Creationist Wisdom #763: The Theocrat

Today’s letter-to-the-editor appears in the Baxter Bulletin of Mountain Home, Arkansas. It’s titled America is a republic, not a democracy, and it’s the second letter at that link. The newspaper has a comments section, but there aren’t any yet.

Because the writer isn’t a politician, preacher, or other public figure, we won’t embarrass or promote him by using his full name. But we don’t know his first name (or gender, but we’ll assume he’s male) because he uses only his initials, which are J. R. Excerpts from his letter will be enhanced with our Curmudgeonly commentary and some bold font for emphasis. Here we go!

“Facts” that are presented to us, are not always factual, because so many professions, that we have been brought up to trust, have now been invaded by greedy individuals, who shamelessly present “lies” as “fact” in such a way that will pad their pockets.

Okay, but where is J.R. going with this? Here it comes:

So, what is the real problem? Our once beautiful Country is being presented as a Democracy by those who want to change America, and that is absolutely not true!

We all know that the US is a republic — that is, the people don’t directly rule, as they did in Athenian democracy. The American government (at all levels) is comprised of people who have been democratically elected, but we are governed by those who win elections, not by the whole of the people.

Then J.R. “proves” his assertion by referring to what he imagines is an undeniable authority. He says:

For starters, recite our Pledge of Allegiance — “and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands, one nation under GOD”. We are a Republic!

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! He could have referred to the Constitution, which describes how Congress and the President are chosen. Or he could have referred to Federalist Paper 39 (attributed to Madison), which is devoted to the issue. Madison wrote:

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government. If the plan of the convention, therefore, be found to depart from the republican character, its advocates must abandon it as no longer defensible.


Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the State governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.

But no — J.R. cites the Pledge! It’s probably the only thing he remembers from his education. But wait — it gets even better. J.R. asks an important question:

So what’s a major difference between a Republic and a Democracy?

Brace yourself, dear reader. Here comes his answer:

The Bible, God’s Law, the Ten Commandments, is the foundation of a Republic; where as [sic] The People, The Majority Rules, is the foundation of a Democracy.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! J.R. is beyond clueless. The bible has no references to a republic (or to democracy either). It’s monarchy all the way, on Earth as it is in Heaven. Nevertheless, J.R. thinks American government is based on the bible.

The rest of the letter is anticlimactic, but we’ll see it through. J.R. tells us:

So how’s that working? The “voice of we the people”, sounds great. Unfortunately, when more and more of “the people” selfishly place themselves above “Love God and treat your neighbor as you wish to be treated”, the result is a disaster. Folks, you don’t have to be a “Republican” to live in a “Republic”.

He finishes with this:

You only have to Love God and your neighbor. Should we not live our lives, (1) God; (2) Family (neighbor); and (3) Country. And besides, when we do this, God is on our side. That has to be good.

Although J.R.’s letter wasn’t specifically about creationism, we are supremely confident that he’s a creationist, so it’s a great addition to our collection.

Copyright © 2017. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Creationist Wisdom #763: The Theocrat

  1. The willful ignorance of JR is so thick it would take hours to address all the issues…it is easier to sum up as JR is stoopid! And NOT allow in is total stoopidity!

  2. Can I be the one to tell him about the Treaty of Tripoli? Please, can I can I?

  3. JR apparently hasn’t read, or didn’t understand if he did read, the holy babble, since, as our beloved Curmudgeon pointed out, it’s monarchy and empire from one end to the other.

  4. Ceteris Paribus

    Please post the link to SC’s monarchy and empire disentanglement. I need the info, and I’m terrified that the paranoids are out to get me (again).

  5. It’s right after the red “BWAHAHAHAHAHA” above.

  6. Dave Luckett

    One should piously remind our brother JR of the proof text on government: Romans 13:1, which lays it down that he must submit to the powers that be, since they were instituted by God. Indeed, his very act of complaining about the governance of the State must be taken as rebellion against God’s will. If the State were to be ordered as he says he wishes, he would not be able to write such a letter.

    A difficult contradiction this: he complains about having the right to complain.

  7. Our Curmudgeon notes

    J.R. cites the Pledge! It’s probably the only thing he remembers from his education.

    And–as readers of this blog no doubt already know–that education took place after 14 June 1954, which is when the phrase “under God” (on which J.R. places such weight) was shoe-horned into the Pledge.

  8. Why the Holy Bible? Why not the Quran? Then Iran is the perfect republic.

  9. Great letter. I hope precedent is established where letters for which “we are supremely confident that he’s a creationist” will continue to get letter coverage.
    To me it illustrates another onerous aspect of the “Pledge”. Even though nothing in the “Pledge” has anything to do with the Constitution (which is sometimes forgotten is the United States on paper) by mere repetition as a civic mantra it now conveys its own authority, when in fact it should have none. (Nor should a free person pledge allegiance to anyone or anything.)

  10. Troy says: “Nor should a free person pledge allegiance to anyone or anything.”

    All office-holders in the US have to take an oath to support the Constitution. Military personnel do too.

  11. Dave Luckett

    I have always been a bit nonplussed that Americans swear allegiance, not to the United States, but to its flag. Now of course, we take the one to symbolise the other, and hence the allegiance is actually to the nation, but I have always wondered why the Pledge goes the way it does. Wouldn’t it be simpler and more accurate to say, “I pledge allegiance to the United States…”?

    We have no such pledge in any form, for ordinary citizens. Ministers of State, including the Prime Minister, swear to uphold the Constitution and the Laws, and swear loyalty to Our Sovereign Lady, Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God, etcetera, and to her heirs and assigns according to law. Naturalised citizens, at the ceremony, swear or affirm to abide by the laws of Australia, and endorse its democracy and values – but this oath or affirmation is made only once. I really find it, well, somewhat disconcerting that Americans find it necessary to require the formula to be repeated so often.

  12. Christians and Jews, it would seem, would find difficulty in swearing to an object. AIUI Jehovah’s Witnesses and Quakers do not participate in such quasi-religious ceremonies.
    I think that this devotion to the flag is an outgrowth of the US Civil War. I would guess that a hundred years ago, one would not find it common in the former Confederacy.

  13. Michael Fugate

    Wikipedia has some interesting background on the Pledge – one of the early pledges was written by a Civil War veteran. What is fascinating is the adoption in the 40s and the court cases that arose.

  14. SC: An office holder is willingly ceding some of their freedom to assume office, thus the term “civil servant”.

  15. Eric Lipps

    I bet I know who this bozo voted for in last year’s presidential election.

    As for the Pledge of Allegiance, one gets you ten he doesn’t know that “under God” was only inserted into it in 1954, as a Cold War sop to right-wing zealots who insisted upon distinguishing “God-fearing” Americanism from Godless Communism at every possible opportunity and had Joe McCarthy and his ilk on their side in Congress.