Government of a Reluctant People Requires the Rule of Law, or the Rule of One: To which Must the Choice be Submitted

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Mar 25, 2011 at 17:10

So it is a continuation of the age-old argument, does man rule: or does Almighty God? Ask a fundamentalist Christian and he/she will say that the Biblical answer will always result in the rule of Almighty God. Now this has been argued and diluted over the centuries as denominations have found it necessary to provide humanist explanations for concepts that rebellious Christianesque followers are reluctant, if not in total abjection, to believe for truth. Most recently, we are made aware of a book that puts into prominent publication that long time issue of people finding it hard to believe that a loving God would send people to hell. But that is what this time on earth is supposed to show: that there are good choices; and bad ones.

Now, immediately, there is going to be the question/assertion, that: what does this have to do with democracy; and how might it apply, if at all, to democracies in Muslim held lands? One might wonder, until looking around to see the obstinance of the Muslim sensibilities in predominantly Islamic territories to follow the rule of law in democratically ruled societies.

To avoid anarchy, there must be the rule of law. Christianesque societies adopted the basis of Mosiac law; Islam could not and does not accept that out of hand. Enter the reasoning of those who would not care to follow either set of tenets; and we have the rule of man (the concept of free choice, misapplied). If democratic rule is to be applied, only one rule need be appled for success: it must be based on an absolute truth or it will fail-just as the Holy Bible says.

Now from a decidedly fundamentalist Christian view, the concepts of Mosaic law forms the original basis of the rule of law in America. This is the way it came down over the centuries after the fall of man (bad choices made way back then), after mankind lost its ability for rule of self-determination. To base a democracy on secular precepts is to lose the reason the original rule of law worked in America. We can see whow that is working for Americans today.

In the Holy Bible, we read "And God saith, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'" When original sin entered into the circumstances of humanity, sin complicated human reason with the bad idea that man could function as a god. It has proved to be the main reason that many are not able to get along with one another.

Now returning to topic, do we not see that in the factiousness occurring in Muslim settings in Iraq where Sunni and Shiite cannot seem to get along? How about elsewhere, like in the latest instability manifesting itself in Yemen, Syria and elsewhere? Are they hankering for democracy; or is it that the Yemeni and Syrian governments are being hammered for not being Islamic enough? Maybe that is what Turkey has modeled.

Ultimately, the unrest that seems to be sweeping the Muslim world in the Middle East is a precursor to the ultimate model that the fundamental Muslim mindset wants for government. Democracy will have no part; for democracy as a model in a basic Muslim society is in direct conflict with fundamentalist Islam. We have a difficult time seeing free choice as a ultimate circumstance as a result in these situations.

Conversely, in the original Mosaic model, if we are to look at the premise that Samuel's warning went unheeded and the people chose their king; this occurred not in spite of the warning, but as a consequence of disobedience to the warning. Further, it is an error to say that Almighty God was increasing His distance; the people in their rebellion were the culprits in closing Almighty God out in their daily observance of life. And look where it got them. Were it not for the fact that Almighty God had planned for their rejection of His rule, they would have blithely went headlong into their own destruction at the hand of surrounding enemies of the sons of Israel until Almighty God provided His own choice for their King, the predecessor to the Messiah, King David.

That premise, still intact and functioning today, is what we see happening today as the world is realigning itself as they relate to Israel today. Everyone seems intent to seek their own course and cannot get a grip on how to bring a self-destructive world to make peace with Israel, let alone amongst the squabbling neighbors who are, by all appearances, striving to get aligned in a fundamentalist Islamic way.

And finally, to call Christianity a 'passive-resistant' approach to Roman rule seems to be a labeling process that does not understand how a true Christian is supposed to function in world that strives to shed itself of Christian precepts of relationship through faith in Jesus Christ in His love. Until humanity gets that one right, then the concept of freewill can never be understood in the humanist logic that seems so easily embraced in these days. In reality, there is only one free choice; all others have consequences. Getting that right is necessary before anyone can embrace democracy in the current frame of time.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".