. If you compare the Quran to the Bible you will see there is a vast difference between God and Allah with the latter not even coming close to the former. You will also notice a difference in how the books were written and you should see that the Bible has an unmatchable authority something the Quran does not have.
“then ask how to decide which gets to form the basis of governing a country”
whether one religion is raised up over another is not that important. People have free choice, and because evil exists even choosing the true faith, Christianity, there will still be problems. Until Christ comes back there will always be imperfections, wrong decisions, crime, and so on.
You can’t have a perfect government if that is what you are looking for until evil is removed from the equation.
“How do we choose?”
Look at the physical evidence we have. Look at how Jesus fulfilled more prophecy than could have been done if he was merely human and look at how the religions are conducted. Jesus even warned us that there would be fake Christians and we see that every day. That is why he sent the Spirit of Truth to help people to decide.
We can’t do it on our own simply because there are too many earthly and evil influences that try to take power through nefarious ways.
[this does not guarantee those people are doing what is right, that the information is true, correc5t or even close to being moral. it is just new and with no absolute standard to follow, people will err.]
David, let me ask you, if the government where you live were consistently failing to provide adequate funding for services like healthcare, police, education, squandering public funds, and caught up in scandal after scandal, would you not consider that grounds to vote them out of office? Alternatively, if a government had overseen a period of greater prosperity for its people, reduced unemployment, improved the nation’s infrastructure and so forth, would you not look at them as worth voting in for another term?
These are the details David, the reasons why we rely on the democratic process. In a dictatorship, we are stuck with whatever government we get, with violence possibly being the only way to get rid of it (you alluded to this yourself).
[this means nothing as to what standard are those politicians and governments being held to? As we have seen by the examples of the democrats, liberals, and leftists this action is purely hypocritical, subjective, and allows for hate to influence all proceedings. There is no attempt at honesty, justice, or fairness.]
David, I can make the same argument about conservatives and right-wingers, but ultimately that kind of argument misses the point. Don’t like the government? You can vote to remove them. I cannot speak for where you live, but here in the UK we have regular regional and national elections. If we have an issue with our elected MPs we get to have a say on whether they keep their seat and stay in power. How would you feel if you had no voice, no option but to tolerate a government that denied you your rights?
[no, but then you forget about the influence of evil. If you compare the Quran to the Bible you will see there is a vast difference between God and Allah with the latter not even coming close to the former. You will also notice a difference in how the books were written and you should see that the Bible has an unmatchable authority something the Quran does not have.]
If you were a Muslim you’d swap the words Bible and Quran around and speak about the Quran in the same way you speak about the Bible now. Hence my point, you’ll never have a consensus over which religion forms the basis of government.
[whether one religion is raised up over another is not that important. People have free choice, and because evil exists even choosing the true faith, Christianity, there will still be problems. Until Christ comes back there will always be imperfections, wrong decisions, crime, and so on.
You can’t have a perfect government if that is what you are looking for until evil is removed from the equation.]
To Muslims and followers of each and every other faith (and to different denominations of each of those faiths) your version of Christianity is part of the problem, not the solution. Once again, how do you choose?
[Look at the physical evidence we have. Look at how Jesus fulfilled more prophecy than could have been done if he was merely human and look at how the religions are conducted. Jesus even warned us that there would be fake Christians and we see that every day. That is why he sent the Spirit of Truth to help people to decide.
We can’t do it on our own simply because there are too many earthly and evil influences that try to take power through nefarious ways.]
That’s the thing. The evidence doesn’t suggest that we abandon the only system we have that treats everyone fairly. A theocracy doesn’t work. Basing a government off religion doesn’t work (see creationtheorg.org for some interesting articles on religious morality).
You keep arguing like everything is going to go according to your ideal. In the country I live in, good luck in voting someone out of office. corruption is the norm and if a person gets in another group doesn’t like, they kill the elected official. Just happened last week and has happened several times since Duterte took office.
In the case for Trump., it is quite clear the democrats had been planning to steal the election just because they did not like Trump. Do you really think people play fair in a democracy? If so, I have a bridge in New York to sell you.
You can’t swap words between the Bible and the Quran. No matter how hard they try the Muslim cannot make the Quran authoritative. Then you omit the fact that Christians allow for other religions to exist, they do not kill people if they deconvert, and do not make laws like if you convert to another religion, you will be put to death.
