It would seem odd to trust the universal applicability of my own conclusions on topics not generally agreed upon.
But that's my point - you do, don't you? It's just that you base your particular conclusions on a dogmatic religious belief, which is not reasonable to apply to a global scale - it is not feasible or acceptable, for instance, to advocate for democracy in non-Christian countries on the grounds that the Christian god says they should have it, unless you are also advocating for universal conversion - hence, particularism or theocracy.
Incorrect and bad faith.
And “dogmatic” is not how I would self-identify.
I apologize, maybe I misunderstood your point - the way I understood it, you agreed with the post I originally quoted, on the grounds that the moral basis of it was guaranteeing the rights granted by God - is this not correct?
Have to agree with Cath here. The jump from "human rights are derived from the triune God" to theocracy is quite the stretch.
Sure, and I said explicitly it was the worst case scenario. That said, I would like to hear back exactly what part of what I said Cath considered in bad faith - if one defines the desirable kind of democracy as one which defends human rights as defined by Christian belief, then one is either arguing against the universalization of such a government or for the universalization of Christian belief.
I'm not Cath, but...
You are simultaneously asserting that
a) Christianity is unacceptable as a basis for human rights and democracy because it is derived from a particular cultural context.
b) "A liberal, atomized, constitutional democracy founded in universal human rights and modern secularism
(DC edit: Which also derives from a particular cultural context)is the only acceptable form of government anywhere and everywhere."
For example: Suppose we both travelled to Saudi Arabia to argue for the legalization of alcohol. The Saudi authorities would be just as deaf to your secular language of human rights and choice that you would base your argument upon, as they would to my language of the Bible. Why? Because secular, small l liberalism developed in particular times and places just like every other worldview did. The Saudi authorities in this case, have no cultural background in it, and would therefore (by the logic of your critique earlier) require "conversion" to secular liberalism, just as they would to my Christianity.
Hence the common religious critique of secularism as 'false neutrality'
Poll
