We maintain the principle that there can be no lasting prosperity if free competition exists in industry. Therefore, it is the business of government not only to legislate for a minimum annual wage and maximum working schedule to be observed by industry, but also to curtail individualism that, if necessary, factories shall be licensed and their output shall be limited.

I have dedicated my life to fight against the heinous rottenness of modern capitalism because it robs the laborer of this world’s goods. But blow for blow I shall strike against Communism, because it robs us of the next world’s happiness.

So, although Coughlin described himself as both anti-socialist and anti-Communist, he was in fact somewhere between “shocking pink” and “flaming Red” — presumably he would have supported Soviet Communism had it not been so oppressively atheistic, because on matters of economics, he totally supported centralized planning, nationalization of industries, etc.

Of course, he certainly wasn’t the only American public figure who was offended by Soviet attacks on religion (something bad in itself, obviously) without fully grasping how badly Soviet Communism sucked in practical terms as an economic system.

Also, he blamed International Jewish Bankers for the Great Depression, and enthusiastically promulgated The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in America…

StraightGrandmother = And what would the harm to Christians be in a ethocracy” That the Churces would loos their tax exempt status and have to pay real estate taxes (they get fire and police protection but don’t pay) like every other property owner? That their church business (drug and alcohol rehab centers, social services agencies) will be taxed if they make a profit, like any other business? That they will be forced to perform weddings for sexual minorities (will never happen ‘cuz of the 1st Amendment)? If I read the Constitution right we are to have TODAY a Republican Democracy that is based on HUMAN Rights (regardless if you think those rights derive from God or Secular Humanism).

StraightGrandmother = And what would the harm to Christians be in a ethocracy” That the Churces would loos their tax exempt status and have to pay real estate taxes (they get fire and police protection but don’t pay) like every other property owner? That their church business (drug and alcohol rehab centers, social services agencies) will be taxed if they make a profit, like any other business? That they will be forced to perform weddings for sexual minorities (will never happen ‘cuz of the 1st Amendment)? If I read the Constitution right we are to have TODAY a Republican Democracy that is based on HUMAN Rights (regardless if you think those rights derive from God or Secular Humanism).

I’ve never before come across Romans being used to ‘justify’ executing anyone … wildly extreme stuff. 🙁

I’ve never before come across Romans being used to ‘justify’ executing anyone … wildly extreme stuff. 🙁

But from the angle of systematical thinking I’d warn you: There’s not only the danger of “theocracy” as a ruthless enforcement of (more or less) christian values. I admit that I don’t know if theocracy is a real danger in the U.S. or if it is overestimated resp. stressed to divert from more urgent dangers. In any case, there’s as well the danger of “ethocracy” as a ruthless enforcement of values not based on Christianity but on “philosophical” or “scientific” reasons. And Christians have to protect themselves from ethocracy.

Force may be acceptable provisionally, if you are preparing for an agreement. But not as the normal state of affairs.

I think indeed, that the rule (or customs) of states ought to be limited by the rules of settlements and the rules of settlements by the rules of families. (That’s what the Catholic Church called “subsidiarism”: the more central unit shall only act if the smaller unit can’t solve its problems itself.) But you are right insofar as subsidiarism didn’t particularly refer to penal law (which early in history began to be a weapon of the more central unit against the smaller). (I’ve never thought much about penal law, since my anabaptist faith tells me, that Christians mustn’t have to do anything with it; but I see that I must find an answer which wouldn’t only convince anabaptists.)

I understand that at the moment it’s good for U.S. gays to support a strong federal government – the federal government being rather allowing for gays whereas one or the other single state might be rather harsh. Only, that’s momentary. At another time a federal government might be rather cautious and put on the brakes when one or the other single state would be much more allowing. Also: in order to find an agreement, you can never withdraw to the simple standpoint: “Is it good for the gays?”

But from the angle of systematical thinking I’d warn you: There’s not only the danger of “theocracy” as a ruthless enforcement of (more or less) christian values. I admit that I don’t know if theocracy is a real danger in the U.S. or if it is overestimated resp. stressed to divert from more urgent dangers. In any case, there’s as well the danger of “ethocracy” as a ruthless enforcement of values not based on Christianity but on “philosophical” or “scientific” reasons. And Christians have to protect themselves from ethocracy.