Posted
by Bill Hoyt
November 29, 2005 at 12:58 a.m.
The Coming Theocracy
OK, so I've been busy. Rather than completing NaNoWriMo like I had hoped, I spent November writing my first ebook under contract, getting a new job (it'll be at PSU), having family in town for Thanksgiving, celebrating my lovely wife's 41st b-day, and completing Icewind Dale II since there's a new Baldur's Gate coming out in a few months. All but the last have been accomplished, so I haven't even looked at Law.com blogs this month and it's been a chore to keep [my own][1] alive (although Bethie was kind enough to create a new layout and we switched servers). Time has been so scarce that my monthly [silver column][2] was about half taken up by reviews of books I read 10 years ago. Not too scarce to play vidgames, I know, but still pretty scarce.But rather than joining Keith's excellent discussion on ID and the KSBOE (since it seems to have died down a bit), I thought I'd address one of Morgana's points, one which has been echoed (or "pre-choed") by PQ and others. Guys (and gal), you knows I loves ya, but I think you're unnecessarily losing sleep. There will never be, CAN never be, a Christian theocracy in America.I say this as one who is a fundamentalist among fundamentalists. I say this as one who believes (but does not assert, and there is a difference) in Adam an Eve, seven days and seven nights, and all those wacko fundamentalist "mythologies." I say this as one who looks forward to a literal Kingdom of God, with Jesus sitting on a literal throne. I say it as one who looks forward to a theocracy in that sense.The reason there can never be a theocracy in America is that Christians lack the single, specific component that is required to create a theocracy: an agreement on authority.The Pope could establish a theocracy during medieval times in areas that he politically ruled for the single reason that he asserted (and was believed by citizens to have) a direct line to God, and his authority flowed from that. When the Pope spoke, God Himself was speaking, and to disobey the Pope temporally was to disobey the Revealed Will of God eternally. The King of England could have (arguably) created the same, as he was both king by the grace of God and Defender of the Faith, the nominal head of the only legal church in the land. When one combines religious authority and government authority, theocracy can be the result. It is the result in Iran, where according to the CIA Factbook, "Conservative clerical forces established a theocratic system of government with ultimate political authority nominally vested in a learned religious scholar." The closest we have ever come in America was Utah under Brigham Young.However, those of you who are worried about theocracy are forgiven for your lack of understanding of the nature of American Christianity. It is primarily Protestant, which is based on the idea that the individual, not the hierarchy of the church, has the last say. Yes, they believe that the Bible is God's revelation to man; they do not believe that any church authority has the right or power to interpret that revelation for another. There are literally thousands of denominations of Christians in America because Christians do not agree on any single human holding that power which is necessary for theocracy: the right to speak in God's name.That does not mean, obviously, that Christians will not agree that certain laws are necessary. Laws against murder and theft and rape, for example, are supported nearly universally no matter what religion or lack of religion a person holds, but Christians support them for religious reasons. Whether those laws ought to protect the unborn is of course another issue, and one which leads to cries of impending theocracy. But a law based on religious or moral principle does not make a theocracy: what makes a theocracy is whether the political authorities are perceived to draw their authority from God rather than from the people. The problems in America that people blame on theocracy (or think points to theocracy) are twofold.The first is that state has become all-in-all. Why would we care what is taught in schools if the government did not run them? But because the government insists on running them, whatever is taught becomes the voice of the government. When the state becomes everything, separation of church and state becomes impossible. Pare back the government and you eliminate the problem.The second is that we have ceased to be a constitutional republic; rather we have decided that the majority's opinion ought to trump the individual's in nearly every case. But since the majority in America is religious, giving that majority the right to decide everything from whether a liquor store can sell wine on Christmas to how long people are allowed to let their grass grow means that the majority who are religious are going to impose those opinions on others. If majority rules, then majority rules, and we have reached a point that one is considered a radical for questioning whether the majority has that right. Americans are both short-sighted and ignorant; why anyone thinks the majority ought to decide most matters for others is beyond me, yet we do.But the "theocracy" argument is a little silly if for no other reason than that it ignores our own history. Thanksgiving, for example, was created as a national holiday for the specific purpose of thanking God for our nation. Read George Washington's [1789 Thanksgiving proclamation][3] some time: he said "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor." Public schools taught 7-day creation for 100 years. Abortion was regulated in all 50 states prior to 1973. In other words, all the laws and trends that people think point to theocracy have already been law in America, yet America was never a theocracy. And the reason it was never a theocracy was that the Protestants who founded it never agreed on any human through whom God spoke. Even were we to go back to what we were, with abortion banned and Genesis taught as history and blue laws galore, we would not be a theocracy any more today than we were then. [1]: http://www.elborak.com/ [2]: http://news.silverseek.com/BillHoyt/ [3]: http://elborak.blogspot.com/2005/11/those-theocrats-whereas-it-is-duty-of.html
and 2 others
Comments
Lawrence.com does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
thetom (anonymous) says…
Good points, Bill, but my personal paranoia is based on my six year old asking me yesterday if they are going to make him join the army to get killed. I hate myself for my bullshit answer to avoid poisoning him with the truth. So excuse me for equating blind patriotism with wacko fundamentalism.
