Republican Party = Christianity; why?

[brakelite]

I think that what we must acknowledge is that America as a nation and her founding fathers were embarking on a brand new revolutionary concept. Religious liberty, freedom of conscience. Coming from a Europe that was just emerging from over 1000 years of papal tyranny the founding fathers of your nation were establishing a nation with an exclusively protestant ethic, the freedom to worship in accordance to ones conscience (and the freedom not to worship if one so chose) even though it took some time for even protestants to learn. (I'm thinking Sunday blue laws). On that note you now have government sanctioned pastors ready to be servants to martial law and demand their congregants to obey govt in emergencies. They have sold out their people big time.
We as Christians have far more to fear from governments with a religious agenda (including 'Christian' agendas...read again Revelation 13:11-17) than any secular government. Interestingly, history tells us that Christian communities thrived very well under the rule of such as Genghis Khan, because he was neutral in matters of religion. (Although he was certainly less than tolerant with those who opposed him politically.)
I personally wouldn't worry about the removal of religious monuments etc from public places. I would far rather the Ten Commandments being written on the heart than on the local governor's front lawn.
One must remember that although the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and signed by and large by godly people (no matter their trinitarian perspectives), those documents were specifically designed to ensure freedom of conscience and religious liberty, even liberty for unbelievers. The US government as a political entity is not, nor ever was , a "Christian" government. And the only true hope for America is not in the "Christianizing" of the government, but in the heartfelt deep life-changing repentant soul-searching conversion of the individual American people.

 

[DogLady19]

I think that what we must acknowledge is that America as a nation and her founding fathers were embarking on a brand new revolutionary concept. Religious liberty, freedom of conscience. ...
One must remember that although the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written and signed by and large by godly people (no matter their trinitarian perspectives), those documents were specifically designed to ensure freedom of conscience and religious liberty, even liberty for unbelievers. The US government as a political entity is not, nor ever was , a "Christian" government. And the only true hope for America is not in the "Christianizing" of the government, but in the heartfelt deep life-changing repentant soul-searching conversion of the individual American people.

Good post!

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religious, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here." -Patrick Henry

s small elite group? You mean like the founding fathers? Washington DC was designed after free masonry - it is a monument to free masonry and deism. The constitution protected white male landowners - the elite protecting the elite

The founders of America far out-number the founding fathers. I agree with you about Washington DC... but the greatest (and earliest) monument to this new nation was designed after the gospel by the Pilgrims themselves.

http://providencefoundation.com/?page_id=3250

We are a republic. As such, those in gov't only have the power given to them by the People. I'm not denying freemason influence, but I am certainly not going to minimize the influence of the gospel and those who came here to establish religious freedom.

 

[pom2014]

"The founders of America far out-number the founding fathers. I agree with you about Washington DC... but the greatest (and earliest) monument to this new nation was designed after the gospel by the Pilgrims themselves. "

The founders of America far out-number the founding fathers. I agree with you about Washington DC... but the greatest (and earliest) monument to this new nation was designed after the gospel by the colonists themselves.

There fixed it for you.

 

[aspen]

I agree with you DL, but I see many Christians over interpreting the Christian influence of the founding Fathers - it seems to me that they were worried about all the religious folks like the Puritans and the Quakers (abolisionism) and later the Shakers and Mormons from taking away our freedoms and replacing it with theocracy. Take the Mor on wars for example. The founders wanted freedom of religion.
Mormon wars

 

[brakelite]

USA Treaty with Tripoli 1796 Article 2
"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
This was signed by George Washington, who also said.....
"Every man who conducts himself as a good citizen is accountable alone to God for his religious faith, and should be protected in worshiping God according to the dictates of his conscience."

To my mind, and this is the foundation of why I admire true American republicanism as opposed to democracy, Washington's idea of protecting minorities is the heart and soul of the purpose of government. Democracy is the opposite, where the majority holds sway over the minority and is just another form of tyranny. This does not apply however to personal morality or financial administration etc. Too much power is given to minorities such as LGBT, environmentalists, bankers, corporations, politicians, lobbying groups, and the federal reserve, to name a few. There is a vast and immense difference between a minority which simply desires to serve God and worship according to conscience without demanding anyone else through legislation or force of will to follow suit, and minorities who not only desire to follow their own agendas, but seek everyone else to step aside and give up their rights and freedoms to allow them free reign.

