Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Historically, much of the record of theocracy in the Western world took the form of Catholicism. These days, however, support for theocracy comes primarily from Protestant circles, particularly from Calvinists. But that doesn't mean that Catholic theocrats have disappeared entirely. Meet Thomas Drolesky and his website, Christ or Chaos. What can you say about a man who thinks Pope Benedict is too liberal?
Drolesky is a sedevacantist, which means he believes that all Popes since the death of Pius XII in 1958 have been invalid. They are not true Popes or even true Catholics because they have been seduced by modernism. Ever since Vatican II accepted ecumenism and the idea that people have religious liberty not to believe in Catholicism, you see, these people believe that all hell has, quite literally, broken loose. On other words, these people are out of their minds.
In case you think I'm exaggerating, I offer this article written by Drolesky just a few weeks ago in which he argues vociferously that one simply does not have the freedom to express ideas that the One True Church doesn't like:
"Give me liberty, or give me death," Patrick Henry cried out at the end of his speech to the then Colony of Virginia's delegates to the First Continental Congress at an heretical church in Richmond, Virginia on March 23, 1775." " Libertie, egalalite, fraternitie," they cried during the French Revolution fourteen years later. "Civil Liberty," cry so many "libertarians" and "conservatives" today. "Religious liberty," cry the false "pontiffs" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism and their "bishops" as Catholics are murdered regularly by adherents of false religions, such as those "religions of peace" known as Mohammedanism and Hinduism, around the world despite the incantation of this empty, heretical slogan. "Let freedom ring," cry out shallow-minded bobbleheads who have large national audiences for the radio and/or television programs...Many of these "libertarians" believe that the "individual" has an absolute unfettered "right" to "free speech," including blasphemy, and "freedom of the press," including the dissemination of books and articles that place into question and/or deny the truths that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has entrusted exclusively to the Catholic Church for their safekeeping and infallible explication and including the dissemination of rank pornography. There are almost no external constraints that can be placed upon the "individual," who did not create himself, it should be noted, and whose body is destined one day for the corruption of the grave until the General Resurrection of the Dead at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead on the Last Day at the Second Coming of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
This perverse concept of "liberty," which ignores the Divinely-instituted right of the Catholic Church to govern men concerning the right use of their human free will and to interpose herself as a last resort upon the civil authorities when they propose to do things (or have in fact done things) contrary to the good of souls, has made it possible for large numbers and of men and women around the world to fall into the abyss...
How charming. He then quotes Pope Gregory XVI in 1832 saying that the Catholic Church alone has the right to censor anything published that is contrary to the teachings of the church:
This shameful font of indifferentism gives rise to that absurd and erroneous proposition which claims that liberty of conscience must be maintained for everyone. It spreads ruin in sacred and civil affairs, though some repeat over and over again with the greatest impudence that some advantage accrues to religion from it. "But the death of the soul is worse than freedom of error," as Augustine was wont to say.[21] When all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin. Then truly "the bottomless pit" is open from which John saw smoke ascending which obscured the sun, and out of which locusts flew forth to devastate the earth. Thence comes transformation of minds, corruption of youths, contempt of sacred things and holy laws -- in other words, a pestilence more deadly to the state than any other. Experience shows, even from earliest times, that cities renowned for wealth, dominion, and glory perished as a result of this single evil, namely immoderate freedom of opinion, license of free speech, and desire for novelty.Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?
The Church has always taken action to destroy the plague of bad books. This was true even in apostolic times for we read that the apostles themselves burned a large number of books. It may be enough to consult the laws of the fifth Council of the Lateran on this matter and the Constitution which Leo X published afterwards lest "that which has been discovered advantageous for the increase of the faith and the spread of useful arts be converted to the contrary use and work harm for the salvation of the faithful." This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine."We must fight valiantly," Clement XIII says in an encyclical letter about the banning of bad books, "as much as the matter itself demands and must exterminate the deadly poison of so many books; for never will the material for error be withdrawn, unless the criminal sources of depravity perish in flames." Thus it is evident that this Holy See has always striven, throughout the ages, to condemn and to remove suspect and harmful books. The teaching of those who reject the censure of books as too heavy and onerous a burden causes immense harm to the Catholic people and to this See. They are even so depraved as to affirm that it is contrary to the principles of law, and they deny the Church the right to decree and to maintain it.
Ironically, he puts the blame on this terrible situation in the United States squarely on the constitutional ban on religious tests for office:
Far from being a "protection" to religious minorities, such as Catholics, in a pluralistic society, the "religious freedom" "guaranteed" by the Constitution of the United States of America in Article VI (no religious test for the holding of public office, which guarantees "access" for believers--or nonbelievers--of all sort) and the First Amendment, in a religiously indifferentist civil state is one of an absolute, imminent and mortal peril to the common temporal good and the eternal good of the souls of its citizens. Such a state must degenerate over the course of time to such an extent that atheism is considered to be an acceptable "lowest" common denominator," and it is has been, of course, a goal of Judeo-Masonry and of multinational corporations to wipe out all references to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in civil discourse, especially those that revolve around the commemoration of His Nativity on December 25 each year. All manner of Talmudic and atheistic organizations have attacked the display of Nativity scenes in public parks and the singing of Christmas carols in public venues, including in the concentration camps known as public "schools."
The irony here is that America in 1787 was almost entirely Protestant and one of the arguments heard from many a pulpit in those days was that the ban on religious tests for office would lead - gasp - to a "Papist" ruling the country. Without the ban on religious tests, it would likely have been Catholics who found themselves forbidden from holding office.
Drolesky makes clear that he wants the authority to censor anything that disagrees with his twisted religious views. He is outraged that a humanist group was actually allowed to take out public ads advocating their beliefs and demands that the government prevent them from doing so:
First, there is no "right" granted by God to promote disbelief in Him. None whatsoever. The First Commandment is pretty clear:I am the LORD thy God: thou shalt not have strange Gods before me.
Second, the promotion of atheism is also forbidden by the Second Commandment, which forbids blasphemy, for to deny the existence of God is to take His Holy Name in vain:
Thou shalt not take the Name of the LORD thy God in vain...
The overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King has made the Church powerless to intervene in these cases, although Pope Leo XIII explained in Immortale Dei that nothing that is offensive to God and injures the good of the eternal welfare of souls has any "right" to be sanctioned by the civil state (and he wrote in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century, 1885, long after the modern civil state had begun to take root), whose own common good is injured by that which is offensive to God...
