Dana Milbank’s Unholy Crusade
By Steven Osborne | Thursday, September 1st, 2011 | Catch-All, PoliticsLiberal Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank is on a mission; he wants you to know in no uncertain terms that Rick Perry is a “theocrat.” In his article, Milbank goes out of his way to point to Perry’s social views and to paint those views as some sort of gigantic threat to the American way of life. However, while Milbank and Co. are busy labeling Perry and other evangelicals as “theocrats” they are guilty of embracing a theocracy of a different sort.
There is no question that both Perry, Bachmann, and others have been outspoken concerning their Christian beliefs, and these two candidates specifically have both spoken about the role that these beliefs would play in their policy decisions. Some would regard this admixture of faith and policy as a dangerous development, but in fact, it is not necessarily a dangerous development. I am very grateful that the Founder’s applied Judeo-Christian ethics to the development of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Ideas that are quintessentially identified with the United States such as the concept of natural rights and equality under the law, are derived from the Judeo-Christian system of governmental ethics. I am glad that the Founder’s, and their colonial forebear’s did not separate their faith and policy.
While it is certainly true that the United States does not have an established state religion, this does not prevent religious principles from being applied within the government. Actually, the concepts of not forcing the citizenry to attain membership within a particular church and the general free exercise of religion are Judeo-Christian ideals related to free will doctrine.
Progressives have often attempted to paint themselves as secular thinkers who favor a government that is completely free of any religious influence. Their argument is deceptive because no such government exists. Governments must be based on a set of principles and principles imply a moral basis.
As a matter of fact, the same progressives that are crying for an end to religious influence within government, are advocating for a naturalistic religion of their own. The transcendentalist predecessors of the modern progressive movement viewed mankind as being one with nature. The progressives contend that nature is the source of morality through evolutionary processes. So nature determines the advancement of mankind through evolution and also the behavior of mankind, which is why progressivism has been so destructive to individual responsibility. With their elevation of nature as a sort of god, and the belief that man is part and parcel with nature, it is not difficult for them to conclude that man, and his government, is a god unto himself.
This talk of “theocracy” is rather disingenuous. The technical meaning of a theocracy is a direct rule by God. Now, if people like Mr. Milbank are suggesting that a theocracy is merely a government operating on a set of beliefs, then every government on the face of the planet is a theocracy.
The real question we need to ask ourselves is not whether or not a set of religious beliefs should guide our nation’s public policy; this is a given. The question is which set of beliefs we will choose. Personally, I would much rather be governed by the Judeo-Christian ideals that brought us equality under the law and Constitutional government, than by a naturalistic religion that serves to deify the state and those who run it.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
Share this post
About the author
Steven Osborne is a grassroots conservative activist from Central Virginia. He is currently furthering his education at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. In addition to writing for Bearing Drift he is also a columnist for the Christian Law Journal.
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
8 Responses to "Dana Milbank’s Unholy Crusade"
I bet you it must really keep the progs awake at night, knowing the Founding Fathers were profounding religious and Christian men… and yet they produced a republic, not a theocracy.
Now try explaining the concept of theocracy to a person that believes global warming is man-made, or that government is the answer to your problems, or that the only viewpoint worth holding in a public school is a secular one… but ah, wrong set of beliefs, I guess.
Good post, Steve. Spot on.
One of the best BD articles ever written..
Democrats Unholy Crusade is more like it. Barry’s poll numbers are dropping like the value of a 10 year Greek bond. Democrats will run the most “dirty” campaign in American history for the next 14 months.
It’s easy to understand why a man of the nihilistic Left would confuse — or more accurately, would want to smear — anyone who believes in something as a “theocrat.”
Well said.
“Progressives have often attempted to paint themselves as secular thinkers who favor a government that is completely free of any religious influence. Their argument is deceptive because no such government exists. Governments must be based on a set of principles and principles imply a moral basis.”
A question for you: where does it say that morals must be based in religion?
I know many conservatives, obviously not social conservatives, who don’t practice any religion and would rather see candidates who don’t tout their religious beliefs and credentials.
Steven,
Darn it, but I am going to have to agree with you. Despite the disadvantages of your parochial education, you have nailed it on this one.
The Constitution is not anti-religion. As was the case with the entire Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments were clearly intended to prohibit the abuses of the British Crown during the colonial period. The Second Amendment was inspired by the British attempt to seize the militia arsenals at Lexington and Concord, among other abuses. The Fourth Amendment was inspired by British searches of homes, businesses, and newspaper offices without a judicial warrant. The Fifth Amendment was inspired by the seizing of property without cause and the presumption of guilt without testimony to the contrary in colonial courts. Similarly, the First Amendment was inspired by the official state religion status of the Church of England, whereby all citizens were forced to tithe the Church regardless of their religious beliefs. The Framers saw the role of Divine Providence as being indispensable to the maintenance of a moral rule of law, not an obstacle to it. Freedom of religion encompasses the right to live your personal beliefs, or to adopt no religious beliefs whatsoever, as long as elected representatives and executives place the Constitution above their personal beliefs.
This will cause some of my Republican friends a great deal of consternation, but I admired Tim Kaine when he was governor on one particular point: although he is a devout Roman Catholic who believes that the death penalty is morally contrary to his Christian beliefs, as governor he approved executions. That, my friends, is a modern example of “separation of church and state.”
Many of the Founding Fathers would not qualify to be described as Christian if we accepted some modern day Christians’ definition of what it takes to earn the label.
The prayer event that Rick Perry spoke at was at least partially supported (organized?) by the “New Apostolic Reformation” movement. It seems that this movements intent is to involve their interpretation of the Bible in all aspects of society. Their targets include involvement in government and business. Their interpretation of the Bible might seem to exclude certain portions of society, perhaps exclusion to include Mormons and perhaps even Catholics.
When you sleep with dogs, do not be surprised when you awaken with flea bites. Pope John Paul was often described as being the Anti-Christ while he was alive by not just a few.
Leave your response