There is a group which is at the moment a minority, but which may not be for much longer. Here are some samples of their thoughts and attitudes to American republicanism, which they detest.

"It was proposed that all religious persuasions should be free and their worship publicly exercised. But we have rejected this article as contrary to the canons and councils of the first Catholic Church." Pope Pius VII 1808

"The absurd and erroneous doctrines or ravings in defense of the liberty of conscience are a ,most pestilential error - a pest of all others most to be dreaded in any state." Pope Pius IX 15.8.1854

"The state has not the right to leave every man free to embrace whatever religion he shall deem true...the church has the right to require that the Catholic religion shall be the only religion of the state to the exclusion of all others. " Pius IX Dec. 1864

"Let those who assert liberty of conscience and religious worship...and all such as that maintain that the church may not employ force, let him be anathema". Pius IX 8.12.1864

According to Time magazine 17.6.1991, Pope John Paul II during his tour of Poland in 1987, denounced excessive materialism and the separation of church and state.

It is not just the leaders who seem to have bought into this mind-set. The Catholic News on the 25.7.1963 said in an editorial..."I want to hear some American stand up and shout, 'give us justice, give us decency, and to hell with the constitution' ".

Aa far as freedom of conscience and worship is concerned, America's greatest threat does not come from Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Palestine, or ISIL. It comes from Rome.
As Benjamin Franklin once said, when religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and when God does not see fit to take care of it, that it has to appeal to the civil power for support,, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one. (Or words to that effect)

And as Abraham Lincoln said, "Familiarize yourself with the chains of bondage and you prwepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant to arise among you.

Speaking of Abraham Lincoln, I strongly recommend a book available free online entitled 50 Years in the church of Rome by Charles Chiniquy. Read and discover an amazing connection between this ex priest of Rome and the young lawyer Lincoln.

 

[pom2014]

For years in the states the protestants ruled, set oppressive policies and did as they willed.

Now that you're becoming a marginalised part of society you feel threatened and so lash out at your so called oppressors as they finally can have a voice.

Well we had the same issue in the UK with former colonies becoming eligible for more rights. We too had people push back because they were losing their power.

This its the common reaction when people that have become fat and lazy with power realise they won't be on top anymore.

To which I can only say, adapt or become irrelevant. For the WASPS of the states I would recommend that if you'd like to have another walled garden again, well I hear Montana, north Dakota and Wyoming have lots of land far from the undesirables you seek to be free from.

 

[brakelite]

For years in the states the protestants ruled, set oppressive policies and did as they willed.

Yes, it is true that it took some time for the early protestants of the US to learn the true meaning of religious liberty. The constitution showed that at least those who signed and supported the constitution, had learned.

Now that you're becoming a marginalised part of society you feel threatened and so lash out at your so called oppressors as they finally can have a voice.

I am not American, nor do I live there, so I am not sure what you mean by this. Are Americans lashing out at 'oppresors' (do you mean Islam) because Islam 'finally' has found a voice? They've been perscuting Christians for over a thousand years Pom. Hardly 'finally'.

Well we had the same issue in the UK with former colonies becoming eligible for more rights. We too had people push back because they were losing their power.

Becoming eligible??? Britains former colonies were always eligible Pom ...they have always had God given rights to self rule and independence...who did not have the right to butcher to the point of genocide entire communities and tribes was the power hungry and land lusting gold hungry murderers of the British empire who reduced former thriving independent indigineous peoples to a few miniscule reservations and continuing servitude to corporate greed and European government. They didn't push back because they were losing their power Pom...they pushed back because they were systematically being destroyed. And are still reaping the consequences. The only good thing that came with British colonialism was the gospel. Pity the lords and ladies back in Britain didn't listen to people such as the missionaries when it came to decisions on who has rights.

This its the common reaction when people that have become fat and lazy with power realise they won't be on top anymore.

Who are you talking about here? You saying that the aborigines of Australia, or the native Americans, or the Maori, or the Indians, or the Burmese, or the Zulu,were fat and lazy and somehow didn't deserve to rule their own lands without the gratuitous and overbearing self-serving murderous genocidal wisdom of the Kings and Queens of Britain?

To which I can only say, adapt or become irrelevant. For the WASPS of the states I would recommend that if you'd like to have another walled garden again, well I hear Montana, north Dakota and Wyoming have lots of land far from the undesirables you seek to be free from.