The Catholic Church alone is the Divinely-instituted representative of Christ the King on earth. She alone, and not the well-meaning Protestants who are opposing the humanist campaign, has the right to teach men and remonstrate with civil officers in the Holy Name of her Invisible Head and Mystical Bridegroom. These well-meaning Protestants do not understand that the very fact that there is such a thing as the "humanist society" is the result of the very Protestant Revolt that they continue to propagate as they reject so pridefully the fact Our Lord did indeed institute the Catholic Church as His one and only true Church and as they continue themselves to blaspheme, albeit unwittingly as they are steeped in their nearly five hundred years of aggregate errors, God by repeating the abject heresy that Divine Revelation consists only of Sacred Scripture and not Apostolic or Sacred Tradition.
The funny thing is that while Drolesky rants endlessly against Protestantism, and especially Calvinism, he shares much with those really hardcore Calvinists who also rant endlessly against Catholicism as the Whore of Babylon. Like those Calvinists, Drolesky raves against freemasonry and makes all sorts of loopy claims.
It is also no accident whatsoever that the "humanist society" advertising campaign began in the United States of America in our capital city, Washington, District of Columbia, which was designed to reflect the the symbols of Judeo-Masonry (see Freemasonry and Washington D.C.'s Street Layout). And it is also no accident at all that it was in the City of Washington, District of Columbia, that the head of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI esteemed with his own priestly hands the symbols of five false religions (Talmudic Judaism, Mohammedanism, Jainism, Hinduism, Buddhism) at the "John Paul II Cultural Center" on Thursday, April 17, 2008. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI is himself a serial blasphemer (entering into synagogues, telling Jews that their reading of the Old Testament is a "possible" one, entering into a mosque and taking off his shoes as he assumes the Mohammedan "prayer" position and turning in the direction of Mecca, calling the Koran a "dear" and "precious" book, calling Mount Hiei in Japan, upon which the Buddhists worship their devils, "sacred").Yes, it is very terrible that there is such a thing as a "humanist" society and that it has a civil "right" to advertise its falsehoods. It is far worse that a putative "pope" can esteem the symbols of false religions, thereby blaspheming God, who hates false religions and wants them eradicated from the face of this earth as the Catholic Church seeks the unconditional conversion of their adherents with alacrity, and can extol the nonexistent "ability" of these false religions to "contribute" to the betterment of nations and to the establishment of "world peace." Ratzinger/Benedict's support for the heresy of "religious liberty" makes it possible for false religions and for irreligion itself, which he says he opposes, to have full "rights" in the modern, religiously indifferentist and semi-Pelagian civil state of naturalism.
I'll take batshit crazy people for $1000, Alex.
Politics
Comments
And that's not the worst of it. The man shames his (no doubt) arch-parochial school education by writing that kind of lengthy, clotted sentence that reveals a frothing maniac, typing madly and stopping only to wipe the spit from his monitor.
ice
Posted by: ice9 | December 1, 2008 9:49 AM
Where the hell do you find these crazies, Ed??
This guy makes the normal wingnuts seem tame (and sane!) by comparison.
Posted by: FastLane | December 1, 2008 9:59 AM
Yes, there are Catholic theocrats. They have less influence in the Catholic Church than you have over the curriculum at Bob Jones University.
Why do you worry about such people? It seems a little paranoid.
Do you really think there's a chance that America will become a theocracy? If you do, you need to take a chill pill.
Posted by: Greg Krehbiel | December 1, 2008 10:11 AM
I have no "clue" what he intends to "convey" to his "readers" with his excessive use of "scare quotes"...
Posted by: Wes | December 1, 2008 10:14 AM
Atheism is contrary to the Ten Commandments! Who woulda thunk it? At least he got the bit right about them being condemned to Hell.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 1, 2008 10:17 AM
In the referenced "about" section I found the following info:
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 1, 2008 10:24 AM
Left field is empty. This guy is so far out that Hubble is likely the only hope of finding him. But why would you want to.
He has demeaned or debased or called evil the vast majority of humans he shares air with. Not very smart in these times.
Posted by: Mike | December 1, 2008 10:29 AM
kersham,
Atheism is contrary to the Ten Commandments! Who woulda thunk it? At least he got the bit right about them being condemned to Hell.
How can I be condemned to a reality (hell) I do not believe exists? Will I be in your hell? How would that work?
Posted by: Mike | December 1, 2008 10:56 AM
I don't think I've ever seen so many scare quotes in one place before.
Posted by: Josh West | December 1, 2008 11:15 AM
"General Resurrection of the Dead at the General Judgment of the Living and the Dead on the Last Day at the Second Coming of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ."
Wow! what a mouthfull!
Posted by: kevin | December 1, 2008 11:30 AM
"Literally" error, Type Ib: Literally used for figuratively + use of "quite".
Posted by: cm | December 1, 2008 11:40 AM
Greg Krehbiel wrote:
I don't recall ever saying anything even remotely suggesting that I think America will become a theocracy. I don't worry about such people, I find them entertaining.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 1, 2008 11:47 AM
This looney toons makes our blog troll, Mr. Klingenschmitt, look positively sane and rational, something I would have thought implausible at best.
Posted by: SLC | December 1, 2008 11:55 AM
I.. I refuse to believe he's for real, Ed. You invented him & we've been punk'd.
But in all seriousness, This person exists in the twenty-first century?!?!?!?!?
Posted by: Skwee | December 1, 2008 11:56 AM
"a goal of Judeo-Masonry..."
You don't use such phrases innocently or inadvertently. This is Nazi-speak. That guy is a right-wing radical. I bet his ideal in politics is a religiously inclined dictatorship, such as the reign of General Franco in Spain.
I suggest the guy packs his suitcases and goes create his little totalitarian Catholic state in... what was the name, again? Ave Maria, Florida?
Posted by: Christophe Thill | December 1, 2008 11:57 AM
Not that it would make any difference to Mssr. Drolensky, but Patrick Henry's heroic cry about Liberty 'n' Death is as fictional as the story of little George Washington and the cherry tree (both concocted by one Parson Mason [aha!] Weems).
Michael Heath: ... Droleskey and his family now live in their motor home with his wife and daughter ...
What a happy little habitat that must be, with Drolensky and his family and wife and daughter - plus, no doubt, countless BVM tchotchkes & velvet paintings...
