klaxn.com

Family Security Matters (a propaganda think tank for neo-conservatives, and the news front for the Center for Security Policy) published an article late last year that argued for making Bush “President-for-life” through a military coup and overthrow of the other branches of government. Recently they also published an article that is a perfect example of the assumptions of Americans regarding the problem of Islam. I want to respond to both of their articles here.

A little background

First, let me repost the original article by Philip Atkinson that called for the end of democracy in America. Let me warn you that Mr. Atkinson’s column was so ridiculous that it almost sounded fake. I originally thought that it was fake until I visited the article from the Family Security Matters website where it was posted in August of 2007. Family security matters took the article down a couple of days after it was originally posted, but the article is still available on many websites.

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

While democratic government is better than dictatorships and theocracies, it has its pitfalls. FSM Contributing Editor Philip Atkinson describes some of the difficulties facing President Bush today.

Conquering the Drawbacks of Democracy
By Philip Atkinson

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable – for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome – thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming “ex-president” Bush or he can become “President-for-Life” Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

Atkinson’s Problem With Democracy

Atkinson’s problem with democracy seems to be that democracy’s dictator is the people - Demos. I think Atkinson is adverse to the fact that when the majority rules (as in the case of democracy) they tend to aim for peace, not war, and individual freedom not tyranny. I do have to add that although the people generally side with peace, they aren’t always so kind. After 9/11 we were ready and willing to nuke the middles east. It only takes a little push to get the mob frothing at the mouth altogether. I don’t want to sound like I’m defending Demos, because I’m not. Demos can be just as bad, if not worse, than a single tyrant.

Atkinson’s Real Problem is That He Doesn’t Understand Theocracy.

Note that Mr. Atkinson states that Democracy - with all of its problems (including its not allowing for dictatorships) - is to be preferred over theocracy. However, what he doesn’t seem to understand is the simple fact that a dictatorship is a theocracy - the god is the dictator. I realize that most people imagine that “God” must be understood simply as an invisible deity, and so they cannot see how a dictator may be understood as a god. This diversionary understanding of God allows us to more easily compartmentalize “religion” - the meaning of which is also misunderstood - from the rest of life. The authority of the system - whether a societal system or another - is the God of that system. God is simply the one to whom we are ultimately accountable and subservient. Your authority is your God, and your religion is the life you live under that authority. When Atkinson says that Democracy is to be preferred over theocracy he is making it clear that Demos (the People) is to be preferred to the True God. He wants a god, he just doesn’t want The God.

Christians in America seem to agree. We love democracy…we’re supposed to. We’re told at every turn that we are protecting democracy, forwarding democracy, pursuing democracy, and spreading democracy. This is all propaganda. We speak as if democracy is the benefactor of peace, and prosperity, when it is the Father of Jesus Christ who is the benefactor. I wonder if most Christians would deny Christ his place as king if given that option. How many would say with Israel, we have no King but Caesar?

Whatever problems Mr. Atkinson has with democracy (It doesn’t allow for military dictatorship) what he’s really afraid of is God having something to say about his religion - the way he lives his life. He’d rather Demos have authority - although preferably a militant dictator - than Jesus Christ.

The Real Problem With Democracy

If, by some chance, you’re having trouble understanding what my problem with democracy is I’ll spell it out. Democracy - rule by the People - has the wrong God. It’s humanistic, not Trinitarian.

The Wrong Problem with Islam

Family Security Matters recently posted another article. This recent article, by Ron Marlar discusses why Islam is a problem. According to Ron Marlar Islam is a problem because it is theocratic, and is opposed to democracy. Again, Marlar provides an example of the common misunderstanding of democracy. Democracy is, in fact, a form of theocracy, with Demos as the god of the system. It’s a simple question of authority. The system derives its name from its authority, its God.

Marlar remarks that, “To begin our understanding, we should know that Islam is much more than a religion; it is a doctrine of law that governs all areas of life,”

Religion is a doctrine of law that governs all of life. Religion is beliefs, and practices, and has everything to do with the way we live our lives. Atheism is a religion of self-law. Democracy is religion of majority-opinion-law. Islam is a system of law provided by the Qur’an. Theonomy, Biblical theocracy, is a system of law derived from the Bible.