Again, I am not American so not sure what you are saying here. But it sounds somewhat cold and paternalistic to me.

 

[DogLady19]

pom and brakelite, I think you both make very valid (and powerful!) points... Notice that we have an entire archive of quotes from those who ruled, but quotes from those who came to America to be set free (and those who were already free) from oppressive rulers are few and far between, and they are rarely taught in schools with any emphasis. Those who were annihilated had their voices also annihilated. The REAL lovers of liberty still do not have a voice today.

If a person or people really love liberty, they will automatically understand and defend the liberty of everyone else, not just themselves or people just like themselves. If liberty does not apply to ALL people, it applies to none, because you cant say live in the "Land of Liberty" when your neighbor is oppressed, marginalized, disenfranchised, and/or annihilated.

Liberty means that the smallest member of society has the same power as the biggest member of society. The poor man's rights are protected as fiercely as the rich man's. The religious are no more privileged than the non-religious.

This is something that the GOP has long forgotten in their race to the seats of power and influence which should not even exist in a liberty-loving republic! To me, my gov't is a sham, and has scant resemblance to the gov't the oppressed colonists envisioned when they came to this continent.

"If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian he can live in peace. There need be no trouble. Treat all men alike. Give them the same laws. Give them all an even chance to live and grow... You might as well expect all rivers to run backward as that any man who was born a free man should be contented penned up and denied liberty to go where he pleases...

Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade... where I choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty." -Chief Joseph, Nez Pierce

 

[michaelvpardo]

s small elite group? You mean like the founding fathers? Washington DC was designed after free masonry - it is a monument to free masonry and deism. The constitution protected white male landowners - the elite protecting the elite

According to a book written by one of their own, The Builders, A Story and Study of Masonry by Joseph Fort Newton, (available for free to Amazon Prime members and on the Kindle), published back in 1914, George Washington was sworn in as the 1st president of the USA by the great master of New York, "taking his oath on a Masonic Bible" (and at the trinity church in lower Manhattan, just a few blocks from the site of the World Trade Center.) Another author asserts that all the presidents (at least up through Garfield) were members of the order of the Knights Templar (and you have to be a Free Mason before becoming a Templar). This isn't all that strange since the Royals of England have all been members of Free Masonry for hundreds of years, the King of England often the grand master of the Order of the Dragon. Its nice to see that the founders followed the traditions of their homes of origin. In the past I wondered why the architects that designed the twin towers bothered to erect two identical towers in close proximity to each other, but having read a bit about the symbolism of Free Masonry (also available for free to Amazon Prime members) I discovered that one of the more significant symbols of free masonry are "the two pillars," small versions of which are erected in various places in England and Scotland. I don't wonder about the choice of "twin" towers anymore, nor do I wonder about the curious statements made by our current president in regard to the destruction of the towers and the rebuilding of the site in lower Manhattan (actually quoting from scripture (see the book titled "the Harbinger").) The agency that I work for employs a lot of engineers to build and support the infrastructure for transportation in and out of the Metro area and you might be surprised at the number of peculiar "handshakes" I've been the recipient of at work. They might not control the world, but they certainly try to, and it doesn't hurt to be part of a global "good old boy" network. They also tend to be pretty well leveraged into the fraternity system in US colleges, especially the Ivy league ones, so its not surprising that the wealthy elitist types that end up in political office are more often than not "frat boys" and connected very deeply to the Masonic orders.
You might also be interested to know that the Free Masons have their own "prophesies" of a utopian kingdom upon the Earth, which many of them are working hard to establish. However their kingdom is not the one to be ruled by Christ at His return. Many of them see themselves as the hand of God at work in the world. To quote one of their former members, John Ruskin, right out of the opening pages of a series of stone masons guides titled Audels Masons and Builders Guides, "When we build, let us think that we build forever. Let It not be for present delight nor for present use alone. Let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for; and let us think, as we lay stone to stone, that a time is to come when those stones will be held sacred because our hands touched them, and that men will say, as they look upon the labor and wrought substance of them, "See! This our father did for us.""
Let no one be fooled by the fact that Masonic temples typically have a bible displayed prominently for all to see. The Masons value the bible for its symbolism, not for its message, and believe themselves the inheritors of a system of belief predating Christianity and traditionally linked to the builders of "Solomon's temple". Since the larger part of their tradition is verbal, secretive, and not committed to paper, its impossible to validate the assertions about their origin, but from a biblical point of view its safe to say that those origins are imagined at best and demonic at worst.

