Religion Versus Democracy

 
Jesus said that whoever is not for him is against him. So it would follow that because the Constitution of the United States does not mention Christianity and does not allow you to require a religious test "as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" that it is anti-Christ. There are plenty of examples in history of Christians endorsing secularism such as this and then when they have the power to enforce their religion they use it.
 
Democracy is a form of egalitarianism and based on the importance of treating people as equals. Democracy is not an appeal to ignore the fact that all people are not equally good or intelligent or successful. It is rather a way of behaving towards them. It is a practice. If Jesus Christ were alive today and if he were God it would follow that his vote and his decisions matter. In comparison, nobody else's matters. Christianity and gods are therefore in principle anti-democratic. They are not in practice for their gods are not here but that still makes them undemocratic in spirit.
 
Hating the sin is not just about hating the fact that people chose to do wrong. It is hating the wrong action. So you should hate it when an insane person has sex outside marriage as much as you would hate it if they did it deliberately. The hate sin love sinner tripe demands that you be very strict indeed. If an unbeliever won't go to Mass, that person is still a bad harmful person if going to Mass is right and good and God's law. It must not be tolerated. Catholics are bound to hate this action whether or not it is intended to be a sin. To complain that being compelled to go to Mass is against one's rights will invite the retort: "But what about our rights as Catholics to hate what you do?"
 
Religion that believes in God says that God is love and perfect and so must come first. In other words faith comes first. So if I believe my faith honours God best I have the right to prevent religious freedom for others and undermine democracy. Even if there is no God, the God in your head who you think exists is going to be put first and that is extreme even if it does not translate into action. Your faith then becomes the only God if there is no God.
 
A religion may be against democracy on one or more of the following grounds 
 
#The state should be the slave of religion - theocracy.
 
The logical option for the believer in God is this one - the Church should rule. The nation should be a theocracy. If God is the perfect lawmaker then the closer the state matches his laws and endorses the faith the better.
 
Religion is a threat to democracy and to our autonomy. It is full of fanaticism for it insists that God who you do not see or hear comes before even the parents you do see and hear.
 
However a religion being anti-democratic does not mean it is necessarily pro-theocracy. A God religion that is not pro-theocracy is confused and still a potential threat to democracy.
 
The state only gets its authority from being right. Unjust laws are a contradiction for there cannot be a duty to keep them. Most agree that the laws should be kept when they do little harm or when the harm can be prevented but they should still be opposed and protests and talks should take place with a view to abolishing them. But if you break them the only thing you do wrong is to bring a penalty on yourself. You did not do wrong in breaking the law in itself for the law has no authority and so the law was asking for it. It follows that if the law of the land does not fit God’s idea of what goodness is then it should be made to conform for anything an all-good being thinks must be right.
 
When God comes first that means that anything that God is left out of is not based on morality and so it is immoral to even tolerate it. If bad is intolerable then bad that offends such a good God is even MORE intolerable. It is infinitely intolerable.
 
The Church says that God comes first or that we should only think about others because he wants it meaning that the person is only valuable because God thinks they are. If a person is valuable in themselves the Church evilly refuses to care about that. This implies that Church and state should be one and the Church should be superior to the state. Why? Because being a person doesn’t give you rights in itself according to the God doctrine. So you need religion then to give you rights. You might like to say you need religion to invent the rights for you.
 
The religious doctrine that without a God to sanction the state, the state can have no authority clearly implies that the Church must treat the state as its subject and rule the land for when the state has only relative authority and in so far as it fits what God wants it to be.
 
# Jesus never authorised democracy
 
Jesus said that we must love the Lord with all our hearts which means we must love his law with all our hearts for it tells us how to love him and it means we must love his Church with all our hearts for it is his representative on earth. Jesus said that people must give to Caesar what is Caesar's and God what is God's. This does not advocate democracy though many say it does.  That would be anachronistic for all you had those days was tyrant rule.  Jesus was saying that the dictatorship of Caesar should be put up with. Jesus was actually banning democracy. The writings of Paul tell us that the early Church's attitude was that evil rulers were put in place by God for a purpose and are to be respected for that reason.  Romans 13.  The rule would be meant to cover any kind of government that was enforcing the hideous Law of Moses.
 
#People are too stupid to govern themselves through democracy - a monarchy is necessary
 
Many non-religious people think this too. Atheists often find human nature stupid. But religion makes this perception worse. Christianity says we are born twisted and warped and antagonistic to the God that loves us and are mad enough to go to Hell forever to keep away from him. Christianity like many religions tries to increase the force of the objection to democracy.
 
#Only members - or saintly members - of a particular religion should have democratic rights. They have the wisdom to govern. They should have the dominant influence.
 
If you really believe your religion is the best thing for the world or your country, if you really believe God comes first, then the only time you can countenance democracy is when you urge people to democratically elect that God and the Church rule over them. There can be no doubt that if a religion is pro-democracy it must want that. The members of the Church and the clergy have to command that people do whatever it takes to do that.
 #Democracy may lead to religious rights being taken away,
 
The state is for everybody and works for the welfare of everybody. Religion only works for its own members and excludes those who are living in sin or gay or who have babies outside of marriage. The state comes first. When religion and the state are in conflict we should give our allegiance to the state and the state should be pluralistic and tolerant and totally divorced from religion. Religious fanatics should be excluded from politics. The state has the right to force religion to change its doctrines if these doctrines are harmful to the people. We refuse to stand by while fruitcakes like the pope meddle in politics to the detriment of the people thus putting a divine being who may not exist before real beings.
 
#Democracy does not care much about what God demands
 
Religion has many eccentric morals which will come into conflict with the state.
 
Religion has to oppose democracy for it sees humanity as preferring to go against God who knows what is best. Religion often says that democracy means giving most people not what they should have but what they want so if they want marriage banned you ban it. If most want child molestation legalised then legalise it. But that will never happen so religion is attacking straw men here. They do not like democracy for it advocates, and cannot function without, the right to free speech which permits blasphemy. Religion sees Adam and Eve as the first democrats who rebelled against God to take the forbidden fruit. God disapproved implying that democracy is an evil (Democracy is not a good form of Government).
 
If God forbids divorce then the lawyer who is a believer in God and his word cannot participate in divorce tribunals. He would not be true to himself if he worked against the laws his conscience tells him comes first. That is sheer commonsense. To say he should provide his services to those who disagree with him and seek a divorce is to say a man should practice euthanasia or abortion despite believing they are murder just to please other people. It is saying nobody should stick to their principles. I agree with the statement of Pope John Paul II made in January 2002 that Catholic lawyers have no right to take part in divorces and are forbidden to.
 
CONCLUSION

No religion, claiming to be the one true faith or the follower of the one true Saviour Jesus, can accept democracy and be true to itself.