The Theocrat Replies

A little church with your state?

I received another email from the theocrat who wrote that email in the last post. She’s a little less derogatory, but no less ignorant, this time around.

What follows is her email (in blockquotes) and my replies (in regular text). (BTW, the ellipses are her punctuation style. They don’t represent excised text. You’re getting her full ignorance here!):

Okay, I  w-i-l-l w-r-i-t-e s-l-o-w s-o y-o-u c-a-n u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d…

I understood you quite clearly. It is you who has the comprehension problem.

Theocracy is what they have in Iran, you are right. But you missed the point…I don’t want to live in a place where theocracy “rules”

You most certainly do. That is what you are advocating when you try to promote your religion in the public space. I can only assume that is what you advocate, because that is the ONLY thing that my blog targets.

a nationalized religion, if you will. That is what separation of church and state is…having NO nationalized religion.

So then why are you advocating a national religion?

I want to live in a country free to CHOOSE my religion, not to have it forced on me.

Then don’t force yours on me.

If you feel like religion is being forced on you, then you should see someone — professionally, I mean. Maybe you’re paranoid of someone making you join a religion?

I’m not paranoid about anything. I have a clear understanding of the fundie agenda. If you don’t, you haven’t been paying attention. Just look up the Wedge Document, or just read what Tony Perkins or James Dobson or Pat Robertson are advocating.

Tell me, where do you get your guidance as to what is right or wrong?

And the old “morality comes from God” myth rears its ugly head again. If you’d study anthropology and sociology, you’d see that morality evolves over time to serve the needs of social cohesion. There’s lots of evidence that many animal species engage in altruistic behavior. Certainly all ape societies have complex rules of social engagement that keep their clans together, functioning, and able to fend off rivals. In fact, if you look at all social mammals, they all have rules of behavior that keep the packs orderly and functioning. Guess what. That’s where the basis of human morality comes from. The rest is a social construct formed by abstract thinking by community leaders for the betterment of the society. And those morals change over time. Don’t believe me? Read Leviticus.

Throughout history, there have been many societies that had never heard of your god or your “savior”, and they all functioned very well. Many of those societies had a better human rights record than their contemporary Christian neighbors. Face it. Your God could not have given them morality, because none of them even knew about him. Yet most of them functioned as well as, and some functioned better than, “Godly” Christian society.

And why should you get the last say and take my religion away and those of others who want to practice a religion?

If you feel like somebody is trying to take your religion away from you, then you should see someone — professionally, I mean. You clearly suffer from paranoid delusions.

Couldn’t you just see you in Iran, spouting off the way you do? You wouldn’t last a day.

Precisely. That’s why I’m fighting so hard to save this country from theocrats like you.

Please don’t send me links to your website to try and prove your point.

It wasn’t to prove my point. It was to try to educate you. To show you that I had already discussed those issues that you raised. You just proved to me (again) that you are only comfortable wallowing in your own ignorance. You don’t dare look outside your mudpit. It’s scary out there.

It’s like defining a word by using the word in the definition. Like a dog chasing its tail.

Then why are you even corresponding with me? I thought you wanted to know why I do what I do. It shouldn’t matter whether I write it in an email or send you a link to something I previously wrote. It’s the same content.

I also LOVE the irony of your last point. Tell me. How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?

irony meter

12 Responses to “The Theocrat Replies”

  1. Jeff Eyges Says:

    Your God could not have given them morality, because none of them even knew about him.

    She’ll just claim that he’s put knowledge of him in their hearts. You know – the same excuse they use to rationalize eternal damnation.

    That’s an old analog irony meter, btw, Ron. They’re only good ’til June – then you’ll have to invest in a digital model.

  2. Another Steve Says:

    For those of you who are not knuckle-dragging idiots, there’s a good article about how fundies “think” over at:

  3. 4ndyman Says:

    When you’re asked by a fundie where morality comes from, here’s a more concrete answer: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, Rousseau, Ayn Rand, Kurt Vonnegut, John Steinbeck, Ernest Hemingway, Harper Lee, Alice Walker, and the list goes on and on. The collective experience and imagination of humankind is a wonderful teacher, not to mention one’s own experiences and imagination.

  4. Parrotlover77 Says:

    I upgraded you, Ron. Now you don’t need to worry about the digital cut-off date. 😉

    digital irony meter

  5. Fundi-lusional Says:

    Ayn Rand and morality? I would NEVER look to her works for guidance on morals.

  6. Barbara Says:

    She’s great. I just wish she’d post on the blog so that we could gang bang her with intelligence.

  7. Chuck Says:

    Don’t you just LOVE playing with the fundies like that? I’m currently trying to show them why their prayer is nonesense on one of my friends’ facebook notes. It’s quite entertaining 😀

  8. Igor Says:

    She refers to “Islamo-fascism” in Iran. Maybe I’m just nitpicking but doesn’t Iran lean more towards socialism (or at least as socialist as you can be under a theocratic rule)? Similarly, most people of fundie persuasion who condemn Obama for bringing socialism to U.S. have no idea what it entails. I sense a trend emerging here.

  9. Barbara Says:

    I purposely keep one of my Facebook “friends” on there solely so that I can be amused by her jesus quotes. A friend has a sister who is the same way. It’s quite entertaining.
    It is a little bit like picking on the kid who rides the short bus, but I figure our big bus is open to them at any time, they just prefer to keep the helmet and the velcro shoes on.

  10. Lindsay Says:

    I find the same point interesting Igor…as “socialism” is thrown around as a bogeyman and they have absolutely no idea what it means. I suppose to them it is everything “not American.” For a while I thought the use would die out as people younger than say, 50 don’t recall any of McCarthy’s witch hunts. But the Republicans have been throwing it around so much it is catching on with their less savvy political base.

  11. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Igor – Fascism neither requires nor precludes socialism, from my understanding. If those who hold power (the government and/or large corporations that own the infrastructure) collude for the interest of themselves against the interest of society at large, forming a single party state/dictatorship, it’s fascist. The particulars of how the fascist state works are immaterial to the definition.

    The point is that those who throw around the word “islamo-fascist” have NO IDEA what fascism means. Then again, these are the same people who think the book Liberal Fascism makes any sense. If they can read, that is.

    As for what Iran is, that’s a complicated question. Iran has a very mixed society, just like the USA. You have everything from Sharia Law theocrats to extremely liberal western sympathizers. The government just happens to be run by the theocrats, unfortunately. Good thing the USA isn’t there…yet.

  12. Parrotlover77 Says:

    Lindsay – One would hope the usage would die out. Modern socialism is a lot more about protecting liberties than previous generations (probably more so than laissez-faire capitalists are these days).

    The commonality is the belief that there are many things the state can do better than private corporations, but very few modern socialists advocate for state ownership of everything (a la communism). Usually nowadays they just advocate for state ownership of the things we need to live, whereas luxuries / non-essentials are left to private industry. But the definition does vary from country to country.