While there have been bad ‘Christian’ political leaders, you do not hear true Christians calling them Christian. You will be hearing many calls for those leaders to repent or get their act together. Hitler was not Christian. He may have received an RCC upbringing but that does not make him a Christian.
As Jesus said, ye must be born again and Hitler was not. He did not follow one Christian verse even though he invoked the name of God. Cult leaders do that and they do it like Hitler to motivate certain groups of people to support their views.
As for the only political system that is fair, you must be smoking something. It is not fair, look at Hunter Biden as one example. He gets away with crimes a black person couldn’t. Blacks are more racist than whites and the evidence is clear on that statement.
No democracy is not fair. A true Christian theocracy would be the most fair of all government styles because it has objective rules to follow and true Christians are commanded to love justice, mercy, to be fair, love their neighbor, and on it goes.
Very few of those other religions do not teach what God teaches through the Bible. We see it every day. The further the democrats get away from biblical teaching the more unjust, unfair, hypocritical, and so on they become.
My ideals David, are to see that everyone is treated fairly, regardless of sex, race, orientation and religious beliefs. My ideals include following evidence and they include following a humanist moral code that has existed for thousands of years (see here: http://creationtheory.org/Morality/AtheistMorality-HumanistCode.xhtml). I cannot speak for the political situation where you live (I presume the Philippines, given your reference to Duterte), but in most countries that practice democratic ideals, votes happen regularly and a government is judged upon its performance.
You refer to Trump – he is, ironically, what happens when people don’t play fair, but that’s hardly an excuse to throw the baby out with the bathwater. He was judged by Americans on his performance over the last four years, and found wanting. The democratic process in the US has its flaws, but it generally works, and despite Trump’s baseless claims, it worked during the last election.
Regarding the Bible and the Quran, you realise that yet *again* Muslims can make the exact same arguments? Hence why getting a consensus for what religion we are meant to live by is neigh impossible – you will alienate significant percentages of the population no matter what religion is used to form policies and rules. Every believer is adamant they are correct, steadfast and inflexible in their righteousness.
You say Hitler wasn’t a Christian, yet he would have argued differently. There are plenty of examples of how he was inspired by his beliefs, despite numerous attempts to suggest Hitler wasn’t religious. See http://creationtheory.org/Essays/Hitler.xhtml for more details.
Your comments about Hunter Biden are not an example of how democracy is an unfair form of government. That’s what’s typically known as a Red Herring Fallacy David – it’s not relevant to the subject, and neither is your comment about racism, unless you’d care to explain how they relate to the merits of different types of government?
You say a Christian theocracy would be fair, yet would it be fair for everyone? You know the Bible better than most – what would be the rules for the LGBT community, women, people of other faiths etc?
Regarding other religions: Deuteronomy 13:6-10: “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son or your daughter or the wife you embrace or your friend who is as your own soul entices you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods,’ which neither you nor your fathers have known, some of the gods of the peoples who are around you, whether near you or far off from you, from the one end of the earth to the other, you shall not yield to him or listen to him, nor shall your eye pity him, nor shall you spare him, nor shall you conceal him. But you shall kill him. Your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. You shall stone him to death with stones, because he sought to draw you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”
The next two concern women:
Timothy 2:11-15: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”
Numbers 31:14-18 (NIV): “Moses was angry with the officers of the army–the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds–who returned from the battle. “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.”
On homosexuality:
Leviticus 20:13: “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them.”
None of that strikes me as fair David. It seems like an extraordinary way to enforce rigid control over a society, denying freedom to non-believers and forcing a set of values upon others. None of that strikes me as just and fair.
I will stop after this comment- you reference scripture and say it is unfair but your moral meter is forgetting about right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral. You cannot have fairness, justice, or paradise when you allow evil to be seen as good and exist in society without punishments.
It is not unfair to punish those who do wrong and live by evil standards. You seem to set yourself up as greater than God by your ‘moral’ position but you fall very short, as what you propose violates love your neighbor as yourself, love everyone as I have loved you, and so on.
You do not love everyone as Christ loved us if you allow people who refuse to obey the rules to live as if they are normal, obedient to the rules and so on. Love does not keep people in sin nor does it allow for evil to permeate society. Jesus called everyone to repent of their sins and just because you do not agree that those behaviors are not sin or evil does not mean they are not.
