PDA

View Full Version : John Lofton not a Theocrat


Smallfry
11th July 2006, 04:03
Mr. Lofton,

I have heard you on a recent program refer to the form of government known as "theocracy" as "Godly rule." Please correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the actual term theocracy is actually unGodly rule. Wikipedia gives a simple definition of "theocracy":
The term theocracy is commonly used to describe a form of government in which a religion or metaphysical faith plays the dominant role. It refers to a form of government in which the organs of the religious sphere replace or dominate the organs of the political sphere as clerical or spiritual representative(s) of god(s).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy

Notice that it says that the term theocracy is "commonly used" in instances where religion plays a major role, implying that the common use is incorrect. The actual meaning, the above definition shows, is a form of government where the State is eradicated and replaced with the Church. Now you and I know that the form of government guaranteed by the US Constitution is republic, and that God's Law is (supposed to be) enforced not by dictatorship, but by the Christian people. Plus, you have stated:
But, as I say, Federer did not defend the Christian faith. He did not, for example, point out that our idea of church and state being separate comes from the Bible where, in the Old Testament, in the Hebrew Republic, God separated church and state!
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=626

The main reason that I want to point this out to you is that your critics have repeatedly called you a theocrat, and you have openly praised theocracy on the show. But you are no theocrat, for theocrats are not Christians, but pagans.

Smallfry
Too young to reveal my name

JLofton
11th July 2006, 10:41
Appreciate the defense -- BUT....First, " Wikipedia" is not a reliable source since various people simply write up their own articles about things, post them and they become the "Wikipedia" article on that subject or part of the article on that subject. A much better (since Christian) source for definitions is Noah Webster's 1828 "American Dictionary of the English Language" which defines "theocracy" as: "Government of the state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example." Webster also notes the word "theocracy" from Greek words meaning "God," "power," "to hold." So, I favor a "theocracy" by which I mean Godly-rule either directly or indirectly through His Law. John Lofton, Editor; Recovering Republican and now, alas, recovering member of the Constitution Party....

Joe_Liberty
21st July 2006, 08:39
Chalcedon has a new article on the subject that may be of interest:
http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article.php?ArticleID=2308

Joe_Liberty
12th August 2006, 05:08
American Vision currently has a commentary (http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive/08-10-06.asp) on the First Things' cover story on the subject.

DonC
18th August 2006, 09:42
Appreciate the defense -- BUT....First, " Wikipedia" is not a reliable source since various people simply write up their own articles about things, post them and they become the "Wikipedia" article on that subject or part of the article on that subject. A much better (since Christian) source for definitions is Noah Webster's 1828 "American Dictionary of the English Language" which defines "theocracy" as: "Government of the state by the immediate direction of God; or the state thus governed. Of this species the Israelites furnish an illustrious example." Webster also notes the word "theocracy" from Greek words meaning "God," "power," "to hold." So, I favor a "theocracy" by which I mean Godly-rule either directly or indirectly through His Law. John Lofton, Editor; Recovering Republican and now, alas, recovering member of the Constitution Party....

You've left the Constitution Party?

JLofton
18th August 2006, 12:59
Still a member in Maryland.

Traitor2Tyranny
30th June 2008, 12:47
Still a member in Maryland.

Is this still true?

JLofton
30th June 2008, 02:25
Not sure. May still be registered Md CP. Can't remember. But, doesn't really matter since no Godly men to vote for -- though have voted only to vote against issues on ballot: more taxes; bond issues, etc.

SWhiteman
6th July 2008, 07:59
Can't be. We shut down the party months ago. CPMD no longer exists in the state house nor on paper. I know there is another group claiming the name and affiliation with National, but they are no better than National.