 

[Keeth]

For years in the states the protestants ruled, set oppressive policies and did as they willed.

Now that you're becoming a marginalised part of society you feel threatened and so lash out at your so called oppressors as they finally can have a voice.

Well we had the same issue in the UK with former colonies becoming eligible for more rights. We too had people push back because they were losing their power.

This its the common reaction when people that have become fat and lazy with power realise they won't be on top anymore.

To which I can only say, adapt or become irrelevant. For the WASPS of the states I would recommend that if you'd like to have another walled garden again, well I hear Montana, north Dakota and Wyoming have lots of land far from the undesirables you seek to be free from.

None, who are overly concerned with being relevant in this world, will be relevant in the next one.

 

[DogLady19]

Good article cited below that I see reflects the long-term influence of the Church on this nation's current social state... and it's NOT pretty... There should be some sense of responsibility by God's people to lead by example! Ye shall know them by their works!:

Looking at a US historic timeline from 1829 to 2015, "there are so many race-related riots listed for these 186 years that, from a historical point of view, rioting appears almost normal... mostly involv[ing] ethnic, racial or religious groups going after each other..."

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/05/09/the-reasons-for-urban-rioting/

 

[newlife]

The political views of politicians who can win elections in the UK and the US for that matter probably most closely mirror those of David Cameron. On economic issues he is conservative, some would say pragmatically conservatve rather then dogmatic in his views favoring a smaller public sector and freer markets. He is liberal on social issues again mirroring current trends among the voting public. An example of a similar politician in the US would be Andrew Cuomo. The Republican Party in the US remains closely attached to the evangelical right on social issues, at least at this point, which will become a drag on its ability to win the support of independent voters who tend to be liberal on social issues. My guess is that the Republican Party which at its core is primarily concerned with economic issues will in time begin to distance itself from the evangelical right as the number of people who believe in traditional Christian values continues to erode away.

In the coming election I do not expect the Republicans to nominate someone closely identified with the evangelical community like Mike Huckabee, although he may do well once again in some primaries and caucases in the Southeast and parts of the Midwest. If they did nominate him or someone like him they would likely lose the election. With issues like gay marriage receiving so much notice there could be problems ahead for Republicans. You can bank on Democrats and the media spotlighting issues like this during the general election. In the general election the Republican candidate will have to walk a tightrope giving enough lipservice to evangelicals, a significant part of their party base, yet at the same time not appearing homophobic.

In the end evangelicals in the US will have nowhere else to go if their love affair with the Republican Party turns sour. The Democratic Party would be even less hospitable. Beacuse of the way the American political system is structured third parties don't work. If evangelicals fielded a third party candidate they couldn't win and they would only help the Democrats and hurt the Republicans. They could drop out and many evangelicals in the past did not vote considering it too worldly. Howver most will continue to vote Republican. As the price to pay becomes high some evangelicals will come around to supporting gay marriage and compromise on other issues as well. There is a price to pay for being too vocal. You may, for example, lose your job or be thrown out of college. If you have a family to support or you want to get ahead financially the cost may be too high and you may decide to go along with the flow.

Pom 2014 has made a valid point Christians are becoming marginalized not ony in the US but even more so in Europe. It can also be validly argued that a great many of those who identified with Christianity in the past had only a superficial form of Christianity. However these are new times in which the old values and beliefs are being turned on their head. To be a real Christian in the US and Europe in the future may in fact mean that you will need to accept some real persecution. We have had a fat pampered form of Christianity with our prosperity gospels while Christians in other lands and times have been martyred for their faith. The latter is probably closer and truer to the Christianity of the Gospels and the Book of Acts. This Christian decline has been a process occuring for centuries but has recently accelerated and is more developed in Europe then the US. Early America certainly had strong Christian influences and perhaps even foundations but many of its early leaders as well as documents were influenced by Enlightenment philosophy which was itself a reaction against orthodox Christianity.

I would be interested in finding out if Pom 2014 is a Christian.

 

[Keeth]

For years in the states the protestants ruled, set oppressive policies and did as they willed.

Now that you're becoming a marginalised part of society you feel threatened and so lash out at your so called oppressors as they finally can have a voice.

