We are not in a theocracy.
We are not moving toward a theocracy.
We do seem to be moving toward a government and culture where majority religious beliefs (or at least the beliefs of vocal and powerful leaders) are driving more of public policy.
On two levels, that’s not unusual. Most people — including political and social leaders — have ideologies and morals that inform their decisions and directions. Indeed, jokes about politicians aside, government by someone completely amoral would be just as bad, if not worse. Principle (regardless of what it is) is often better than lack of principles (which usually translates into the principle of self-interest).
The difference, as perceived in the current situation, is that the religious beliefs and ideologies seem to be driven from one particular faction of one particular religion, i.e., evangelical (or, depending on how you use the term, fundamentalist) Christians.
By the same token, and on the other level, this is not a sudden change, or something completely foreign to US history. Indeed, one could argue that the last four decades have seen a remarkable and unique secularism in government and society, so subtle and yet so profound that people assume That’s The Way It’s Always Been.
But while the separation of church and state was clearly a forefront principle for many of the Founders, it was also against a backdrop of a nation that was mostly Protestant Christian, where religious persecution meant Anglicans vs Puritans, Methodists vs Presbyterians, Catholics vs Lutherans, and the anti-establishment clause meant there would be no formal Church of America to go alongside the Church of England. Over the history of this nation, religious sentiment and the religious direction of those in power has ebbed and flowed, but generally stayed at a pretty high level, at least on a person (vs institutional/organizational) level. A century ago, public morals laws, laws regardling blasphemy, and religious restrictions on any number of things, such as any literature on birth control — heck, alongside overt anti-Catholicism and anti-Mormonism, to go alongside the traditional anti-Semitism — were not only widely prevalent, they went without saying.
If the Bush Administration, or its evangelical Christian allies, are driving us toward a “theocracy,” then that’s what the US has been for most of its history — if we define “theocracy” as “government by people who are willing to let their personal and cultural religious principles direct their legislative and executive and judicial agendas.”
If you want to talk about real modern theocracies, of course, you need to look at Iran. Or, to lesser but still significant degrees, countries like Saudi Arabia, or Indonesia. Or even North Korea. Nations where there is an Official Authoritarian State Religion, and to not belong to it carries with it dire consequences, where to convert others to something different usually pulls a death penalty.
We’re not there yet. We’re not even headed there yet.
I’m by no means pleased by the social agenda that those on the evangelical Right are pushing. I agree that any number of the retrenchments they are pushing forward and through are harmful ones. I think that the modern principle of separation of church and state is a faboo idea.
But the changes and directions we’ve seen have been tiny compared to the depths to which we can, historically and around us even today, see a national delve. Calling the US in 2005 a theocracy, even a budding one, is to debase the word (alongside, ironically, calling those same folks “fascists,” or calling folks who want to provide better national health care “communists,” or calling those who oppose the Christian Right “atheists” — or, for that matter, Sean Hannity equating liberalism with despotism and terrorism) — and runs the risk of becoming a tired refrain that, like the Little Boy Who Cried Wolf, will eventually turn off those who need to hear it.
Dave, when you say “government by someone completely amoral would be just as bad, if not worse,” in context it kind of looks like you’re suggesting that religious people are moral and non-religious people are amoral. I suspect that’s not what you had in mind. Am I right?
Calling people names (like theocrat, fascist, communist, despot, etc) is something those who study arguments call the ad hominem fallacy. The frightening thing to me is not that people use that technique in aruments, but that it appears to work. (Of course, people use it because it appears to work.) If fallacious reasoning like this works, it shows that our public discourse has sunk to pitifully low levels.
I hear ya…I’m severely displeased with the way the government likes to overlook the whole separation of church and state jazz when it’s convenient for them to push their agenda or generate votes…however, I don’t believe we’re ever going to turn into a theocracy. People in the history of peopledom have always moved back and forth with religiousity. We’re on a rise now, and in many ways it’s just a backlash from the advancements in science and technology. When people feel that the core of their existence is shaking, they harken back to a lesser complicated time and cling to those systems that worked then. Just like the first, second and now third wave of feminism…advancements in any social structure is met with some dissent and causes some form of backlash.
