I remember reading an article about societal reformation, and the clear process of how nations descend into totalitarianism. The underlying principle below is that there is no lasting freedom without a Judeo Christian people (i.e. virtuous) and outlook. This may sound crazy, but look around the world and ask yourself, what countries really have the greatest freedoms? The Communists? The Islamists? “Secularist” Turkey? The African countries torn by war? Or the xian ones?
THE DESCENT:
- Christians cease being salt and light.
- Society abandons biblical principle in favor of some other, usually humanistic or naturalistic standard.
- Societal values become subjective, and perverted by the fallen nature of man, virtue declines, and immorality (sexual, moral, financial) ensues.
- Society becomes chaotic, markets fail, fear ensues
- To bring order, a military and/or religious military crackdown ensues, ushering in a totalitarian govt to keep order.
THE ASCENT:
- Christians return to God personally, and begin to affect their communities with service and preaching
- More people become Christians, returning virtue to society.
- People begin desiring a free government, and begin to demand it.
- Leaders emerge, and some usually die in the effort to shake the militants from power.
- Free government is restored, along with freedom of religion and speech, etc.
And by the way, I believe this is what we are seeing in France, and will see across Europe if they don't experience a revival of Christianity.
In fact, the chaos in Paris was so bad that citizens began forming armed militias because they did not believe that the govt could handle the problem. It's time for France to have a revival, or descend into tyranny.
Wow, was this pulled directly from the plotline of Kirk Cameron's "Left Behind"? Strange how I could change the word "Christian" for "Environmentalist" and end up with the plot for "The Day After Tomorrow". Have you actually unlocked the magic formula that Hollywood producers use for Apocolypic movies? We'll make a goldmine!
I would say that your assessment of the Christian moral structure's role in shaping civilized life on this planet a bit overblown. Both the Romans and Greeks had enlightened societies without any Christian influence (at least in its beginnings and heyday) and had fairly hedonistic religous practices by our standards.
In short, I don't buy it… sounds like alarmist, self-serving neo-con doctrine to me. (IMHO) :)
Seeker, it seems like you're ignoring the fact that Christianity did nothing to prevent tyranny for virtually its entire 2000 year existence. Representative in Western nations is a relatively recent development. And most of those nations have been Christian for quite a long time. How do you explain that?
Also, France is an awful example to support your claims with. First, France is not a tyrannical state, nor does it show any signs at all of becoming one, for basically any definition of the word "tyranny". Second, France has been an essentially secular nation for almost as long as the USA has been independent. If they've stopped being "the salt and vinegar", why are they still a powerful nation with a liberal, representative government?
Frankly, I don't see any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims. You cite African and Islamic countries, but to use them as proof of your theory we would have to entirely ignore the all-too-recent and ongoing imperialism of Western, Christian nations.
Additionally, as Louis pointed out, throughout history most of the world's powerful empires have been non-Christian. The notable exceptions are England and the US. In fact, counter to your argument, the height of Rome's economic and cultural achievements took place before its conversion to Christianity. I'm not actually blaming the fall of Rome on Constantine's conversion, but it hardly asserts your position.
Louis? Did I say Louis? I meant "Evil Lonnie"… My mistake!
Seeker,
Christianity DOES NOT CREATE freedoms for all. It creates freedoms for you, personally, because you live according to a very specific set of laws in the Bible (except when you chose to ignore them, because they'd be a pain. See: everything in the Old Testament.) But Christianity limits my freedoms, because I can't watch what I want to watch, read what I want to read or screw who I want to screw.
You are proposing that freedom is achieved through a state designed specifically for Christians. That creates freedom for YOU, PERSONALLY. How you can't see that is absolutely beyond me.
(And for the millionth time, my proposed system creates far more freedom than yours does. You just don't like the idea of people different than you being free. In fact, you hate it. Why? Because you'd have no problem living under a Christian theocrat. You'd think it was "freeing." I'd think it was "theocracy.")
Sam, I don't know where to begin with you. So without creating a treatise (yet), I will have to make simple statements and back them up later.
1. Freedom without religion, esp. the xian religion, leads to rampant immorality, which eventually leads to social disorder (and then to totalitarianism, as I said). Your system lacks the ability to produce virtue in society. I could go quote mine many statements by the founders who felt (i.e. understood) that public virtue is necessary for the success of a nation, and that virtue is not possible without faith. Greater minds than you or me believed that, and here is our free nation, our free Xian nation, arguably, which you would like to denigrate by demoting it to a secular nation like France or Turkey.
2. Despite the lunatic ravings of both the far right and left, there is a vast difference between righting injustices like abortion and creating a theocracy. Aaron posted on this previously, and I think it is fair to say that evangelicals may step over the line, but they have no interest in a theocracy in a true sense.
Now, I can understand how this can be used as a slur – xians have certainly gone overboard with such ill-fated legislation as prohibition and sodomy laws, but again, I think that we have to decide by principle which things we criminalize (murder, including abortions past the point of personhood), which we regulate (tobacco, firearms, alcohol), and which we tolerate and neither condemn nor condone (homosexuality).
Like it or not, any society you live in, your rights are limited by the rights of others. You can bad-mouth people, but you can't slander. You can call me immoral, but you can't incite violence.
What rights are being taken away from you by xians? The right to buy smut? Nope. They just want it regulated. The right to screw who you want? No, they just won't give you a marriage license for screwing other men. You see, the freedoms you mentioned, YOU HAVE, and no one is trying to take them away from you, it's just that you've bought in to liberal paranoia.
And by the way, your contention about being selective about the OT has some merit, but there are good arguments for why xians choose. As said previously, the ceremonial and dietary laws were symbolic and done away with under the new covenant.
And while the moral law is still true, how it is followed, and the punishments for not follwing it are definitely not followed by xians now, and I'm not yet sure what logic (besides decency ;) compells xians to not call for capital punishment for gays and disobedient children. Go figure. I'll get back to you on that one. Needless to say, you probably will find the logic behind these choices "convenient" rather than logical, since you seem predisposed to fault-finding when it comes to xianity anyway. I'll waste my breath on you just because *I* want to know, and maybe others do too.