Theocracy: God or Man?

The moral absolute for the twenty and twenty first century is "Toleration". The fear of many in proclaiming one's views to be "absolutely" right, is that we will eventually find ourselves walking in the way of fascism (or so it is said). The problem with this belief is that it is also an "absolute". People are labeled and criticized for not abiding to a particular view of toleration, and are labeled as "fundamentalist", Right-Wingers", "Christers". Obviously this sort of name calling is intolerable, but if the Tolerist are correct and what they believe is true, then the fight is a worthy cause.

The war is not really about toleration, the war is about absolute values. There is no escaping the almighty absolute, no matter how much of a tolerist you may believe yourself to be, at the very core of your being is an idea of the way reality truly is. This battle is currently being waged in America's political and media playgrounds. Relativism by its very nature can never truly win the battle because it philosophically and logically stands for nothing. What relativism can do is leave a gaping moral hole in society, in which competing absolutes will fight to fill. This is where I believe our nation currently stands. We are steeped in relativism, and because relativism does not provide a rational, moral framework for society to construct itself, the people must decide which one to build upon. This is the true road to fascism. If man is the measure, he can make his own moral measurements and enforce his absolutes with the uttermost cruelty and force.

Many are lamenting the "theocracy" that Christian conservatives are forcing down the American throat, but the lamentors are no different, they just want another god. Theocracy is inevitable. The problem is which god is going to rule. If man is truly the measure, then we are gods and an anthropomorphic theocracy is then valid. If man is not the measure and an absolute good God exist, then a divine theocracy is valid. There is no logical escape from theocracy. Even the constitution of the United States is theocratic in its pre-supposition. It pre-supposes that humans were "created" equal, and rights are fundamental and inalienable. If relativism is true, this is mere opinion and subject to change by whoever has the power. If a transcendent, good god exist, and humans have been created in his image and likeness, we are worthy of dignity, freedom, and accountability.

The fear-mongering and labeling is all part of the war game, and in my opinion, Christians should avoid the game and tear at the issue. Relativism and tolerance are not the issue; the issue is whose absolutes are going to be implemented. When the gay-rights activist fight for rights to marry and adopt children; they are fighting for the implementation of laws that are binding on everyone. They are also pre-supposing that there quest is "just" and "moral", and that regardless if we disagree, we should have to accept (legally) their point of view. When the pro-abortion advocates fight for a woman's right to end the life inside of her, they believe that all should be bound (legally) to accept this point of view. This is not relativism or tolerance. Like-wise, when the Christian seeks to protect the unborn or legally define the meaning of marriage as between a man and woman, we are proposing absolutes. Neither side is fundamentally tolerant. Each has an absolute they wish to see enforced, and all of the name calling and accused bigotry will not ultimately obscure that truth. TOTT