Monday, May 24, 2010

Theocracy: Bloedow Tries To Mangle The Word

Over at his "Christian Government" blog, we find author Tim Bloedow giving the word Theocracy a rather brutal redefinition.

For some reason, almost everyone who thinks Christian theocracy also thinks stoning of homosexuals as though the two are synonymous. Ms. McDonald pulled this stunt in her book with an unnecessary reference to the late Reconstructionist/theonomic/theocratic leader, Roussas J. Rushdoony. She’s hardly alone in doing so.


Ummm...yes, generally speaking the concept of theocracy is a bad idea in the eyes of those who are traditionally not power holders in society - women, minorities and so on ... we'll come back to this.

And God’s law operates on a foundation of equality before the law, something which today’s humanists claim to do, but really don’t.


Let's talk about that concept of equality for a moment. Last I checked, the Bible - in particular the Old Testament, but the same themes wind their way through the New Testament as well, tends to treat women as chattel rather than as full human beings. Certainly, women are subject to some pretty harsh punishment at the hands of their "husbands" for various infractions - especially adultery, as I recall.

Equality before the law is a much broader concept today than it ever was thought to be in the days that the scripture was being written.

In other words it’s also wrong for politicians to steal. This applies to various forms of taxation as well as confiscation of property, including firearms (let alone without appropriate compensation). But these applications have been pre-determined by the left-wing Establishment as characteristics of the Religious Right, and that trumps the principle of not stealing. You see, messianic state-ism (or humanism/socialism) doesn’t take seriously the principle of equality before the law.


"Messianic state-ism"??? Where the heck did that little gem of idiocy come from? Good grief. Bloedow can't come up with reasoned arguments on anything without inventing terms can he? Since I can't even find a reasonable definition of that term, I'll have to guess that it's an invention of Bloedow's fevered imagination. Perhaps the great irony in that term is the recognition that Bloedow's own professed religion effectively views Christ as its messiah, and he wants to impose his beliefs on the rest of us.

What's really going on here is that Mr. Bloedow doesn't like the fact that there are times when his "freedom of religion" runs up against somebody else's legitimate freedoms. What he wants is to create a hierarchy of freedoms, with his religion at the pinnacle, where he can use it as a club to beat down those that he doesn't like.

Moral relativism is the ethical framework of Humanism. The rule of law historically and logically finds its best expression in the moral absolutism of Christianity. It reflects the spirit of Christian theocracy because it’s fundamental to the Biblical concept of law – God’s law. And, guess what… it’s part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Uh huh. I don't recall seeing anything in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that recognizes any particular religion as having significance under Canada's laws. Nor, as Mr. Bloedow seems to be implying, does the Charter speak in the language of absolutes. A reasoned review of the Charter shows that it has in fact created a network of rights and freedoms, none of which is held above the others in any kind of hierarchy.

Yes, the Bible also exposes the fraud of today’s most cherished myth, that sexual sin is victimless behaviour and, yes, the Bible bans many sexual behaviours, declaring some offences to be criminal in nature. (You shall not commit adultery!) Canada only abandoned this vestige of Christian theocracy a few decades ago. And as a result, 10s of thousands of innocent unborn babies are being murdered, hundreds and thousands of our youth are being emotionally scarred and diseased, including with infertility, by STDs because today’s influential adults insist on teaching amoral sex ed. And we have a huge portion of broken homes because no fault divorce laws don’t encourage troubled couples to show some character and work at their relationship a little harder. It’s shocking to see the fear among Christians of confronting the sex cult mentality that drives so much of our public ethics as well as our child-related public policy. But that would be Christian theocracy, and we can’t have that!


Now we come to the crux of Mr. Bloedow's position - and it's the very area that I would have suspected from the start. Mr. Bloedow's idea of theocracy, as well as his cries about how the "secularists are limiting freedom of speech" are rooted in his overweening desire to legislate his moral code and force it upon all.

This is in fact the underlying problem with the Christianist political movements, whether it is the anti-abortion types, the anti-gay zealots or the anti-feminists. They want to use their religion to limit the lives of others. Whether you are a woman, a part of the GLBT sphere or just someone who wants all members of society to contribute to the best of their ability and judgment, you are the people that Bloedow and his allies would limit, imprison or worse - regardless of whether you subscribe to that particular flavour of Christianity.

Yes Mr. Bloedow, women do have the right to control their fertility - and that includes the right to access safe abortion. GLBT people have a right to live their lives in peace so that they might contribute to society as full members of that society, rather than marginalized pariahs as you would them be.

At the end of the day, Mr. Bloedow, your notion of Theocracy is not about improving Canada, it is about imposing your morality upon others - regardless of whether we subscribe to your system of beliefs.

4 comments:

TimBloedow said...

I thought only barbarians worshiped sex as their god. You write: "Now we come to the crux of Mr. Bloedow's position - and it's the very area that I would have suspected from the start." Sounds like I touched a nerve. The Bible exposed the nature of your uncivilized god. And instead of dealing with your guilty conscience, you chose to use gross dishonesty and claim that this point was the crux of my position. Do tell what exactly in the text of what I wrote indicates that this was the crux of my position? Nope, it exposes the crux of your uncivilized worship of sex, your uncontrolled passions and anti-adult aspirations. Civilization was never built on people like you. If you can't show intelligence, at least show some integrity by not lying about me. What a pathetic joke...

MgS said...

Funny, it was your article that raised the issues of sexuality in the first place - in the context of creating biblically-based laws of proscription no less ... or do you deny that?

Did you hit a nerve? Not really, just proved once again that your notion of 'freedom of religion' is really all about imposing your religiously inspired beliefs on everyone around you. Regardless of whether they subscribe to your faith or not.

In short, you would limit others ability to contribute to society based not on their beliefs, but on YOUR beliefs, whether or not they are shared.

TimBloedow said...

Look, this is the last time here I'll waste my time responding to the subinfantile dishonesty of an intellectual boor as yourself, if you're not going to elevate the discussion. First you said I make sexuality the crux of my article, now you're simply saying that I raised the issue. If you possess even the smallest degree of rationality, you know there is a hug difference between crux and simply raising an issue. But you're changing the argument on the run because you're a liar, and thoroughly dishonest or because you know nothing about rationality. Pcik on someone your own size - find a sparring partner who's two years old. Quit making a fool of yourself by publishing such stupidity on the internet for everyone to see.

MgS said...

Ah - attack the person rather than the argument. Good debating form, there Tim.