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler | December 1, 2008 12:07 PM
Greg Krehbiel wrote:
It's not worry. I think this particular stance is interesting because of what it can tell us about how many different approaches there are to the relationship between church and state. Drolesky is synthesizing 19th century views with modern ones in order to defend Catholic theocracy, and he actually blames the Protestants for the rise of humanism and enlightenment values.
As someone who has more than once gotten into discussions/arguments with Catholics who were insisting that the basic philosophy of humanism -- and the concepts of civil liberties and free speech -- came directly out of the Catholic church and Catholic ways of thinking, I found this little screed particularly interesting.
Posted by: Sastra | December 1, 2008 12:25 PM
Okay, Ed. I agree it's entertaining.
Posted by: Greg Krehbiel | December 1, 2008 12:31 PM
I just read your Is the risk of theocracy overblown? and found it pretty reasonable.
I think the genuine theocrats have almost no influence in conservative politics, but there's room for disagreement on that point.
Posted by: Greg Krehbiel | December 1, 2008 12:39 PM
I love it when people express their disdain for modernism by making a website to rail on about it.
Posted by: Jeremy | December 1, 2008 12:52 PM
Well, if you look at the text of Leo XIII's Humanum Genus, which is often used by Catholics to attack Freemasonry, you will find that they are in error on this. It simply states that Masons have been at the fore promoting Democracy, and Freedom of Religion, and that these two things (among a number of others) are an abomination to the Church.
It is, in essence, an encyclical against Democracy, and freedom of thought, which the Pope finds to be a grave danger to the Church, and the whole world. It is just that there were Masons at the front of the line promoting these ideas.
To quote:
"By a long and persevering labor, they endeavor to bring about this result - namely, that the teaching office and authority of the Church may become of no account in the civil State; and for this same reason they declare to the people and contend that Church and State ought to be altogether disunited"
"But, indeed, the sect allows great liberty to its votaries, so that to each side is given the right to defend its own opinion, either that there is a God, or that there is none; and those who obstinately contend that there is no God are as easily initiated as those who contend that God exists, though, like the pantheists, they have false notions concerning Him: all which is nothing else than taking away the reality, while retaining some absurd representation of the divine nature."
"...that marriage belongs to the genus of commercial contracts, which can rightly be revoked by the will of those who made them, and that the civil rulers of the State have power over the matrimonial bond; that in the education of youth nothing is to be taught in the matter of religion as of certain and fixed opinion; and each one must be left at liberty to follow, when he comes of age, whatever he may prefer..."
And so on. There have been Catholics preaching this nonsense since the day Leo wrote it, despite the fact that the church no longer holds to the teachings quoted above.
Posted by: Aaron Johanson | December 1, 2008 12:58 PM
Mike asked:
Well, we've just imploded the Discover Channel, seeing as Mike doesn't believe in any of that stuff. But in any case, I was merely being snarky above, as it I lack the power of Peter's Keys. This, apparently, leaves me about even with the Pope.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 1, 2008 1:16 PM
I like this guy.
The One True Catholic. Standing firm on the principles of the Catholic Church. He's loud, he's proud and he's Catholic.
Now, if he believed that a Sky Man who was born to a Virgin Mother came to Earth to sacrifice himself for the Sins of Man and we should adore, worship and tithe to the Triumvirate of Son, Father , and Ghost despite the fact that they allow evil and suffering to occur without their intervention, now THAT, that would be crazy.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | December 1, 2008 1:52 PM
Wes-
A "good" writer uses quotation marks to emphasize words.
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | December 1, 2008 2:02 PM
Michael,
Oh, "now" I get it.
Posted by: Wes | December 1, 2008 2:21 PM
Skwee, "I.. I refuse to believe he's for real, Ed. You invented him & we've been punk'd.But in all seriousness, This person exists in the twenty-first century?!?!?!?!?"
In a world where Fred Phelps pickets military funerals and Bob Larson casts out demons on the Sci-Fi Channel anything is possible.
Posted by: Bill in NC | December 1, 2008 3:27 PM
I'm with Gingerbaker.
I think the internet has completely sapped any feelings of surprise on the topic of woo for me. As an atheist, healing crystals, yetis from space, bible stories and Scientology all roll together into one big ball of crazy. I can no longer see how the foundational beliefs of the Christian are any less crazy than a Scientologist's.
I suppose what distinguishes the many species of crazy to me is how conducive they are to producing negative affects upon others.
Posted by: Caliban | December 1, 2008 3:35 PM
I'm guessing this guy was raised in a Protestant household and later adopted Catholicism. His views seem more in line with conservative Protestantism than Catholicism.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 1, 2008 3:46 PM
Oh, and in case there was any doubt as to the depths of this guy's insanity, he actually refers to Islam as "Mohameddanism." Eighteenth-century Jesuits want their terminology back.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | December 1, 2008 3:52 PM
And he's also an antisemite? I'm shocked!
Posted by: Michael | December 1, 2008 4:22 PM
Aren't a king and queen usually married to each other?
I'm just sayin'...
Posted by: Tulse | December 1, 2008 4:28 PM
It would sure be fun to get this guy online and have him spout direct.
(kersham, sorry I missed the tag. The insanity I'd just read blinded me to the obvious.)
Posted by: Mike | December 1, 2008 4:38 PM
That was the thing that really stuck out to me. Who the heck uses the word Mohameddanism in 2008? Oh, right, people decrying "modernism".
Posted by: Skemono | December 1, 2008 4:53 PM
This is bizarro ... normally modern (post Vatican II, and even earlier) Catholicism is about the least theocratic thing ever. But this guy's a sedevacantist; they're a whole nother category.
Posted by: William Miller | December 1, 2008 5:06 PM
"but Patrick Henry's heroic cry about Liberty 'n' Death is as fictional as the story of little George Washington and the cherry tree (both concocted by one Parson Mason [aha!] Weems)."
hmmm I pretty sure PH was an orator in Virginia who gave many cool speaches and this was supposed to be in one...and its more likely than the cherry tree fable...
PH was supposed to be very gifted, and the speach as handed down is very cool. (I learned it in grammer school and gave it in recital)
Posted by: Kevin | December 1, 2008 5:19 PM
Uhhh...I'm gonna have to disagree with that. Certainly the Catholic church no longer commits the grievous encroachments on civil and political life it used to, but it's far from being "the least theocratic thing ever". Let's recall all the threats to excommunicate politicians who are pro-choice, the promotion of anti-gay marriage bills, the attacks on stem cell research and IVF, the opposition to safe-sex (read: contraception) education and outreach in AIDS-infested Africa, etc etc etc. The Catholic church is still one of the worst offenders when it comes to interfering with other people's (i.e. non-Catholics') lives.