Your desire to follow a humanist moral code only allows for a subjective concept to rule until the next subjective concept comes along and replaces it. That supposed moral code does not work and has never worked. if you want to follow the evidence see what has happened throughout history when such a code was followed- nations were invaded, people were enslaved, the rich got richer and so on.
The evidence is there and not one of those ancient nations called themselves Christian or said to follow Christian rules. The people of Carthage are said to sacrifice their babies, just like the rest of the Phoenicians, they were not Christian either. If you are going to stand on evidence then be honest about it and look at all the evidence not just the parts that support your views.
Then take an honest look at that supposed humanist moral code. Most of its laws and rules come from God. There is no other source for morality, etc. Don’t forget the hypocrisy of that humanist code that allows people in the majority to ignore the sins of its own members while condemning and punishing those who commit the same sins who belong to another group.
Sorry, but I will take a true Christian theocracy over your humanist moral code any day of the week. At least then we get close to paradise.
I guess there is no edit button but the word ‘not’ in the sentence “just because you do not agree that those behaviors are not sin or evil” should be removed.
David, in one of your earlier posts you claimed a true Christian theocracy would allow other religions to exist. One quick Google search later revealed the quoted Biblical text that calls for followers of other faiths to be killed. This is not in keeping with your claims that a Christian theocracy would be fair and just. It is only fair and just for Christians, and even then, only a certain type of Christian.
Ultimately, that is the point I am raising. You claim moral superiority yet the Bible itself instructs you to kill followers of other beliefs, something I imagine you would baulk at. It calls for homosexuals to be put to death. It calls upon women to be submissive and it can be argued it endorses rape. I’ve provided you with the relevant Biblical quotes (and let’s recall that you consider the Bible an inerrant document, to be interpreted as the literal Word of God, no?), and you have complained that *my* moral meter is wrong, for apparently *I* do not understand good and evil.
Yet, I would never condone putting someone to death for having a different religious belief to my own. I would never condone executing people for being homosexual. I would never condone keeping slaves or subjugating women. The Bible is riddled with such passages, and incompatible with most moral standards that I am aware of. To use the Bible as a basis for a government would be disastrous to anyone who does not share in Christian beliefs.
“Your comments about Hunter Biden are not an example of how democracy is an unfair form of government. That’s what’s typically known as a Red Herring Fallacy David – it’s not relevant to the subject, and neither is your comment about racism, unless you’d care to explain how they relate to the merits of different types of government?”
You would be wrong as those are called EXAMPLES and dismissing examples because you do not want the truth just means you are not being honest in your part of the discussion.
The rules of fallacy were constructed by unbelievers and have no part in any discussion.
You have failed to explain how Hunter Biden’s behaviour is evidence of the failure of democracy as a system of government – it is not an example of anything, and therefore a fallacy to divert from the subject, unless you are going to explain otherwise.
I haven’t failed to explain anything. My statement is very clear.
No David, it wasn’t.
You will have to place the reference up if you want me to comment on it
I don’t follow?
Saying there is a scripture passage you just read or read about doesn’t tell me anything. Put it up so I know what you are referring to
I’ve quoted numerous Biblical passages in this very thread.
“and you have complained that *my* moral meter is wrong, for apparently *I* do not understand good and evil.”
No, you don’t because you think God should be subject to you and your moral compass when you do not own this world, did not create it and did not put everything in place to be enjoyed.
What you forget is that this is God’s world, he created it, he owns it and he gets to set the rules. Because God is holy he also gets to say what is sin, right, wrong, good, evil, moral, and immoral. Then God is holy and you are not. he knows what is the correct way to live, you do not. That is why the Bible was written so you know the right way to live. Your way allows sin and corruption to enter paradise.
Also, God is offering the plan of salvation INTO HIS kingdom. He also gets to set the rules on who may enter and who is banned. On top of that, he allows you to choose which destination you shall end up at. To get to heaven all you have to do is obey his rules, accept his son as your savior and give up sin.
You are not in a position to judge God because your ‘moral compass’ is heavily influenced by evil.
To quote from an excellent and rather witty site I found the other day…
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
Is Paul a white North Americanh or a real Muslim?
My comments
https://theologyarchaeology.wordpress.com/2021/01/22/we-were-in-a-discussion/
He is a UK… Well, I don’t know what he is. He has been a Christian and a Muslim at various points, and is currently a ‘free monotheist’. I believe he considers the Quran to be the more important book, though ultimately you’d have to speak to him directly about that.