No, he called for the secular institution of government to be subservient to the Christian Bible, and specifically to the Ten Commandments. That alone makes it a theocracy. But he added a few tidbits to ensure its meaning:
Finally, those justices who will not acknowledge God as the Supreme Judge of the World, or who would inhibit the acknowledgement of God from public office, are inherently disqualified from serving as judicial nominees for the United States Supreme Court
Will the nominee publicly acknowledge and fear the God of Scripture as the lawgiver from whose revelation all valid laws of man are derived? It is important to note that Scripture, which communicates the transcendent law of God to all men at all times, reveals that all judges (regardless of their national background or preexisting law system) are bound to submit to the Lord Jesus Christ (the Son) and rule by his righteous commands.
Simply put, those who would divorce the Lawgiver from the law are not merely disqualified from holding the highest judicial office in the land by Scripture, they are disqualified by virtue of the constitutional requirement that they uphold their oath to enforce the Constitution which presupposes this same Lawgiver.
It is time for Christians to once again assert objective and transcendent standards for the selection of our highest office holders. We are not at liberty to improvise on those standards when they do not fit our political objectives and short term vision for success. Our goal must be obedience. We must be Gods people in this nation, a holy remnant who insist that men and nations must acknowledge Him and no other God.
You may not see the point of this, but most would see this as the clear desire for the establishment of a theocracy, with the Bible as final law over the land, just as those Muslim countries that do have secular government still ensure that it is in compliance with the Koran. Neither of these was contemplated by the founding fathers, and the vast majority of this Country will not accept anything like that here.
Thanks for quoting that portion to make your point. Were I voting for Supreme Court justices, I would definitely favor those who acknowledge God as sovereign over those that do not. I think our freedoms are much safer that way. Elected officials that believe they are ultimately accountable to God will respect our freedoms and liberties, and also respect the law, much better.
But keep in mind that true Christian teaching (that is, what is consistent with the Bible) understands Christian belief is an individual thing. It is personal. It is anathema to the Christian to think that any government should force anyone to believe something. Everyone must come to Christ, seeking forgiveness of their sins and a new life, on his own.
That is one of the many differences between Christianity and Islam. Even in Islamic states that are not radically jihadist, Christians often are persecuted. There is no inner rebirth in Islam, no personal conversion. It is a religion of works, of physical acts of obedience. Therefore there is no real reason why they shouldn't use government to force this obedience. That is why democracy has such a hard time over there.
No it doesn't. We are still a Nation Under God, despite your wailing and gnashing of teeth.
The Founders understood that no laws should be suffered that violate the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. They also understood that man's duty to God is pre-eminent.