When Francis Schaeffer writes, "The civil government, as all of life, stands under the law of God," his words stand in stark contrast to the Constitution of the United States where "God" is never mentioned.  

From The Godless Constitution:

The argument of The Godless Constitution, though, is not that the founders didn't care about moral standards in political life or sought to exclude religious people from political debate.

The argument turns upon the Constitution's deliberate departure from the model of the Christian commonwealth, its exemplary rejection of religious tests that most of the states quickly emulated, and the fears of the founders, thoroughly justified by recent events, that politically partisan uses of religion would turn politics into pandering and undermine the vital moral authority of America's churches.

There are, however, differences of degree in regards to the impulse toward theocracy.  I think the impulse is milder in Haggard than in Kennedy or Reed or Schaeffer.

I'm also sure that that is small comfort to those who are not "evangelical" Christians.

by Mainstream Baptist on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 08:45:29 AM EST

It has already been proven that they will lie about things like this if their beliefs justify it. It is their deeds that we need to observe and comment on, not only their words. When they lie like this, we need to point it out, and make them confess that yes, they do want a theocracy, or even a theonomy. Otherwise, they'll lie their way right into power, if they haven't already done so.

by Lorie Johnson on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 09:21:07 AM EST

Theocracy is a concept. One can define it in a number of ways, and easily define oneself out of it.

It seems to me we have had a modern theocratic movement building for a long time -- one that does not call itself theocratic, any more than it calls itself dominionist.


by Frederick Clarkson on Wed Dec 28, 2005 at 01:28:18 PM EST

In a strict sense this is not a theocracy in that the systems of government and religion are separate and run by separate people. But the levers of power in government would generally only be accessible to people who pass certain kinds of tests that may not even appear to be explicitly religious in nature.

It's also not a theocracy in that it would be open to people like neocons who can be and are in some instances atheistic, or at least not explicitly Christian, but who have strong agreement on certain parts of the 'worldview' in practice including the role of religious belief in support of the kind of system of governance they would like to create.

--
Acquire the Evidence: on Ron Luce, Teen Mania Ministries and the "BattleCry" campaign. acquiretheevidence.com

by Mike Doughney on Thu Dec 29, 2005 at 01:27:57 PM EST

Here's a story that I was involved in.  Not heard about, or saw rumour, but that I have firsthand accounting of from my own experience.

I'm sure you've heard of Pastor Parsley's "Bridge of Hope" Sudan Missionary Outreach, where he encourages people to "sponsor" starving Sudanese people through donations to his program.  I was working in the call centre at Infocision (the biggest Right-Wing telephone fundraising company in America), and we were doing a HUGE phone campaign for this Bridge of Hope (BoH) programme. The standard fundraising pitch was as such: that for $40 someone could feed a starving Sudanese child for a month.  If they pledged to do this $40 every month for a year, then they would be giving a child food and basic survival supplies (water purification tablets, mosquito netting, etc) for a full year.  

When I was calling one donor, he just happened to be watching the Pastor's show (Breakthrough) at the time.  He told me that Roddy was telling everyone that a $40 gift would feed and entire family for a month.  Not just a child (like I was scripted to say), but a whole family.  He noticed the discrepancy, and asked me about it.

Well, I was stumped.  I put the phone on mute and asked my supervisor (who didn't work for the ministry but for infocision), and he said "I don't know....just tell him that the kits are different or something".  He didn't know, he was just pulling it out of his ass.  He later called the project supervisor who then asked the ministry spokesman what we should say.  The message we got back was "That souds ok...they can say that."

Not "That's true" or "that's accurate", but "that sounds ok".  What some mid-level call centre manager pulled out of his ass was endorsed as a good cover story by ministry officials.  What was the truth?  I don't know, but I know I was given official permission to tell what was an obvious lie.

Dude, I have tons of stories from Infocision!  I have dirt on The American Center for Law and Justice, Concerned Women for America, Campus Crusade for Christ, The Alliance Defense Fund, Coral Ridge Ministries...and more.  For some of these, I even have documented evidence.  If you want to chat, drop me an e-mail sometime.

Blessed Be,
Taliesin

by Taliesin on Fri Dec 30, 2005 at 09:04:31 PM EST