Certainly the Catholic church is no longer theocratic in the way it used to be, but it still has not completely shed its theocratic tendencies.
Posted by: Wes | December 1, 2008 5:55 PM
Actually, Ed, I do worry about such people. All religion has a tendency in this direction. Sure, it's held in check at the moment, at least in the West, and such ideas as liberal tolerance and free speech still have a lot of momentum. The US is obviously not going to become a theocracy any time soon, and nor is any other Western nation. But what this guy is proposing is simply the sort of thing that religion does whenever it is a socially dominant force.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | December 1, 2008 6:03 PM
Ah, but could we have been so smug about the US being safe from theocracy, if the Republicans had won, and McSame obeyed the actuarial tables?
Posted by: SharonB | December 1, 2008 6:50 PM
Remarking on how un-theocratic the Catholic Church is, now that it has been defanged in Western democracies by secular laws, is like remarking on how civil Hannibal Lecter can be when he's locked up behind the plexiglass.
Posted by: DaveL | December 1, 2008 7:07 PM
SharonB,
Yes, unless you sport tinfoil headgear.
Posted by: heddle | December 1, 2008 7:18 PM
Wes,
No, that's policing their own religion as they see fit. Or its advocating laws that they believe are morally correct, just like everyone else does. As long as they are playing by the rules, it is not even remotely close to theocracy. Theocracy entails tossing out the constitution, especially the bill of rights. If they advocate against, say, gay marriage--they are just being citizens. It may or may not be reprehensible--but it is not theocracy.
Posted by: heddle | December 1, 2008 7:30 PM
I'll take "scare quotes" for 500.
Posted by: Bachalon | December 1, 2008 8:56 PM
heddle,
We keep re-hashing the same ground. You seem to almost, sort of, maybe, or maybe not support one group's religious fear (and in prop 8's case, lies) to hold sway over another group's civil rights. The constitution should protect those civil rights preventing anything like prop 8 from having any relevance. I believe that an enlightened society would encourage tolerance, not hate.
It is not a theocracy but bears strong resemblance to how a theocracy would treat it's unloved citizens. Your goddess palin the pure supports the hate thrown up by prop 8 and similar measures. Her campaign speeches and crowds fumed with hate. The clown Ed quoted goes even further down that road. Find a better way.
Posted by: Mike | December 1, 2008 8:57 PM
Technically, heddle, you're correct. But just because someone goes through the constitutional process to turn their religious belief into law doesn't necessarily make the motives less theocratic, does it?
For example, if the country became majority Muslim and they voted to enact sharia law into civil law, would that be OK? They went through the process, right?
Posted by: Mark Boggs | December 1, 2008 9:05 PM
Wow, heddle has a strange understanding of theocracy. If you attempt to impose your specifically religious morality on others by means of the coercive power of the state, you are a theocrat. The Catholic Church has a strong theocratic tendency, and would certainly impose a lot more of its religious morality if it could. Fortunately, it has lost its fangs in most Western countries.
And no, the rest of us do not attempt to get to the state to enact laws that are "morally correct", if that means enacting laws that require other people to act in the way we consider morally correct. That's actually an extreme position in philosophy of law that very ordinary people in secular societies actually subscribe to (nor do many philosophers of law).
Most people are liberal-minded enough to realise that there is a huge amount of moral disagreement that the state should not try to adjudicate. E.g., I believe it is morally wrong to raise your child to believe a whole lot of religious clap-trap, but I don't advocate making it illegal.
Posted by: Russell Blackford | December 1, 2008 9:16 PM
heddle:
I think you're being a tad bit disingenuous. What the RCC and a number of fundie KKKristian do is that they try to change laws they don't agree with, regardless the legal underpinnings. IF they could change the laws to the way they'd like them to be they'd do so. I grew up in the 1950's when there was a movie code and no liqour sales on Sundays, to name two things that were almost completely the product of religious meddling with civil law.
Posted by: democommie | December 1, 2008 9:19 PM
Wait. Isn't it dogma that the Holy Spirit sooner or later inspires a majority of the conclave, so that whoever is elected Pope is elected by the will of the Holy Spirit?Methinks Drolesky is committing the unforgivable sin (attributing the work of the Holy Spirit to demons).
And why does he use the heretical King James translation? Or have I overlooked something?
It's such fun to argue against religious kooks on their own terms...
Posted by: David Marjanović | December 1, 2008 9:20 PM
As long as we see churches involving themselves in government, as we did with Prop 8, we would be fools to stop worrying about theocracy.
There are still huge numbers of people who assume that their religious rights trump everyone else's civil rights. Give these people one inch, and they'll run right over the rest of us.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | December 1, 2008 9:20 PM
Whoops, I meant to write "that very few ordinary people ... actually subscribe to".
Posted by: Russell Blackford | December 1, 2008 9:20 PM
You must read the fund raising letter. Especially when he itemizes his expenses.
Posted by: mess | December 1, 2008 9:53 PM
Actually, I kind of have to agree with heddle's definition of theocracy. A theocracy has to have explicit connection to religion AND has to restrict people based solely on religious belief. For the term to have any meaning, it has to exclude secular countries with established churches (Britain is not a theocracy) and democratic countries mostly composed of one religion (Brazil is not a theocracy).
Is Costa Rica a theocracy?
Posted by: William Miller | December 1, 2008 9:58 PM
And he's also an antisemite? I'm shocked!
I don't think he really counts as an antisemite, when he is pretty much batshit crazy against everything not Catholic and accepting of True Catholic rule of law. Though he does seem almost ecumenical to Protestantism, in comparison.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 1, 2008 9:58 PM
If you enjoy reading crazy Catholic diatribes about how evil democracy is and how every country would be a Catholic monarchy except for evil Jewish revolutionaries who are in fact the minions of Satan, here are a few other bastions of wingnuttery and bad writing (putting in the word "dot" for the periods so this comment won't get trapped in moderation for having too many links):
www dot fisheaters dot com (special emphasis on the evils perpetrated by Jews/Zionists)
www dot catholicintl dot com (run by an extremely egotistical guy who is anti-Semitic and also denies that the Earth revolves around the sun. Really.)
angelqueen dot org (a little more tolerant of Jews than fisheaters, but not by much)
www dot traditioninaction dot org (really nutty articles decrying how women have brought down Western civilization by dressing immodestly, among other things)
Posted by: Adrienne | December 1, 2008 10:12 PM
I just realized my two posts above might be slightly inaccurate.
