Turek on Theocracy

As Right Wing Watch notes, Frank Turek — the Christian motivational speaker who keeps getting fired by companies for his anti-gay activities — argues that Christians don’t want theocracy, they just want the government to enforce Biblical moral laws on people who don’t believe in them. Because that’s totally different from theocracy.


"That always gets me. Someone will be speaking perfectly normally, then suddenly they start talking ..."

Wallnau: If Dems Win Midterms, an ..."
""Anyone can be sued for a tort..."How about a Danish, or a nice Bagel with ..."

Schneiderman Wants Power to Prosecute Anyone ..."
"Don’t you realize that you are quoting our Lord’s words without even realizing it? You ..."

Old School Creationism Bill Dies in ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • 386sx

    Following his argument to its logical conclusion, we can say religion has nothing to do with morality. (And we would sound like idiots.)

  • jshaffer

    Christians don’t want theocracy, they just want the government to enforce Biblical moral laws on people who don’t believe in them.

    I don’t want to commit theft, I just want to take stuff that doesn’t belong to me.

  • unbound

    Since Frank Turek is not of my tribe, I assume he is just fine with me making him my slave.

  • MikeMa

    I think the obvious question for Turek is what laws, exactly, he’d like the government to enforce. A very short description would suffice to show his theocratic baloney.

  • Scott F

    What kind of light bulb to buy and what kind of car to drive is legislating morality??? Really?!? Deciding to bail out banks or the auto industry is a “moral” activity?? I thought that was legislating economic activity to reduce the health and environmental risks of green house gases and other pollutants, and to further the economic interests of some businesses at the expense of other businesses. But maybe he believes that protecting the health of humans and the planet is a “moral” activity, rather than simply a “rational” activity.

    From Wikipedia

    Theocracy describes a form of organization in which the official policy is to be governed by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided, generally pursuant to the religious doctrine of a particular religious sect or religion.[1]

    From the perspective of the theocratic government, “God himself is recognized as the head” of the state, [2] hence the term theocracy, from the Greek θεοκρατια “rule of God”, a term used by Josephus for the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.[3]

    A theocracy may have an administrative hierarchy of the government identical with the administrative hierarchy of the religion, or it may have two ‘arms,’ but with the state administrative hierarchy subordinate to the religious hierarchy.

    Theocracy should be distinguished from other, secular, forms of government that have a state religion, or are merely influenced by theological or moral concepts, and monarchies held “By the Grace of God”.

    “Theocracy” isn’t about the policies being enacted. It’s about the source of those policies. Is the source of the policies rational self interest, mediated through public debate and publicly elected politicians, or is the source of the policies the Bible, mediated through the personal self interest of self appointed evangelical clergy?

    “Theocracy” also isn’t (strictly) about telling people how they must worship. England and many other European countries have state-sponsored churches. The state is telling people how they should worship. But none of them are theocracies.

    So, he’s wrong on both moral, political, and religious grounds.

  • Chris from Europe

    NOM has a new campaign with Turek as one of the people that have been wronged by us evil gays (they also feature idiot teacher Buell).

  • dingojack

    A peek into the Fundie mindset:

    “Idque apud imperitos humanitas vocabatur, cum pars servitutis esset.”*

    Agricola Book 1, paragraph 21. Tactitus



    * loosely translated: “Because they knew no better, they called it ‘human nature’ when it was [really] part of their bondage.”