These are the kind of clueless and arrogant statements that mark a true liberal elitist:
OTTAWA — Frank McKenna, Canada’s former ambassador to Washington, referred to the United States on Friday as “a theocratic state” in which Christian evangelicalism plays a big role in the Republican administration.
“Right now the United States is in many ways a theocratic state, not dissimilar to some of the other religious states in the world where religion has a huge part to play in government.” ~canada.com
This is more a statement about the small mindeness and exclusionary aspects of secular humanism and liberalism (small minded liberalism.) The heart of this kind of thinking is not the all-inclusive rainbow of multi-color/multi-ethnic togetherness and sharing that liberals tend to fantasize about their ideology– instead it is dogmatically hateful, exclusionary and anti-religious.
So what is McKenna actually saying here? His point is that anything less than a strictly ‘secular state’, meaning one which completely represses and stigmatizes any religious input, impulses, or influence, is a “theocracy.” Because, *GASP*, we can’t have people who are religious in government… everything they do is invalid by definition. (Unlike, let’s say, someone basing all their political decisions on progressive ideology bordering on religion.)
Essentially McKenna prefers his state to be ruled by an anti-religion. “Canada is truly a secular state. Religion and politics do not mix in this country.â€
Which becomes problematic when you realize just how much of life folks like McKenna believe the government should control. Virtually all of it in fact. There is nothing off limits for quasi-socialist nanny states. Everything is subject to legislation. All areas of economic life, all areas of public life, all areas of private life are potentially subject to control for the common good. But, religious people need not apply to hold the reigns of government because they don’t have valid beliefs. Which brings up an interesting question for McKenna, since he obviously believes religious people should be ruled by people like him in charge of “stricly secular states,” one wonders if he feels they shouldn’t have the right to vote either because obviously religion shouldn’t have anything to do with politics.
I’ve got an idea, let’s substitute any other group for, “Christian evangelicalism,” and see how it sounds.
OTTAWA — Frank McKenna, Canada’s former ambassador to Washington, referred to the United States on Friday as “a black state” in which colored ‘African-Americans’ play a big role in the administration.
Very forward thinking don’t you think? Is it now valid liberal thought to say an entire segment of society should have no participation in government at all?
What is a theocracy?
The reality is that a theocracy is a very different thing from how McKenna wants to define it.
Answers.com defines the word theocracy as, “A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.” The Brittanica excerpt goes on to say:
Government by divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided. In many theocracies, government leaders are members of the clergy, and the state’s legal system is based on religious law. Theocratic rule was typical of early civilizations. The Enlightenment marked the end of theocracy in most Western countries. Contemporary examples of theocracies include Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican. ~answers.com
The key aspect here is in bold. If we merely said that every government which was popularly thought of as being merely led by divine guidance, or had elements of religious law embodied in their legal system then America was indeed founded as a theocracy. But this is not enough to label a country a theocracy.
Today we have a whole political class who view true theocracies, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, as lesser evils in contrast to their true chosen enemy: Republicans and Christians in America.
They question the very notion of a war on terror because they don’t believe the threat from Al Qaeda rises to the level of ‘war’ status. No matter that Al Qaeda is a truly radical theocratic religious terrorist organization which has already destroyed the World Trade Center buildings killing 3,000 Americans and declared war on the United States, the West, and all religions besides their taliban version of Islam. Yet the left is alarmed about American Christians, not Al Qaeda. So alarmed that they are writing books about the, “Clear and Present danger,” to America posed by these ‘radical extremists’, “that together threaten the future of the United States and the world.”
In the much lauded book (among liberals), AMERICAN THEOCRACY, Kevin Phillips explains the equivalent danger posed by both radical Islam and radical Christianity/Judaism:
The excesses of fundamentalism, in turn, are American and Israeli, as well as the all-too-obvious depredations of radical Islam. The rapture, end-times, and Armageddon hucksters in the United States rank with any Shiite ayatollahs, and the last two presidential elections mark the transformation of the GOP into the first religious party in U.S. history. ~americantheocracy.net
The premise of his book is nothing if not all-too familiar: Iraq is a War for Oil started by the Republican theocracy. Where have I heard that before?
Then there are the Jews.
The path that liberals and progressives are on isn’t new, and it isn’t pretty. Liberalism isn’t about inclusion. In fact, it’s central premise is exclusion and demonization. Like the Borg on Star Trek they see any deviation from their proscribed ideology as a threat and a menace to their utopian dreams of a fair society equitably distributed by an all-knowing and all-caring government. That can’t happen when people exist who completely disagree with your premise and argue that the practice of egalitarianism runs counter to the theory every time it’s been tried.