A group tied to GOP Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann is calling for Iowa legislators to base law on Christian teaching. On their website, the group urges Iowa ministers to sign a letter which says
Because God is God of all, there is no structural difference between religious and civil marriage. The essence of marriage remains the same in both the religious and civil realms. (Col. 1:15-19) The acknowledgement (sic) of, and reference to, marriage in the laws of our state and nation does not create a second realm of marriage that is somehow divorced from the only definition determined by God.
By saying that there is no difference between the civil and religious realms, the Iowa Family Policy Council advocates for what Christian reconstructionists call a theonomy. Most opponents of same-sex marriage propose that negative consequences will occur if such marriages are legally recognized. However, here the Family Leader advances what is primarily a theological argument. In essence, they hope pastors will write their legislators and tell them that the laws of Iowa must be the same as the teachings of the Bible since God is over both.
In the second clause of the letter, the Family Leader casts aside the 14th Amendment.
Keeping in mind that the concept of fairness is subjective, it should never be used as a mechanism to overturn the plain truth of the Scriptures. The laws of Iowa can never be “fair” to everyone, but instead ought to be designed to promote justice.
In other words, the Family Leader wants Iowa legislators to place the Bible over the 14th Amendment and equal treatment under the law. According the Family Leader, the law cannot be fair to all Iowans, just those who believe the right things. In a theonomy, the Bible is the law of the land. Apparently, the Family Leader wants Iowa to be a theonomy, never allowing fairness to citizens “to used as a mechanism to overturn the plain truth of the Scriptures.”
In the fourth clause, the rights of some Iowa citizens to advocate for their viewpoint is considered more important than other citizens.
Freedom of conscience is not the issue. We acknowledge that everyone has a right to their own beliefs. The issue is whether or not certain citizens have the right to use their beliefs to redefine that which God has already defined, and then force the rest of society to accept that redefinition. We submit that they do not.
Apparently, some citizens cannot “use their beliefs” in ways that others can. The Family Leader can use their beliefs to write letters to legislators, urge Iowans to toss out unpopular judges and advocate for candidates that promote their theonomic views. Other Iowans, who don’t believe in the same God or interpret His will in the same manner must not be allowed the same right.
What if the Family Leader used such thinking to other matters such as church or family? Since the New Testament is interpreted by some as requiring women to “keep silent” in church, shouldn’t the Family Leader petition the Iowa legislature for gag laws on mouthy women in their churches, and probably by extension any other situation where a woman might exercise authority over a man? Give a suffragette an inch and she’ll take a mile.
By their reasoning, since God is the God of all, shouldn’t all areas of life be considered a part of the civil realm? Theonomists would answer in the affirmative. Rousas J. Rushdoony, the dean of modern reconstructionism, said in his Institutes of Biblical Law
Neither positive law nor natural law can reflect more than the sin and apostasy of man: revealed law is the need and privilege of Christian society. It is the only means whereby man can fulfill his creation mandate of exercising dominion under God. Apart from revealed law, man cannot claim to be under God but only in rebellion against God
A review of the Family Leader’s letter to Iowa legislators indicates harmony with Rushdoony’s statement that “revealed law is the need and privilege of a Christian society.” According the Family Leader, there is “no structural difference” between the religious and civil realms.
The ready endorsement of Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum to
the materials and pledges of this group exposes them to questions about the role of religion in civil society. Do they want a theonomy?
Do they want a Thonomy? If that’s what gets the money and votes in, yes, of course.
Urg, minor pet peeve — the apostrophe comes after the “r” in Qur’an, or else should be left out entirely: Quran. For that matter, you can spell it Qoran or Qor’an or Kuran, Kur’an, Koran, Kor’an, Cor’an, etc. — but the apostrophe, if used, belongs right after the “r.” (The apostrophe stands for the Arabic hamzah, which indicates a “glottal stop” — as in Cockney pronunciation of “city” as ci’y. And the glottal stop comes right between the “r” and the “a” in Qur’an.)
And people think I’m harsh and nasty for coining the monicker, “Christian Taliban”, three years ago. I saw this coming.
