One of the most ridiculous myths of the American left is that any American president or candidate who is a Christian and doesn’t shy from mentioning his faith is going to institute a theocracy over America.
I’ve never fully understood how that theocracy thing was supposed to work. Who exactly was going to establish that theocracy, and who in heck was going to impose it and who was going to support it? I mean, sorry, even Heinlein who believed the American people had an impulse towards theocracy didn’t think this was possible without a second revelation, i.ee. someone who claimed himself a prophet and instituted a new religion.
Yes, I know Atwood had a fundamentalist theocracy ruling America. Look, the woman is British [It has been pointed out to me she’s Canadian. May I say she’s a very British Canadian? I get British from her writing. And Canada IS so near and yet so far away in sensibilities. However I have no other excuse for her thoughts, other than she lives in a progressive bubble.] I doubt she understands American religion, mostly because even Americans have trouble understanding American religion, and everyone else abroad just reads what our press prints. Our press likes to fancy themselves special and everyone else in fly over country uniform fundamentalists who all believe the same things and think the same things.
Good heavens, people, I have friends who are both Baptist and not only interpret their religion in completely different ways, but have severe disagreements on what could be considered “theological” laws like blue laws. And that’s without touching the multitude of evangelical sects, the Catholics, the Presbyterians, the Methodists… Even I don’t fully understand the difference between a hundred flavors of protestant, more or less. Hell and damnation, people, these are Christian sects, and they completely disagree on practically everything of importance. And that’s not counting the less mainstream Mormons, and then the non Christians: Jews, Wicca, Asatru, Muslims even.
The truth is that we’re the world’s oldest multi-religion society. Yes, there are others, but they are different. Probably part of the reason that Atwood thought a theocracy was likely, let alone possible, is that she thinks we have some sort of evangelical state religion and the others are tolerated. Because that’s how it works in all the other “multi-religious” or religious tolerance societies. Great Britain has anglicanism as a state religion, even if they allow other religions. The Scandinavian countries have state religions. Portugal does. I suspect every country in Europe has one “state” religion, no matter what they tolerate.
That as you must understand makes it far more likely to have a theocracy. Not LIKELY since even in Europe there are many other religions. But it’s a matter of 80% of people, at least nominally (in Europe very nominally) believing in the same religion.
I don’t remember what the largest denomination in the US is, but the largest mainstream churches are a sort of European Christianity and more “nominal” than not. And last I heard, the most any denomination commanded was around 30% and even that I bet has rifts within the the religion that would make a theocracy impossible.
The result of freedom of religion for a long time is an amazing panoply of religious belief that makes it impossible to have any religion become law.
Yes, the country is mostly Christian in many denominations and ranging in fervor from nominal to very devout. But none of these has enough of a primacy and enough of a unified belief to become law.
Now because the country is mostly religious, and mostly Christian, it means that a lot of the possible presidents will be religious and Christian. If you believe, it is only sane that you’ll talk about your faith. If you are religious it is very important to you. And if it’s important to you, the electors are entitled to know about it. Same way we should have learned about Obama’s status as a fourth generation red diaper baby.
Deeply held beliefs influence how you act. Granted. So a fourth generation red diaper baby raised on internationalism will act like all the international problems are the fault of the Us and like you can bring about world peace by making the US less relevant. It’s not true, but it’s a deeply held belief that can affect our national security.
So a Christian should disclose being Christian, and shouldn’t be ashamed or afraid to speak about it to/solicit the vote of other Christians.
And the left is totally justified in fearing a Christian president, because we know that Christianity teaches you to hate those not like you and punish them and make them bheave the way you approve of.
Oh, wait, no, Christianity doesn’t teach ANY of that. Not one thing of that, even though this is how TV represents Christians and it’s probably the closest the leftists have ever come to a person with a religious faith that is NOT Marxism (which is a religious faith at this point.) And they reveal it every time they open their mouths, or more likely like words spill from their fingers in places like facebook.
After Iowa, Facebook was full of leftists throwing tantrums. They were going on about Cruz instituting the Land of Gilead (does anyone know what in holy fuck they’re talking about? Forgive the swearing, but if he mentioned Gilead at any time, it was clearly a metaphorical reference, like to the Body of Christ, not a literal one.) They were promising to leave (for some of the most godawful spots in the world) because if he won he was clearly going to institute a theocracy.
I gave their craziness the consideration it deserved. None. For one because they’ve been saying this since Reagan, and not one of them has left the country. Which is a pity since the people most hysterical about that are some of the most screwed up creatures on this green Earth.
But you know, thirty five years in, with Reagan and Bush and the other Bush all failing to establish a theocracy, put all atheists in camps, forcing all Jews to convert, etc etc etc, including those infamous gay concentration camps W was going to establish, they’re still convinced that if a presidential candidate says the word “G-d” or Jesus, they’re going to establish a theocracy RIGHT NOW.
And to them that’s the greatest danger, not electing people who think they can create a managed economy or who preemptively leave us defenseless in a dangerous world. In fact, the only system of beliefs they don’t think is dangerous is the one that is destroying the west.
THAT is the only system they can tolerate because since it’s a religion without a god, they believe it is no danger and can’t possibly create a theocracy.
Instead of trusting in the rich diversity of belief of their fellow countrymen, and allowing their countrymen to believe in G-d or not, and worship in any way they wish to, the Marxists and their duped followers want everyone to believe and worship as they do: a lot of little secular obeisances in political correctness and self-denunciation, a lot of expecting “the best people” to bring about an Earhty paradise in which humans themselves are transformed into either angels or ants (it’s difficult to tell with these guys.)
In other words, they expect anyone who mentions Christianity to institute a theocracy, because they know if they were the majority of the population, they would institute one, and make it impossible for anyone to behave or believe in ways other than they do.
In other words, it’s their old projection yet again.
You know, among the people who were very relieved with Cruz’s victory, whom I talked to after Iowa were an observant Jewish friend, and a gay friend. Neither of them was terribly worried that Cruz is going to institute a theocracy, but then neither of them is a Marxist fellow-traveler, and both of them are willing to let other people believe and worship in their own way. Because they don’t feel a need to control others.
Yes, Cruz references his faith. I find that polite. Both because we have the right to know, and because he’s appealing to the vast majority of voters who believe somewhat like him. what he’s telling them is that he hews to a system of belief that orders him not to murder, and not to steal, and not to covet other people’s possessions. Some of us find that … reassuring.
This is very early days yet, and Cruz might or might not win the nomination, let alone the presidency.
However, the one thing I can tell you for sure is that if he wins it is far less likely that he’ll interfere with your way of believing and worshiping or not believing and not worshiping than would Bernie.
The fact the left is incapable of seeing that is our country’s tragedy.