For Marlar and many Americans religion is to be a matter of private beliefs about “spiritual”, “immaterial” things; beliefs that have nothing to do with the rest of life. However, this compartmentalization of life is impossible. Life is organic, and beliefs cannot be separated one from another. We can make distinctions, but we cannot separate. Religion is our beliefs and practices, and that pretty much sums up all of life.

Marlar adds, “there exists within Islam no Western concept of the separation of church and state.”

This really isn’t true, there is a separation between Church and state in Islam - it’s just not the kind of separation Marlar and Americans like. What modern America means by separation of Church and state is the separation of religion and state. However, again, this is impossible. Religion is our beliefs about life, and thus our state is a part of our religion, our beliefs. So, Marlar is right to say that there is no “Western” concept of separation of Church and State. No, Muslims are too thoughtful to believe that somehow states are exempt from having religion.

“Therefore, the form of government under which many Muslims live is a theocracy…far from a democracy, which is the form of government under which we thrive in the West.”

We’re thriving? I suppose Marlar would call living under a Fascist (National Socialist) government that does well at convincing us it’s not fascist is, in fact, thriving.

Marlar has a serious problem with Islamic punishements,

We are seeing and hearing of Shar’ia law as our awareness of Islam grows. It is the cutting off of hands of thieves; the elimination of homosexuals; the stoning to death, burying alive or beheading of women, even those who are so slack as to be raped, even by multiple men at one time.

I’m curious on what basis Marlar opposes Islam’s penology? Is it his word against theirs? Well, yeah it is. This, again, is a question of authority. On what basis is Islam wrong here? A large portion of the world is Muslim, thus it seems that a proponent of democracy would be forced to say that they have a right to practice their believes where they are the majority. Marlar is arguing for democracy isn’t he? Why doesn’t he own up and be consistent then? If we are to be ruled by majority opinion, then there is no logically consistant argument against Islamic law being established wherever they are the majority. More than that, the democratic proponent would have to say that the law system established by the majority is good by the very nature of it’s being the majority opinion. That is what democracy means. Islamic law isn’t wrong because it is not the majority opinion in the west, it’s wrong because the Triune God has declared it so.

The Right Problem With Islam

The problem we ought to have with Islam is that it’s not Christian. Islam is simply wrong from beginning to end because the Triune God says so. Thus Islam’s law, with which it hopes to take over the world (Marlar is correct about that) is illegitimate. Christians also look forward to “taking over the world’, but with a legitimate law. The Law of the true God. The Law of the Gospel. The means used by Christians are also legitimate where Islam’s means are not. Islam was created and propagated by a warrior who killed millions of Jews and Christians who got in his way. The means of Islam are inherently militant. The God of the Bible is a different kind of God. The Triune God is eternally communal and gracious. Islam’s [fake] god - Allah - is an eternally lonely God (existing as one person), and entirely violent towards outsiders. He is not a God who would take on the punishment deserved by others because of their disobedience.

Marlar is correct to be critical of Islam for its seemingly endless focus on death. However, not for the right reasons. Marlar seems to assume that Islam is wrong for it’s violence and killing of millions of “unbelievers”. Again, I would like to find out why Islam is wrong for being violent. If it is the majority view of Muslims in the middle east that they should act violently towards Jews and Christians, then their system of government is the same as ours, and if right and wrong, and laws, are to be determined by majority rule, then on what basis does Marlar assume their law and beliefs are wrong.

Again, Marlar is being inconsistent. He wants democracy unless that democracy disagrees with him - which is not democracy at all. What he really wants is a Marlar-ocracy.

The argument that needs to be had is about who has the proper authority. An authority, law, ethic, or belief system based on majority opinion is epistemologically unsound, and un-Biblical. Mankind is not the final authority. The Triune God is.

Adam Naranjo

(+1 rating, 1 votes)
 Loading ...

Popularity: 69%