Muslims, (right??), are not the first, last, or the middle at finding “an excuse to be offended”. Some of us gay folk make that exercise a life-long career. 🙂
Actually, most all of us “look for an excuse to be offended” … sort of a natural thing to do … but, quite dishonest and uncharitable. Really a very self-defeating behavior.
And, yes, Throbert, thanks for showing us the correct spelling for Arabic words and letters.
Thanks for the spelling tips. The BBC seems to prefer Q’ran. So I’m glad to find out what’s correct.
Muslims, (right??), are not the first, last, or the middle at finding “an excuse to be offended”. Some of us gay folk make that exercise a life-long career. 🙂
Actually, most all of us “look for an excuse to be offended” … sort of a natural thing to do … but, quite dishonest and uncharitable. Really a very self-defeating behavior.
And, yes, Throbert, thanks for showing us the correct spelling for Arabic words and letters.
Thanks for the spelling tips. The BBC seems to prefer Q’ran. So I’m glad to find out what’s correct.
Okay, one final comment and then I’m done with this digression about Arabic spelling, I swear!
I suppose that if you’re a professional or freelance writer producing text that’s going to be submitted to an editor for publication, then the name of the Islamic holy book should start with a “Q” — this is consistent with the fact that we write Qatar, Iraq, and Kuwait, but not Katar, Irak, and Quwait. By the same reasoning, the name of that dude from Libya should also start with a “Q”.
In other words, when written in Arabic, the first letter of Quran is the same as the last letter of Iraq and the first letters of Qatar and Qaddafi — but different from the first letter of Kuwait.
But this is purely about making things a little more easy and consistent for English-speaking copy editors and database clerks, and has nothing whatsoever to do with spelling the Arabic “more correctly,” nor with trying to “show polite respect” to other people’s religious faith.
Adherents of Islam who claim that the spellings Moslem and Koran and Mohamet are somehow less respectful than Muslim and Quran and Muhammad are (at best) revealing their own ignorance of just how arbitrary alphabet-to-alphabet transliteration actually is, or (at worst) are looking for an excuse to be offended.
Addendum: Since the apostrophe stands for an actual written diacritic mark in the Arabic, putting it in the wrong place is like spelling Spanish señor as s~enor or se~nor or whatever, with the tilde just thrown in at random.
(On old ASCII terminals where ñ wasn’t supported, it was customary to use spellings like sen~or and jalapen~o, etc., but there was a strict convention that the ~ came immediately after the n, not before it.)
Urg, minor pet peeve — the apostrophe comes after the “r” in Qur’an, or else should be left out entirely: Quran. For that matter, you can spell it Qoran or Qor’an or Kuran, Kur’an, Koran, Kor’an, Cor’an, etc. — but the apostrophe, if used, belongs right after the “r.” (The apostrophe stands for the Arabic hamzah, which indicates a “glottal stop” — as in Cockney pronunciation of “city” as ci’y. And the glottal stop comes right between the “r” and the “a” in Qur’an.)
Okay, one final comment and then I’m done with this digression about Arabic spelling, I swear!
I suppose that if you’re a professional or freelance writer producing text that’s going to be submitted to an editor for publication, then the name of the Islamic holy book should start with a “Q” — this is consistent with the fact that we write Qatar, Iraq, and Kuwait, but not Katar, Irak, and Quwait. By the same reasoning, the name of that dude from Libya should also start with a “Q”.
In other words, when written in Arabic, the first letter of Quran is the same as the last letter of Iraq and the first letters of Qatar and Qaddafi — but different from the first letter of Kuwait.
But this is purely about making things a little more easy and consistent for English-speaking copy editors and database clerks, and has nothing whatsoever to do with spelling the Arabic “more correctly,” nor with trying to “show polite respect” to other people’s religious faith.
Adherents of Islam who claim that the spellings Moslem and Koran and Mohamet are somehow less respectful than Muslim and Quran and Muhammad are (at best) revealing their own ignorance of just how arbitrary alphabet-to-alphabet transliteration actually is, or (at worst) are looking for an excuse to be offended.