Dave:
Dave, when you say “government by someone completely amoral would be just as bad, if not worse,” in context it kind of looks like you’re suggesting that religious people are moral and non-religious people are amoral. I suspect that’s not what you had in mind. Am I right?
You are right. What I meant was that most objections to, say, the Christian Right in their influence on politics do not have anything to do with their religiousity (what their denominational, liturgical, and theological choices are) per se, but the particular outcomes of how they apply their moral codes to public policy.
There are certainly plenty of moral-but-not-religious people, just as there are many religious-but-not-moral ones.
My point was that the true objection is to the particular implementation of ideology, even though some folks seem to limit it to that particular ideological subset called religion. And telling people that they should not bring any religion (and thus, by extension, ideological foundation) to their political decisions and policy-making is not only unrealistic, but a recipe for people acting solely out of their own self-interest, which is also a common criticism of politicians.
As you note, ad hominem attacks are both fallacious and dangerous.
BLUE:
I’m severely displeased with the way the government likes to overlook the whole separation of church and state jazz when it’s convenient for them to push their agenda or generate votes…
People acting for both the best and worst motivations are sometimes willing to forget their principles when they think something is important or vaulable. Whether it’s to save souls or smite the unrighteous — or, from a non-specifically-religious (but also ideological) perspective, to raise up the oppressed or sock it to the fat cats — a good (however defined) end is often used to justify means.
When people feel that the core of their existence is shaking, they harken back to a lesser complicated time and cling to those systems that worked then. Just like the first, second and now third wave of feminism…advancements in any social structure is met with some dissent and causes some form of backlash.
The pendulum always swings, though the bottom of the swing is never quite in the same place. I suspect this current phase in society and politics will not last forever (though it may get “worse” before it gets better), but it may well last for some decades, just like the last one did.
Or, conversely, it may all implode on itself from overreaching and backlash.
There are a host of laws being pushed on primarily Christian theological grounds and who’s justifications are primarily Christian theological. These include prayer in school and abortion, as well as “abstinence only ” sex education and the legal establishment of marriage as existing only between members of the opposite sex. (The latter, incidentally, violates other religious definitions of marriage, especially within the Unitarian Universalist and pagan communties; prayer in school is even argubly at odds with the Christian tradition.)
Without a doubt our religious values should inform our law-making, but in places where religious prohibitions can not be adequately and overwhelmingly defended on strictly secular grounds, then people need to be freed to follow their own path. (“Some benefit” is not sufficient — I’m thinking here of potential laws making eating pork illegal, requiring male circumcision, or criminalizing the use of contraceptives).
I agree that the last forty years have been strange in the history of this country, but I don’t think that means the earlier level of religious intrusion in our legal tradition was acceptable or right.
I’m sorry, Dave, but I see a clear and co-ordinated attempt to put in place Conservative Christian prohibitions that clearly violate the religious traditions of others as well as the rights of the non-religious. We may not be *close* to Iran, but we ARE well on the way on that road and we have to stop.
I agree that the last forty years have been strange in the history of this country, but I don’t think that means the earlier level of religious intrusion in our legal tradition was acceptable or right.
I don’t think that, either. But I think that historic perspective is important
I’m sorry, Dave, but I see a clear and co-ordinated attempt to put in place Conservative Christian prohibitions that clearly violate the religious traditions of others as well as the rights of the non-religious.
And I think that’s wrong, and I think it goes against the Establishment Clause. I think that it’s also a reflection of the comfort level beliefs of the majority of citizens, which doesn’t invalidate the previous sentence, but indicates that such legal policies are likely to have a certain measure of success (but only to a certain measure).
We may not be *close* to Iran, but we ARE well on the way on that road and we have to stop.
Substitute “Gomorrah” for “Iran” and you have the same argument made by the Conservatives. I don’t think either position is correct.
Theocracy? No. But we could end up going a lot further towards the ’50s than I’d care to.
They’ve already won on language and broadcasting.
I agree.