Arthur: I am your King!If you find Monty Python's send-up of Arthurian politics in the least bit funny, then you will understand why I think that theocracy is such a very bad idea. Basically, it boils down to this: Putting yourself in charge of other people because you think you talk to supernatural beings is as ridiculous as crowning yourself King in "some farcical aquatic ceremony". Only far, FAR more dangerous.
Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
Arthur: You don't vote for Kings!
Woman: Well, how did you become King, then?
Arthur: The Lady of the Lake,...[angels sing]...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. [singing stops] That is why I am your King!
Dennis: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
Arthur: Shut up!
Dennis: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an Emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
Arthur: Shut up, will you? Just shut up!
Dennis: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system!
Plainly put, theocracy is based on faulty principles that make it disasterous in practice. And it is more than high time that well-meaning people stopped listening to the silky lies of those who would graft a steeple onto the halls of government.
If this country, as some claim, was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the principles in question were, quite bluntly, the wrong ones. Mainly I'm thinking of slavery and the second-class status of women--both as much a fact of life in 1776/1789 as they were in the ancient world. Moreover, the Bible's worldview is blatantly monarchist, something which our Founders quite emphatically distanced themselves. Scripture has diddley to say about voting. That came to us from the (pagan) Greeks and the Norse. In short, the "Judeo-Christian principles" argument is an outright lie coupled with stealing credit for ideas that were created by non-Jews/Christians.
But (the well-meaning Christian might ask), what about the Ten Commandments that are the basis for our laws? Last time I checked, it wasn't against the law to covet, commit adultery, party on the Sabbath, worship other Gods (with the penalty that your children unto the third and fourth generation are punished for your lack of faith), etc. Really, only murder, stealing and perjury have made it into the laws of this land. But Judeo-Christian principles can hardly claim to hold a monopoly on those values. Those kinds of things are pretty much frowned on anywhere you look. Including under Communist rule, I might add. Again, a lie coupled with plaguarism.
And so, failing on the merits of the historical record (as well as basic logic), the well-meaning Christian will fall back on trying to divine the intent of the de-facto "patron saints" of American democracy. (That would be the folks that we remember today, with maybe Lincoln allowed to tag along.) After all, if their pastors/priests know the mind of the Almighty, how hard can it be for them to commune with the shades of guys who have only been dead a couple hundred years?
Were the Founders of the United States Christian men? Mostly. No argument there. That's how they were raised, for pete's sake. Would anyone expect them to suddenly become Buddhist? Did they also assume that most Americans were and would continue to be Christian? Absolutely. (Again, is this surprising?) Did they necessarily consider that a thing of unqualified good? Maybe not so much. What tends to be glossed over in the hagiography-and-handwaving that passes for high school history is that the very deep rifts between Puritan, Baptist, Quaker, et. al. were a large concern in the politics of the day. This was a world in which it was not unheard-of for people to be driven out of town (and hanged when they didn't stay banished) for the "crime" of not following the crowd.
As much as we've manage to demolish many of the barriers to full participation in society since 1789, basic human nature does not change. The brotherhood under Christ is as much of a pretty lie as it was centuries ago. Establish a "Christian" government in this country, and you'll see its many factions fall on each other like hungry dingoes, and in less than a New York nanosecond. The internecene butchery of Sunni and Shiite Muslims in Iraq will be a minor kerfuffle in comparison to the "Our Jesus can beat up your Jesus" war that would erupt here. Bluntly put: If the arsenal and resources of the most powerful nation are up for grabs, you can bet your collection plate tithe that the battles will NOT be rhetorical. The likes of Pat Robertson (who has no moral qualms with assasination) and company will guarantee that.