Well we had the same issue in the UK with former colonies becoming eligible for more rights. We too had people push back because they were losing their power.

This its the common reaction when people that have become fat and lazy with power realise they won't be on top anymore.

To which I can only say, adapt or become irrelevant. For the WASPS of the states I would recommend that if you'd like to have another walled garden again, well I hear Montana, north Dakota and Wyoming have lots of land far from the undesirables you seek to be free from.

Relating the facts of history, and present dangerous developements, is not lashing out. It is simply giving warning about what we already know is approaching. Go to, remain relevant in this world. Those who will remain true to God will not bend the knee, let those who remain overly concerned with being the relevant ones in and of this world do what they do, and have always done. The sooner, the better, let's get this over with. This will be the last time.

 

[pom2014]

For years in the states the protestants ruled, set oppressive policies and did as they willed.

Yes, it is true that it took some time for the early protestants of the US to learn the true meaning of religious liberty. The constitution showed that at least those who signed and supported the constitution, had learned.

No the protestants have not learned. If it were not for amendments to the US law, they would STILL desire they way of running things and leave all other ethnic groups, genders and creeds in the 2nd and 3rd class citizen category.

Now that you're becoming a marginalised part of society you feel threatened and so lash out at your so called oppressors as they finally can have a voice.

I am not American, nor do I live there, so I am not sure what you mean by this. Are Americans lashing out at 'oppresors' (do you mean Islam) because Islam 'finally' has found a voice? They've been perscuting Christians for over a thousand years Pom. Hardly 'finally'.


No they are lashing out at ethnic groups, primarily, and those counter-culture people that now have a voice in the affairs of state.

Well we had the same issue in the UK with former colonies becoming eligible for more rights. We too had people push back because they were losing their power.

Becoming eligible??? Britains former colonies were always eligible Pom ...they have always had God given rights to self rule and independence...who did not have the right to butcher to the point of genocide entire communities and tribes was the power hungry and land lusting gold hungry murderers of the British empire who reduced former thriving independent indigineous peoples to a few miniscule reservations and continuing servitude to corporate greed and European government. They didn't push back because they were losing their power Pom...they pushed back because they were systematically being destroyed. And are still reaping the consequences. The only good thing that came with British colonialism was the gospel. Pity the lords and ladies back in Britain didn't listen to people such as the missionaries when it came to decisions on who has rights.

Those that were part of the former empire had no real rights outside of being members of the empire. No real vote or voice until after WWII. Once they gained more independence and rights, loyalists, mainly tories, were up in arms for a good deal of the 20th century that "johnnie" should have a voice. Even the colour of the skin was in great contention. And NOW there are still bigoted people, under the guise of patriotism, that would rather keep Britain for the British. Which is hogwash seeing most British now have more German and French blood than British. The royals themselves are German. To say Britain for Brits only is the height of hypocrisy.

This its the common reaction when people that have become fat and lazy with power realise they won't be on top anymore.

Who are you talking about here? You saying that the aborigines of Australia, or the native Americans, or the Maori, or the Indians, or the Burmese, or the Zulu,were fat and lazy and somehow didn't deserve to rule their own lands without the gratuitous and overbearing self-serving murderous genocidal wisdom of the Kings and Queens of Britain?

I am saying that the WASPs of the states were the fat, lazy people that reveled in their power and let it go to their heads. They do not desire to give up the power they are losing through equal rights legislation. The TEA party is another group like them, mostly WASP and old that pine for the days when they were the unspoken master race of the states. They are ill educated louts that have no idea that during the 1950's that they were children in, yanks paid more tax than they do now. But nostalgia is not known for reality,

To which I can only say, adapt or become irrelevant. For the WASPS of the states I would recommend that if you'd like to have another walled garden again, well I hear Montana, north Dakota and Wyoming have lots of land far from the undesirables you seek to be free from.

Again, I am not American so not sure what you are saying here. But it sounds somewhat cold and paternalistic to me.


Yes it is cold. But truth is often cold comfort when it removes the rose coloured lenses and reveals the harsh reality of life. Everyone needs to change with their times. I could have easily pounded my fist and said no digital this or that, no computers and just give me old fashioned TV and print media. But instead I embraced the technology and now receive far more information at a faster rate than I ever had in the past. Change is NOT always bad nor painful.