I will NEVER under estimate the power of propaganda.
Now I confess to being one who puts wacko and fundamentalist in the same sentence fairly often. I know its not fair. It's not that all fundamentalists are wackos, it's that most wackos are fundamentalist. Don't need to throw a rock outside the Lawrence city limits to see how this point has been made more than once in recent history.
I agree with your main point, that there will never be any central authority for christian thought (because, of course, there's no basis for it), and therefore probably no christian theocracy. But there are enough wackos out there to keep pushing for it. And occasionally they win a little victory. And every time they do, it convinces me that the problem is not that the sky is falling - it already has.
citizenx (anonymous) says…
There hasn't quite been a chance for there to be a theocracy. We call this country a democracy, for now, but the demos isn't exactly doing much to stop the current winds of change. In fact the vast majority seem to be for a more Christian state, as you have suggested.
As the opportunity presents itself there are many Christians who would be happy to push for a theocracy, in as many ways as are possible. They aren't going to be nice about it--they're going to overrun every institution and take over. I know they believe they're doing right. And that belief is powerful--powerful enough to make believers push for change harder than those who disagree. Once the courts are run without regard for secular principles in education, i.e., now--we will be seeing what could become a theocracy in less time than we think.
Principles of Christianity in higher education would not be bad. Morality is teriffic. But if I am sitting in a molecular biology class and have to hear about a Creator we are back in the dark ages. Because regardless of whether there is a God, I must hear about religious ideas that are in no way science, thereby detracting from the time where I would otherwise increase my understanding of science that is provable. There is a reason the ID books of 'theory' are no more than 80 pages long. It is because this is not theory. Whereas there is proof that new life-forms are constantly evolving. For example, there is a bacteria that only eats nylon. Perhaps the Creator just kind of threw them down to earth one day, but it is more likely that these bacteria evolved to adapt to a new environment. Evolution and ID are not compting scientific theories--but just becuase Evolution is seemingly provable does not mean that there is no God. That is how I feel about it. ID is best taught in a department of Religion, and in secondary and elementary education, is best taught at church.
I wish you would weigh in on the ID discussion, Bill. I know that you are principled and intelligent. I know that you understand what science is and what constitutes theory. On the other hand, the natural world's ordered beauty impels everyone to ask if there could have been a Creator. But is it ok to ask these questions alongside the teaching of evolution in a science classroom?
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"I wish you would weigh in on the ID discussion, Bill.... is it ok to ask these questions alongside the teaching of evolution in a science classroom?"
Thanks for the kind words, CitizenX. Here's why I haven't weighed in: I don't particularly care. "Science" as properly constituted seeks natural explanations for the world around us. It seeks out the laws of nature, materialistic explanations for how nature works. And that's fine and good and necessary, and I agree with the critics of creationism as far as that goes; so long as the definition of science excludes supernaturalism, then by golly it just does and creationism isn't science.
But that leaves a huge blind spot, IMO. If the purpose of science is to find natural solutions but if the historical truth is supernatural, then science can never find it and whatever they are finding doesn't matter. They may find an answer, and it may be the right answer or not, but science cannot tell whether it is because it has by necessity excluded a lot of possible answers because it can't measure them. Of course, say that out loud and you're accused of being "anti-science," but I think it's simply a limitation of the system.
On the other hand, I've never found a belief in creationism or evolution to be that important. I know the creationists are of the belief that if people think they are descended from monkeys they'll act that way, and the evolutionists are concerned that we'll go back to burning witches if someone criticizes Darwin, but unless one is a research biologist, who cares? In my 15 or so years as a computer professional, it has never really mattered in my job, and I doubt it matters in many other jobs.
IMO, all this concern that if we allow people to criticize Darwin or postulate a god-of-the-gaps to shore up his weak points, suddenly we're back in the middle ages is, I think, a bit over the top. My kids learned both creation and evolution and they can take what they think best. But I'm not going to say what other parents ought to do. Their kids, their choices.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Bill wrote: "When one combines religious authority and government authority, theocracy can be the result."
Point taken and here's the definition of a theocracy from Merriam-Webster online: "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided"
That is the definition of a pure theocracy. But one need not have a "pure" theocracy to have one that is close enough to be called one. We don't have a "pure" democracy either, but we call ourselves a democracy. So it is reasonable to understand the trends in this country, where officials have platforms that address religion, get publicly involved in religious issues and, like State Senator Brownlee make statements that deem criticism (or even mockery) of Christianity as unacceptable politically as suggestive of a movemnet toward a theocratic state - however "impure." In an impure theocracy a politician could approve of punishing by law someone who speaks out against Christianity or speaking out publicly to change laws to favor religious ideals. If more theists (fundamental or not) are elected to public office and use their office to gradually "ammend" laws to appease religionists, then we would be moving toward a theocracy, redefined for America in the 21st century.
As Catholicism has changed (dare I say evolved?) since the Middle Ages to accommodate modern times (use of the vernacular as opposed to Latin in services, for example), so can the idea of a theocracy be applied to American life in the 21st century.
