Liberal 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.