 

[pom2014]

Relating the facts of history, and present dangerous developements, is not lashing out. It is simply giving warning about what we already know is approaching. Go to, remain relevant in this world. Those who will remain true to God will not bend the knee, let those who remain overly concerned with being the relevant ones in and of this world do what they do, and have always done. The sooner, the better, let's get this over with. This will be the last time.

Keeth,

These people I speak of fear change because they do not wish to lose their status and power in this world as they have had it for years.

They fear having to, as it were, start from the bottom, when they sit at the top.

Their sunset has come and it is time to move on into the night and await the next morning of a brand new day.

I understand their fear, I do not pity nor support that fear. It is the fear of ignorance.

 

[DogLady19]

Their sunset has come and it is time to move on into the night and await the next morning of a brand new day.

That is so true!

I say we vote out and/or impeach en masse, and rid our gov't of anyone who had a position of power within the 20th century.

Fresh meat! Fresh start! Fresh Return to the spirit of the US Constitution!

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." --Thomas Jefferson

"The strength of the Constitution lies in the will of the people to defend it." --Thomas Edison

 

[newlife]

There are many concepts today almost universally accepted in the West such as republican government which are not Biblical. The primary authors of the American Constitution, like Jefferson and Franklin were deists. The foundations of American government were influenced by enlightenment phiolosphy, which was itself a reaction against orthodox Christianity and is the basis of secularism. The Biblical ideal is theocracy. God can however work with various systems of government if that government is committed to Him and His principles, as He did with the kings of Israel although He did not favor monarchy. He punished His people however when they persistently disobeyed. There is an obvious drift away from Biblical principles to Godless secularism and God is not pleased with this. In much of Europe Christianity is marginalized. This is the trend. We are moving toward a society much like the pagan Roman Empire in which true Christians are a marginalized minority. Much like Hellenistic culture there are now an array of philosphies to pick and choose from. Humanism/ atheism is increasingly moving toward dominance. Increasingly in Europe people may identify with a Chrisitian denomination or other traditional organized group, say Catholicism, however it is more of a title, part of their heritage but no longer something vital and that has much meaning in their life. They may no longer even believe in its creeds doctrines or values, attend church or do so rarely.

I am not advocating revolution or abolition of our current government. We are instructed to pray for our leaders. However we must remember that we are only sojourners here and our true citizenship is not of this world.

 

[DogLady19]

The Biblical ideal is theocracy. God can however work with various systems of government if that government is committed to Him and His principles, ...This is the trend. We are moving toward a society much like the pagan Roman Empire in which true Christians are a marginalized minority. Much like Hellenistic culture there are now an array of philosphies to pick and choose from. Humanism/ atheism is increasingly moving toward dominance. ...

I am not advocating revolution or abolition of our current government. We are instructed to pray for our leaders. However we must remember that we are only sojourners here and our true citizenship is not of this world.

We will never have a gov't that is not influenced by religious ideology... unless we only have people in gov't without souls...

God prefers a theocracy for Himself. I really don't think He cares what form of gov't humans have. It is up to the people to put God first in their own lives, then they will naturally choose godly/moral people to run their gov't.

 

[newlife]

Ancient Israel and Judah were theocracies even under their kings. Judaism was the official religion and laws were based on its principles in theory if not always in practice. David although not always perfect in his actions was a man after God's heart and Jesus' lineage could be traced to David through Joseph. Some kings were Godly and others were not. The period of the Judges which preceded monarchy was made up of some exemplary Judges, eg, Samuel, Deborah, as well as some not so exemplary. The point I am making is that leadership by men and women full of the Holy Spirit is I believe God's perfect will and includes people like Samuel, Deborah, Joshua and Moses. Contemporary political systems are I believe far from God's will and are waxing ever more corrupt. We are to be a light in the darkness, sojourners in a land not our own, laborers seeking to save the lost but not a part of the world system.

 

[StanJ]

We will never have a gov't that is not influenced by religious ideology... unless we only have people in gov't without souls...

God prefers a theocracy for Himself. I really don't think He cares what form of gov't humans have. It is up to the people to put God first in their own lives, then they will naturally choose godly/moral people to run their gov't.

We indeed will have a theocracy when Jesus returns and when we are in the new earth. Until then the best we can have is a democracy. Islamic states are nothing more than Ecclesiastical states, just as the Vatican is. GOD does not rule in either.