Addendum: Since the apostrophe stands for an actual written diacritic mark in the Arabic, putting it in the wrong place is like spelling Spanish señor as s~enor or se~nor or whatever, with the tilde just thrown in at random.
(On old ASCII terminals where ñ wasn’t supported, it was customary to use spellings like sen~or and jalapen~o, etc., but there was a strict convention that the ~ came immediately after the n, not before it.)
(Of course, I do respect the freedom of people to make what I, and many other Christians, consider to be heretical proposals! However, I also see it as my duty robustly to argue against them in the interests of the ‘common good’.)
‘Christians’ who want ‘Bible-based’ laws are actually heretics. The Word was made Flesh and, in his Person, fulfilled ‘Bible-based’ laws. Christians are called to move beyond such laws, and put people (and the environment of which they are stewards) first.
It is ‘theologically-consistent’ for Muslims to want laws based on the Q’uran; but Christians should never try to elevate any book above human life or life-chances.
In his introduction to the 1999 edition of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, the then Federal President, the late Johannes Rau, spoke of the need never to allow any ideology to take precedence over human life, life-chances or dignity. I suspect that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with him – at least in principle. The hard-won checks and balances of a pluralistic democracy provide the best mechanism for safeguarding these precious things – the evident problems of ‘western society’ notwithstanding.
As a reformed anti-religionist, or ex-“militant” atheist, I’m scared. As our economic woes envelope more of the middle-class, I wonder how much this type of theocratic worldview might be seen as a straw to clutch in the midst of calamity? And with the far-right seeing their moral compass eschewed by the younger generation, their desperate bid for victory over secularism will not be denied.
(Of course, I do respect the freedom of people to make what I, and many other Christians, consider to be heretical proposals! However, I also see it as my duty robustly to argue against them in the interests of the ‘common good’.)
‘Christians’ who want ‘Bible-based’ laws are actually heretics. The Word was made Flesh and, in his Person, fulfilled ‘Bible-based’ laws. Christians are called to move beyond such laws, and put people (and the environment of which they are stewards) first.
It is ‘theologically-consistent’ for Muslims to want laws based on the Q’uran; but Christians should never try to elevate any book above human life or life-chances.
In his introduction to the 1999 edition of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, the then Federal President, the late Johannes Rau, spoke of the need never to allow any ideology to take precedence over human life, life-chances or dignity. I suspect that the Founding Fathers would have agreed with him – at least in principle. The hard-won checks and balances of a pluralistic democracy provide the best mechanism for safeguarding these precious things – the evident problems of ‘western society’ notwithstanding.
As a reformed anti-religionist, or ex-“militant” atheist, I’m scared. As our economic woes envelope more of the middle-class, I wonder how much this type of theocratic worldview might be seen as a straw to clutch in the midst of calamity? And with the far-right seeing their moral compass eschewed by the younger generation, their desperate bid for victory over secularism will not be denied.
Do they want a Thonomy? If that’s what gets the money and votes in, yes, of course.
@ Stephen, Thanks for the tip. I will search for that on netflix.
At this time might I just recommend to readers here the most beautiful movie about faith I’ve ever seen. I don’t possess faith myself but this film allowed me to understand something of how it works: its burdens and its privileges. It’s profoundly beautiful, always surprising, and very moving. You might well have already seen it. It’s called Of Gods and Men. It’s French. And it’s a masterwork.
I bring it up because one gets so tired of these mental midgets wrapping themselves in the Bible with no understanding of what it is or what it means. I can only think that most people will react with contempt and derision to this foolery.
@ Stephen, Thanks for the tip. I will search for that on netflix.
At this time might I just recommend to readers here the most beautiful movie about faith I’ve ever seen. I don’t possess faith myself but this film allowed me to understand something of how it works: its burdens and its privileges. It’s profoundly beautiful, always surprising, and very moving. You might well have already seen it. It’s called Of Gods and Men. It’s French. And it’s a masterwork.
I bring it up because one gets so tired of these mental midgets wrapping themselves in the Bible with no understanding of what it is or what it means. I can only think that most people will react with contempt and derision to this foolery.
And people think I’m harsh and nasty for coining the monicker, “Christian Taliban”, three years ago. I saw this coming.