Fear of theocracy is reasonable; fear of a Christian one is not.

Rich Lowry's on the ball with his piece today concerning an impending Christian theocracy (or is that Theocracy?). Consider this passage:

Some of the anti-theocracy writers claim that what sets Christian conservatives apart is that their advocacy is explicitly religious. But most of the time it isn't. Take the high-profile issue of abortion. It doesn't take any particular religious faith to think that embryos in the womb are humans deserving protection — the key claim of abortion opponents. But their critics don't want to hear it.

For such self-professed advocates of reasoned discourse, they show an appalling tendency to want to shut down the other side with their swear word of "theocracy." They are emotional, self-righteous and close-minded. They are, in short, everything they accuse Christian conservatives of being. When the theo-panic passes, maybe a few of them will regret their hysteria.

As a Christian, the LAST thing I wish to see is a "Christian" theocracy in this world. Follow me. As a believer, I accept that men are inherently flawed (due to the real presence of sin in the lives of each man). This being the case, how can I accept men's interpretation of - and adherence to - what is perceived as God's intended form of government? They - we - are bound to fail. While men can and should be trusted with small amounts of power and authority, with larger amounts - the sort a theocracy would enable - they can never be trusted.

The best alternative form of government then is one in which men's power is decidedly limited in scope and fully described in writing. Conveniently, this is what we have today - a constitutional republic via liberal democracy (or is that the other way 'round?).

Instead of fearing a Christian theocracy (which I argue is an oxymoron in THIS world), intellectuals should be fearing an Islamic one - a very real possibility in some areas of this world.