When I was saying that the Catholic Church is no longer theocratic at all, I was somewhat falling prey to the old Catholic trap of saying "Catholicism" or "Catholicism believes" for "the Catholic Church believes." What I meant is "the official positions of the Catholic Church aren't theocratic". In fact, they aren't even compatible with a theocracy -- religious coercion is seen as inherently wrong. However, individual Catholics might advocate a theocracy.
@DaveK: Maybe; but I think the cause and effect are somewhat the other way around. If modern Christianity (not just Catholicism) was hostile to secular law, secular law would fail -- but perhaps that's just my pessimism.
Posted by: William Miller | December 1, 2008 10:26 PM
First, there is no "right" granted by God to promote disbelief in Him. None whatsoever.
I can agree with that, since there is no god.
In all seriousness, why do religious people define freedom as submission? If they want to submit to some religion, that's their business. If I do not, that is my business.
Posted by: Blue Nine | December 1, 2008 10:37 PM
All I can say is (a) the majority of Catholics I know, don't agree with this guy's pseudo-Vatican drivel, and (b) conservative and unsatisfactory as most modern popes have been(even to the average Catholic), the Vatican can safely ignore his ilk.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | December 1, 2008 10:53 PM
Blue Nine:
It's the difference between people who see people as individuals with their own wants and desires and people who see people as property.
Posted by: Vic | December 1, 2008 11:01 PM
Posted by: alex | December 2, 2008 12:03 AM
so, does Mel Gibson have this guy on speed-dial? IIRC, he belongs to a similar sort of Catholicism...
Posted by: CanadianChick | December 2, 2008 12:48 AM
What the hell is "Judeo-Masonry?"
Does he mean freemasonry -- which based on a Google search he apparently does -- because I can speak from experience to tell you that Freemasons definitely believe in God. I second the other person who called this sort of thing nazi-speak. It just conjures up all sorts of images of jews meeting in secretive cabals and plotting to take over the world. What a loon.
But that's the beauty of the Web; even the craziest of us get to make our views public and if those views can't compete in the marketplace of ideas, they end up getting torn to shreds on blogs like this one.
Posted by: woodstein312 | December 2, 2008 1:07 AM
Russell Blackford
No, but you might advocate, say, anti-discrimination laws in private sector housing, imposing what you think is morally correct upon those who might disagree. That doesn't make you a theocrat. It makes you a citizen who advocates for what he thinks is morally correct. Your defininition of theocrat is so broad that the majority of Christians would qualify, just because thy support legislation they perceive as aligned with their values, values tied to their religion.
Look at Mike's comment regarding prop 8. He is understandably upset that it passed. But it passed in a democracy, not a theocracy. In a theocracy there would have been no such vote. Big difference.
Posted by: heddle | December 2, 2008 4:36 AM
Do you have any examples, perchance, of the Catholic Church voluntarily recusing itself from interference in civil affairs, when it really could have gotten its way if it hadn't? I can't think of any. It lost its grip on England when the Church of England split off. The Revolution took the wind out of its sails in France. Civil power was forbidden to it by the U.S. constitution pretty much since the beginning.
When did the Church acknowledge that Galileo was right? When did it start allowing married couples to use condoms if one of them is HIV positive? No, history shows that it is public opinion that changes first, then eventually the church changes, reluctantly, in the hopes of staying relevant.
Posted by: DaveL | December 2, 2008 5:41 AM
heddle:
Prop 8 is on the books, thanks in large part to the campaign of disinformation funded by the LDS. Late term (partial birth) abortions are being fought over in this country, entirely because of religious organizations decrying them as murder. There are numerous other examples of secular law being based on Judeo-Christian morality. None, so far as I know are based on Islamic, Confucian or other belief systems.
I think you're still ignoring the elephant in the room. There is NOT a theocracy at present. It does not follow that the fundies, of all ilks, do not WANT one and won't strive for one.
Posted by: democommie | December 2, 2008 5:52 AM
...because I can speak from experience to tell you that Freemasons definitely believe in God...
Doesn't matter. Masons don't believe in the One True God of the Catholic Church, and they have opposed the Church's power in the past. So obviously the god of Freemasonry is really Satan. And the Jews somehow are behind Freemasonry, because the Jews are basically behind anything evil that ever occurred in the history of the post-Ressurection world. Hence the term "Judeo-Masonry". Yes, the Jews were even behind the Nazis! Assuming the Nazis were really evil and not covertly on the side of good.
so, does Mel Gibson have this guy on speed-dial? IIRC, he belongs to a similar sort of Catholicism...
Robert Sungenis of Catholic Apologetics International offers $1,000 to anyone who can prove to Mr. Sungenis that the Earth revolves around the sun. Hutton Gibson, Mel's father, took on the challenge...and failed, of course. Needless to say, nobody has yet won the prize. Imagine, a Catholic wingnut to the right of even the Gibsons!
Posted by: Adrienne | December 2, 2008 6:58 AM
democommie,
I repeat, that's not theocracy, that's democracy. If you believe abortion is murder, then it is reasonable to lobby forcefully for its prohibition.
The tools are not there to do it legally. If Palin had become president through the actuarial tables, what could she have done? She could have done, at most, what Bush did--executive orders regarding funding abortions, faith based initiatives, etc. Even if she wanted a theocracy--which she gave no indication of--it is not even clear she knows what a theocracy is--not to mention "Woman President" and "American Theocracy" do not go together based on (actual) leading American theocrats (such as there are.) You just can't get there from here unless you gut the constitution. Do you suppose she has "teh knowledge" of a list of deep-cover candidates for the Supreme Court that she could appoint, and that would be confirmed by an unsuspecting senate, only then to reveal that they have been laying in wait oh-so-many-years just in case one of their own became president?
Christians in office, legally, attempting to pass legislation that they approve of, is playing by the rules. Calling them theocrats makes as much sense as calling Obama a communist because he leans left. Words have meaning, and exaggerations dilute those meanings.
Posted by: heddle | December 2, 2008 8:44 AM
So, would sports be outlawed under the social reign of Christ?
http://christorchaos.com/AndAwayGoesShea.htm
Posted by: Dr X | December 2, 2008 9:06 AM
DaveL:
Exactamundo. I remember when receiving the eucharist at mass meant fasting from midnight of the previous day (imagine how much easier it is for old time catholics to do "fasting" bloodwork!) and there was no meat on fridays--not just during Lent. If enough people left the church over it you can bet that Rome would okay gay, women priests.
