Isn’t this exactly what’s happening in the United States? Bakers are forced to make cakes for ceremonies they disagree with. Austin, Texas, has passed a law that requires churches to hire homosexuals and transgenders.
A person can be fired from a job for not accepting homosexuality or transgenderism. It’s happened. Look what happened to the CEO of Mozilla because he donated to anti-same-sex marriage Proposition 8 in California. Then there are the brothers who lost their show on the Home and Garden Network because of their views on homosexuality and abortion. “A newspaper editor in Iowa has been fired for opining on his personal blog that the Queen James Bible is an attempt by homosexuals ‘to make their sinful nature “right with God.”’”
These are private companies. But once the government gets involved, punitive actions of the worst kind are inevitable, especially since the hate-crimes monitors will be the ones to write the regulations.
Colleges and universities are requiring affirmation of homosexuality and transgenderism. The incoming Democrat majority in the House is working to overturn the long-standing Religious Freedom Restoration Act:
Following the midterm elections, which turned control of the House over to the Democrats, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may be in jeopardy.
According to CBN News, 50 more Democrats have decided to band together to co-sponsor legislation that would destroy the 25-year-old Act. This increase in support brings the total number of Democratic Congressmen opposing the act to 172.
Signed into law in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, the RFRA works to protect employers’ religious liberty by rejecting the idea that employers are required to provide medical insurance coverage for abortion-inducing contraception. (Christian Headlines)
There’s increasing hostility against anyone who dares to disagree with homosexuality and transgenderism. For example:
A UC Berkeley Christian student is facing demands to resign her student senate seat after speaking out against a transgender rights resolution. But the student, Isabella Chow, says she won’t quit. “If I do, there will be no one else to represent the voices that are ignored and misunderstood on campus,” Chow told The San Francisco Chronicle. (Christian Headlines)
All of the above examples and many more demonstrate the reality of secular intolerance and theocracy. The majority will have to change to the values of the minority that has taken over the schools, courts, and legislative branches of government.
Throwing around the word “theocracy” has been a long-standing tactic of the Left, and as usual, the majority of Americans fall for the rhetoric with no idea that they are living under a secular theocracy:
“To the modern ear the word ‘theocracy’ has distinctly pejorative overtones, suggesting the rule of some oppressive priestly caste, ‘government of a state by immediate Divine guidance or by officials regarded as divinely guided,’ to quote a standard definition. Yet, unlike certain other systems known in antiquity, ‘the “Theocracy” was not a government by priests, as opposed to kings; it was a government by God Himself, as opposed to the government by priests or kings’ (Dean Arthur Stanley, A History of the Jewish Church, 1862). The U.S. jurist and statesman Oscar Straus, a close associate of President Theodore Roosevelt, also stressed this point in his study of American culture’s indebtedness to the Hebraic concept: ‘The very fact that . . . with the single exception of Eli, no priest was ever elected to the magistracy during the entire period of the Commonwealth, decidedly negatives any such interpretation’ (The Origin of the Republican Form of Government in the United States of America, 1887).”1
Theocracy is an inescapable concept. The rejection of one God only means the adoption of another. In our day, the State is God and judges serve as its priests. New laws and sanctions have been substituted for the discarded laws as if they came down from Mount Sinai. In a way, they have. Am I exaggerating? Supreme Court Justice Charles Evan Hughes said the following:
“We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is, and the judiciary is the safeguard of our liberty and of our property under the Constitution.”2
Who gets to define “liberty” and “property”? The State exemplified in the Supreme Court. Catherine Drinker Bowen’s stylized biography Yankee from Olympus (1944) of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes captures how Sinai has been replaced by a new final court of appeal.
Modern Western democracy, which culminated in the drafting of the United States Constitution in 1787, is humanistic. C. Gregg Singer writes:
The coming of democracy, some fifty years later, began a process of secularization of American political thought, and that equality implied in the Reformed doctrine of the priesthood of the believers was transformed into the democratic concept of equalitarianism which came to America as a result of the French Revolution. It is pertinent to note that this secularized version of Presbyterianism must logically lead to a democratic despotism because its doctrine of “the priesthood of the voter” is devoid of any Biblical foundation and denies that man is a sinner by nature.3
Singer goes on to write that “Modern political theory has replaced the doctrine of the sovereignty of God with that of the sovereignty of man. . . .”4
All rulers act in the name of some god, whether the people, themselves, the State, some false god, power, or the God who made heaven and earth. There is no neutrality.
- “The State incarnates the Divine Idea upon earth” (Hegel).
- “The State is the supreme power, ultimate and beyond repeal, absolutely independent” (Fichte).
- “Everything for the State; nothing outside the State; nothing against the State” (Mussolini).
- “The State dominates the nation because it alone represents it” (Hitler).
- “The State embraces everything, and nothing has value outside the State. The State creates right” (Franklin Delano Roosevelt).5
The State is given power to rule, but many have used the State to seek power for the sake of power: As O’Brien tells Winston Smith in George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four, “Power is not a means; it is an end.” Later on, Smith shows that he finally understands when he painfully writes: “GOD IS POWER.” Of course, he came to realize that the State is God because it is omnipotent.6 Orwell’s dystopian future may seem like an unrealized political nightmare, which it is, but much of its philosophy has made its way into the body politic of the American system:
- “Once it is agreed that the individual is subject to management, the case for leaving him free from (say) government interference evaporates.”7 The question is no longer should man be managed by the state but who will manage man and how will be managed?
- State power is manifested through Public Policy. “Nothing contrary to public policy should have tax exemption, and, some hold, any right to exist. Today, public policy includes homosexual ‘rights,’ abortion, an established humanism, and much, much more. The implication is plain, and, with some, it is a manifesto: No one opposing public policy has any rights. The public policy doctrine is the new face of totalitarians.”8
The reason Leftists are outraged by some of the comments of the new Brazilian President is that ghey don’t like competition.
- Gabriel Sivan, The Bible and Civilization (New York: Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co., 1973), 145. [↩]
- Speech before the Chamber of Commerce, Elmira, New York (3 May 1907). Published in Addresses and Papers of Charles Evans Hughes, Governor of New York, 1906–1908 (1908), 139. [↩]
- C. Gregg Singer, John Calvin: His Roots and Fruits (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1977), 43. [↩]
- Singer, John Calvin, 43. [↩]
- Quoted in Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy, the State (1935). [↩]
- Herbert Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction: Christian Faith and its Confrontation with American Society (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1983), p. 197. [↩]
- John Kenneth Galbraith, The New Industrial State. Quoted in Schlossberg, Idols for Destruction, p. 198. [↩]
- Rousas. J. Rushdoony, “Religious Liberty versus Religious Toleration,” Chalcedon Position Paper No. 31, p. 2. [↩]