Posted by: democommie | December 2, 2008 9:14 AM
Actually, Ed, I do worry about such people.
Me too also, especially with a Pope like former Grand Inquisitor Benedict XVI, who has expressed open hostility to human reason and independent thinking, blamed "neopaganism" for the Holocaust, and tried to cover up his Church's past atrocities in order to maintain its image if holiness and infallibility.
As long as they are playing by the rules, it is not even remotely close to theocracy.
If you advocate theocracy, then it is perfectly reasonable to call it theocracy, whether or not you're currently obeying secular law. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to advocate the abolition of freedom of speech. Having a right to do something does not make it the right thing to do; nor does it make your belief any more valid or less evil.
If Palin had become president through the actuarial tables, what could she have done? She could have done, at most, what Bush did--executive orders regarding funding abortions, faith based initiatives, etc...
Bush did far more than that: he simply ignored any law that got in the way of what he (or his loony-right Christofascist supporters) wanted to do at any given time. And I have no doubt that Palin would have done the same, with no more hesitation or shame. And the Republican Party who supported Bush's disregard for the law, would undoubtedly have given the same blind willing support to Palin.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 2, 2008 10:11 AM
heddle:
I see you're back to playing the "I'll say what I think, as if it's the truth" game. Fine.
As I said there is no theocracy, at present. Therefor those people who want to pass laws that are unconstituional or disriminatory have to do so by legal means. Perhaps you noticed that Herr Rove had Bush use EO's to push religious horseshit down the throats of many americans and a whole bunch of furriners who want to educate folks about ways to avoid dying of AIDS or having children they are not prepared to take care of. But, of course, you're right--because you say so--that they are not theocrats. But they sure as FUCK wanna be.
I didn't even mention the Arctic Fox and you brought her up. It's over, heddle, she's no longer the savior queen in waiting.
Posted by: democommie | December 2, 2008 1:56 PM
democommie,
They didn't push anything down throats. They were elected. The President has powers to issue Executive Orders. If Obama pushes for and gets passed an increase in the capital gains tax, he is not "pushing socialism" down our throats. We elected him. And his EO's, whatever they may be, will, I can assure you, not be liked by one and all. Will you be complaining that he has "pushed something down the throats" of those who do not like his EOs? I won't hold my breath.
What does that mean: "they want to be theocrats." You know this, how? The same way some people "know" that Obama is hiding his true citizenship? The same way some people "know" he is a closet Muslim?
I do believe that people who think this way, and people who use terms like Christofascist, KKKristian, President Osama, etc., people who are seemingly incapable of making an argument with resorting to such terms, are all peas in a pod.
Posted by: heddle | December 2, 2008 2:12 PM
If a population democratically chooses to enact laws based purely on theological principles, is that not a theocracy? That is, is a theocracy necessarily not a democracy? Doesn't the one term describe the content of the laws of a state, whereas the other describe the process by which those laws are created? Just as one can have either a secular or theocratic dictatorship, cannot one also have a secular or theocratic democracy?
Posted by: Tulse | December 2, 2008 2:18 PM
Yulse,
Form Wikipedia:
The Bush's and Palins of the world live in the bold domain. Not a Theocracy.
Posted by: heddle | December 2, 2008 2:29 PM
Yeah, heddle, I can read Wikipedia too. I still don't see anything in that "definition" that prevents a democracy from democratically determining that God is in fact the states supreme civil ruler (many fundamentalists argue this currently), and thus that the democratically-determined laws should be in accord with His will, and that the courts should interpret laws on the basis of theological principles (again, a position argued for by many fundamentalists).
To be completely clear, nowhere did I mention anything about Bush and/or Palin. Nowhere did I say the US was currently a theocracy, or that it was close to being a theocracy. However, there are clearly those in the US who, while wishing to retain the basic democratic structure, would nonetheless want all laws, including the Constitution, to be in accord with Biblical principles. That, it seems to me, would be a democratic theocracy.
Posted by: Tulse | December 2, 2008 2:54 PM
I wouldn't be so sure about Bush:
http://timesonline.typepad.com/faith/2007/08/top-50-bushisms.html
Can you tell me with a straight face there weren't lots of people who regarded Bush in exactly that way- as directly inspired by God?
Posted by: DaveL | December 2, 2008 3:32 PM
Which reminds me...
Mike Huckabee, 1/14/2008Posted by: DaveL | December 2, 2008 3:38 PM
Tulse,
Well, who am I to declare such a thing impossible? We could, I suppose, vote away the constitution via amendments and declare Calvinism to be the state religion, and vote for blasphemy laws and death penalties for adultery. By the same token we could, in theory, vote away the constitution and declare Obama president for life. I'm not sure what that says other than one can always imagine absurd scenarios.
Dave L,
What does that prove? We can of course elect religious zealots. That does not make us a theocracy, nor demonstrated that said zealot is a theocrat. By most standards I'm a religious zealot, and I hate the very idea of a theocracy.
Posted by: heddle | December 2, 2008 3:52 PM
It wouldn't be necessary to vote away the constitution, merely amend it so that it was in accord with God's laws. Many theocracies have constitutions.
As for blasphemy laws, those were indeed on the books in many states, as were Blue Laws, and laws against sodomy, and various other explicitly religiously motivated statutes. Heck, in how many US jurisdictions is Christmas a statutory holiday?
What it says, at least to me, is that you agree that it is possible to have a theocratic democracy, which is the specific claim I thought we were discussing.
Posted by: Tulse | December 2, 2008 4:03 PM
Tulse,
That's what I said--amend it--but essentially in a way that gutted it. For example, a theocracy would, I think by any reasonable definition, establish a state religion. In the language of physics, there is no unitary transformation that gets us from here to there. It is, for all intents and purposes, a different country. What Bush did was pass laws and issue EOs that you didn't like. You may even argue (pointlessly, in my opinion) he committed crimes. But he didn't change the constitution.
Yes, in the same sense that it is theoretically possible that we establish, through a series of admendments, a democratic monarchy with S. Epatha Merkerson as our queen.
Posted by: heddle | December 2, 2008 4:21 PM
Ok, technically Bush did not pass any laws--but you know what I mean.
Posted by: heddle | December 2, 2008 4:25 PM
My, my, isn't heddle getting defensive all of a sudden? I guess having to stand by and defend his camp's recent outrageous, stupid, and unsonstitutional actions will do that to a man...
They didn't push anything down throats. They were elected. The President has powers to issue Executive Orders.
He does NOT have the power to issue EOs that contradict laws or the Constitution. Such orders are illegal, plain and simple, and "they were elected" is not a valid excuse.
What does that mean: "they want to be theocrats." You know this, how? The same way some people "know" that Obama is hiding his true citizenship? The same way some people "know" he is a closet Muslim?
By their words, and their actions, all of which -- as you well know and have admitted -- are quite well documented and support our arguments. Bloody 'ell, heddle, take a nap, let your tantrum subside, and come back when you're ready to participate in an honest adult conversation. Arguments from willful ignorance and feigned incomprehension won't fool anyone here. We know, and you know, that you're smart enough to know that; so stop trying to win Bible Spice's favor, and start acting your age already.
It wouldn't be necessary to vote away the constitution, merely amend it so that it was in accord with God's laws.
They wouldn't even need to do that; once they get enough power (by whatever means), they could simply ignore those bits of the Constitution that contradict their authoritarian agenda. Bush & Co. spent all eight of their years doing exactly that, with the silent support of people like heddle (who's now trying desperately trying to pretend none of it ever happened); and so do the creationists, at least until they get caught.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 2, 2008 4:35 PM
Raging Bee,
You have posted with using the word Christofascist . Good for you! Only 11 more steps in your program. You can do it!
Posted by: heddle | December 2, 2008 4:46 PM
Bush may not have changed the constitution but he certainly did his best to ignore and circumvent it. I believe he will be charged with crimes even if never brought to justice.
Posted by: Mike | December 2, 2008 4:58 PM
heddle:
You are consistent in your inconsistency, I'll give you that.
"They didn't push anything down throats. They were elected. The President has powers to issue Executive Orders."
More than any sitting president, more than all of them combined according to some tallies. Most presidents use signing statements, no president has ever used them like Bush. Not only on religious issues but in a lot of other areas.
"And his EO's, whatever they may be, will, I can assure you, not be liked by one and all. Will you be complaining that he has "pushed something down the throats" of those who do not like his EOs? I won't hold my breath."
Actually, no, I'll be doing nothing, but I've not said otherwise. If he uses the EO's to flip Bush's disastrous EO's I'll call it a wash. If he uses them to put a bounty on white folks, I'll be VERY upset.
"If Obama pushes for and gets passed an increase in the capital gains tax, he is no "pushing socialism" down our throats. We elected him."
Unless you're living on a lot more than a teacher's pay, capital gains tax isn't that big a deal to you, I'm guessing. Otoh, if Obama used an EO to order the military to sack every preacher in the ranks who uses his pulpit to push one faith, I imagine you would probably get exercised about it. But, then I'm sure you'd just pray for him to change his ways, so he can get into heaven when he dies. Oh, wait, we're predestined. I forgot.
"What does that mean: "they want to be theocrats." You know this, how? The same way some people "know" that Obama is hiding his true citizenship? The same way some people "know" he is a closet Muslim?"
Once again, heddle, as in so many past instances you criticize others for knowing what's in someone else's mind (although, in the case of the "theocrats" they ain't shy about publicly speaking on the matter) while, simultaneously telling them what THEY think. Amazing.
I do believe that people who think this way, and people who use terms like Christofascist, KKKristian, President Osama, etc., people who are seemingly incapable of making an argument with resorting to such terms, are all peas in a pod.
KKKristians, heddle, in case it hasn't penetrated yet are those who use the self-righteousness of their phony religious faith to achieve ends that are in no wise in line with the precepts of those faiths. You don't like that? You think that disqualifies people from arguing? Too bad. Fortunately I don't answer to you or anyone else most days. You don't like my comments, go back to ignoring me; trust me, we will both be happier for it.
Posted by: democommie | December 2, 2008 4:58 PM
Heddle - The NSDAP garnered around 30% of the votes in the 1930 German general election, making it (one of) the most voted for parties. Hindenburg was persuaded, on this basis, to appoint it's leader as Chancellor. That was, of course, Adolf Hitler.
But Hitler's regime wasn't REALLY fascism by your 'definition', since he did get people to vote for his party, and he was legally appointed, it was DEMOCRACY, right? -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 2, 2008 9:40 PM
DJ,
Yes and Germany had the US constitution and Hitler obeyed the rule of law at every point. I remember all those close elections throughout the Hitler years when he almost was voted out and was prepared to bow to the will of the people in a peaceful transition of power. Not like the chistofacist theocrat Bush who cancelled elections--now we are stuck with him forever.
democommie,
Yes, I am a big champion of letting the military chaplains run amok.
You don't have to get snippy about it! I enjoy arguing with you.
Posted by: heddle | December 3, 2008 5:18 AM
Pius XII?
Say No More...
Posted by: a knight | December 3, 2008 8:02 AM
Well, England under Queen Mary wasn't an according to Hoyle theocracy either, but that didn't keep a lot of people from being burned at the stake. Whether government by zealots technically qualifies as theocracy or not, I fail to see how one is any better than the other.
Posted by: DaveL | December 3, 2008 8:35 AM
Heddle - When did stop beating your straw-man?
Did I say Bush was a "christofascist"? Uh, nope.
Did I say Germany operated under the US constitution? Again, nope.
Did I say that Bush would (or even could) cancel elections? Nope.
So your point is...?
Mine was that even fascists can get democratically elected, that DOES NOT make them democratic in the least. It is the actions of a government that tells you about the kind of government they are, not the method of gaining power, necessarily. Be careful not confuse the two. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | December 3, 2008 8:54 AM
DJ,
I understand, but there is no point for anyone to argue that Bush or Palin is a theocrat unless they demonstrate that he/she advocates a theocracy and especially if he tries to create a theocracy. Without that, you are left with the magical "I know in his heart he is a theocrat. I tell you I just know it."
Gary North and company--now they advocate a theocracy.
Not talking about you specifically, just making a general comment.
Posted by: heddle | December 3, 2008 9:10 AM
Heddle - BTW "Beating the straw-man" is NOT a euphemism :)
I think that Bush and Palin would have liked to create a theocratic state because it would make life easier for themselves both psychologically and practically (not that I have ANY concrete evidence of this, you understand), based on their public utterances, and reported attitudes.
In the case of Bush/Cheney, I think it was poor-luck, a lack of co-ordination (IE none of them ACTUALLY sat down and said "What kind of Government are we going to create?) and general incompetency/ laziness, coupled with the resistance of the American people themselves, as individuals and groups, to the idea of theocratic/absolutist Government, that prevented this from occurring*.
However you get my earlier point. -DJ
*And, of course, tradition/inertia. Americans are pragmatic when it comes to government. Theocracy would been extremely unlikely, in my humble opinion.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 3, 2008 9:40 AM
I understand, but there is no point for anyone to argue that Bush or Palin is a theocrat unless they demonstrate that he/she advocates a theocracy and especially if he tries to create a theocracy.
Have you not been reading Ed's posts about the far right's attempts to Christianize the US military and brainwash our soldiers? That's only the beginning of the "demonstration" you claim you're waiting for. Then there's the whole creationism thing, of which we all know you're aware -- an obvious campaign to subvert independent human thought and establish one religious doctrine by disguising it as "science." If that ain't "theocratic," then the word has no meaning.
We call a Communist a Communist without waiting for him to completely overthrow capitalism; and we call a theocrat a theocrat without waiting for him to finish stifling other beliefs. Is this really so hard for you to understand?
heddle, we all know you're smarter than your most recent posts make you appear. So why are you suddenly acting like a denialist idiot? Are you doing it for Bible Spice? Forget that airhead already; she's no good for you (or anyone else), and there's plenty of better women out there, whom you can impress without melting your brain or flushing your dignity down the toilet. Seriously, your integrity has been going downhill ever since she hit the headlines -- get over her and aim higher.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 3, 2008 2:08 PM
Raging Bee,
The point I am trying to make quite simple. There is such a thing as theocracy and people who advocate theocracy. What Bush (or Palin) wants, from all the evidence, is not the former, and so they are not in the set of the latter. The proselytizing in the military has nothing to do with "theocracy." There will always be people who don't understand the law and are overzealous. Ed reports frequently on people who err on the other side--for example denying the use of school facilities for religious clubs (but not other clubs) or prohibiting students from using religious themes in broadly defined projects, such as art, that would not otherwise exclude them. Such incidents do not mean that the people involved hell bent on wiping out religion in America. And calling them "secularfascists" would be about as smart as calling Bush a "christofascist." Fascist has a meaning. Theocracy has a meaning. Using those terms when they shouldn't be used doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.
I hope bible spice is reading this!
Posted by: heddle | December 3, 2008 2:53 PM
The proselytizing in the military has nothing to do with "theocracy."
Utter bullshit: certain chaplains are using their power and authority to force enlisted men to profess loyalty to one particular set of beliefs, contrary to the US Constitution, regardless of their own desires. That's a characteristic of theocracy, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to say these people have a "theocratic" agenda. It is also reasonable to suspect that these people intend to make their enlistees less loyal to the secular government and more loyal to their own church (another characteristic of theocracy).
There will always be people who don't understand the law and are overzealous.
In this case, overzealous to promote their own narrow religion, disregarding the rights of others, using policies and methods characteristic of theocratic parties and regimes. So they're theocrats, with a theocratic agenda, who "don't understand the law and are overzealous."
Ed reports frequently on people who err on the other side--for example denying the use of school facilities for religious clubs (but not other clubs)...
Totally irrelevant to this discussion. Just because you can't call one group "secularofascist" doesn't mean you can't call a totally different group "Christofascist."
I hope bible spice is reading this!
I'm sure she desperately needs people like you to do whatever hair-splitting, hand-waving, and obfuscation you have to do to pretend her agenda -- and her rabble-rousing phony-witch-hunter minister from Kenya -- are perfectly compatible with America's core values. And when said minister uses accusations of "witchcraft" to put Americans at each other's throats (as he did to his fellow Kenyans), he, too, will need you to pretend it's not really "theocratic." But of course, she can't possibly admit she needs you, as that would defeat the whole purpose; so you won't get any reward or respect for your efforts.
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 3, 2008 3:13 PM
Raging Bee,
Quite wrong. I share the misguided chaplain's desire that every American citizen be proselytized with the hope that they are converted. Yet even were that so, I'd still advocate separation of church and state. Ergo, a desire to convert everyone can come without theocratic tendencies. (In fact, that's the norm.) It is not a proof thereof.
Just serving, in my own small way, her secret theocratic plans (which, alas, you have revealed--but no matter, her will be done) is its own reward.
Posted by: heddle | December 3, 2008 3:37 PM
Ergo, a desire to convert everyone can come without theocratic tendencies. (In fact, that's the norm.) It is not a proof thereof.
Attempted conversion by means of manipulation, abuse of authority, and unconstitutional means, without regard for the rights or beliefs of one's subjects, IS proof of theocratic tendencies. You really don't have the guts to see how evil and dishonest some of your fellow so-called Christians really are, do you?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 3, 2008 4:32 PM
Raging Bee
Sadly you are correct. Among my writings are no examples of me criticizing my fellow Christians for frivolous claims of persecution. No, I have offered full support to the persecuted martyrs such as Judge Moore and Gordon James Klingenschmitt. Nor have I lashed out at fellow Christians for placing politics above the gospel; instead I have tirelessly defended James Dobson, Ralph Reed, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson in their efforts to make sin illegal. And I have served willingly on the front lines of the culture war. I have bashed the ACLU relentlessly. I have battled long and hard to support my brave Christian colleagues who are fighting the horrible war on Christmas. And as far as science goes--I have toed the party line when it comes to intelligent design and creationism in schools. I have supported and contributed to Uncommon Descent, and am a frequent and welcomed visitor and contributor to the DI. I really have nothing to say for myself. Your all-seeing, all-knowing, all-revealing lidless-eye gaze has left me naked and uncovered. Woe is me. Woe is me.
Posted by: heddle | December 3, 2008 4:56 PM
What to do with this guy:
Tie him to a chair.
Attach a penile plethysmograph (a sensor that monitors tumescence).
Show him various kinds of porn. Straight porn, gay porn, lesbian porn, vanilla porn, kinky porn, all the usual genres.
Observe the relative degree of tumescence in response to the various kinds of porn.
Woohoo!
Posted by: g347 | December 4, 2008 6:39 AM
Very interesting post. I only wish to comment that Mr. Drolesky, as a sedevacantist, is most emphatically *not* a Catholic. So whichever theocracy he may defend, it is most certainly not a Catholic one...
Posted by: wtrmute | December 8, 2008 9:10 PM