Bill wrote: "If the purpose of science is to find natural solutions but if the historical truth is supernatural, then science can never find it and whatever they are finding doesn't matter."
I don't have time right now to get into my lecture about the history of science, but the sciences used to include the supernatural in their explanations of the natural world (i.e. occult sciences, Magic as a science, alchemy, etc). When scientists in the 16th and 17th centuries were making important and world view-altering discoveries, the Church (and later Martin Luther) demonized and condemned the occult sciences and magic because they were a threat to religion. This had the result that Magic and Alchemy split from the newly developing "natural" sciences.
In sum: the surpernatural was a real part of the holistic world view of the scientist. But society has developed since then in such a way that they are now considered separate. But still, scientists can be and often are theists. They will tell you that evolution is god's method of creation and it just took us this long to figure it out.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Morgana wrote: "But one need not have a 'pure' theocracy to have one that is close enough to be called one...So it is reasonable to understand the trends in this country, where officials have platforms that address religion, get publicly involved in religious issues and, like State Senator Brownlee make statements that deem criticism (or even mockery) of Christianity as unacceptable politically as suggestive of a movemnet toward a theocratic state - however 'impure.'"
But I think you are conflating democracy and theocracy in a way that does neither justice. The essence of theocracy is that authority flows from God. The essence of democracy is that it flows from men. A system in which elected officials impose morality that happens to coincide with a particular religion is still a democracy so long as the officials who do the imposing draw their authority from voters. Changing the definition of theocracy to account for religious input into democracy is a philosophical sleight-of-hand.
So I would ask one question: when this nation was founded, several states had state churches, it was illegal to do business on Sundays and holidays, and the laws to a great(er) extent reflected those of the Jewish scriptures. Was America at that time a theocracy, an "impure theocracy", or something else altogether?
Morgana: "(Theistic scientists) will tell you that evolution is god's method of creation and it just took us this long to figure it out."
And that may very well be, but the point is that scientists, being experts in naturalism, cannot speak with authority on supernaturalism. They may have an opinion, but their expertise *as scientists* lends them no credibility in addressing what God may or may not have done. As soon as they step into supernaturalism, they have left the realm of science and all you have is another religious opinion.
Science by its nature describes natural phenomena. If God hit me on the head with a meteorite, science could describe the rock, recount its trajectory, even postulate the origin, staying within the realm of purely naturalistic cause and effect. But science could not conclude that God hit me on the head with a meteorite, because they have no way to measure God in purely naturalistic terms. In other words, they could come up with an explanation for my headache, but they could not come up with the correct one.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
Morgana: "As Catholicism has changed (dare I say evolved?) since the Middle Ages to accommodate modern times (use of the vernacular as opposed to Latin in services, for example), so can the idea of a theocracy be applied to American life in the 21st century."
Here I think is the heart of the issue. The externals of Catholicism have changed, but its essence has not. The essence of Catholicism is that authority flows from God through the Pope and his cardinals. They may make external changes, but the essence of the structure remains the same, because it is on the authority of the Pope and cardinals that those changes are made. If Catholicism ever gives up its opposition to abortion, for example, it will remain Catholicism, because its authority structure is unaffected by the external appearances. Catholicism does not become protestantism or evangelicalism just because the outward forms (or laws) are similar, because the essence of what the Catholic church is is not affected.
The same I think occurs with democracy and theocracy. We may have democratic rules that look like the rules (external form) of a theocracy, but that does not make it a theocracy unless those leaders draw their authority from God rather than from the voters.
Perhaps that's small consolation for those who would not enjoy those rules, but I'm kind of anal about language that way...
citizenx (anonymous) says…
Isn't Bush II always saying how G-- told him to do this or that?
thetom (anonymous) says…
There ya go.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"There ya go"
TT: I guess I'm not following you. When GWB signs a bill that God told him to, why does it become the law of the land?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
You mean a bill that was proposed by lawmakers and passed by a majority of federal law makers, all of whom have a right to vote as they see fit? I would worry about a theocracy (note; it would probably be based upon Prosestant creeds) if the majority of all the Congress members were all in the pocket of or supporting the same religion or set of beliefs. As it stands now, and probably in the future, getting a majority of any lawmaking body to solidly support the entire agenda of ONE religion is a bit like herding cats. You cannot do it (unless the cats are dead or drugged). AND couple that problem with the fact that we (the voters) have a right to replace those individual lawmakers every few years...and that means a turn over until/unless the Constitution is amended OR civil war (or worse) brings the Republic to an end. While a theocracy may sound like the end of the world, or the beginning of a wonderful era, to some people, I agree with Bill (no, it isn't a given - there are plenty of things on which we disagree). This country is too far flung and diverse for a theocratic government to really ever happen. There are a ton of real threats to worry about. This is not one I'm going to add to my list.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"there are plenty of things on which we disagree..."
Only the ones you're wrong about ;) Well, those and capital punishment, of which I'm not quite ready to admit that you're right. I feel a little like Fonzie, "I was wrrrrr.... wrrr..... wrooo..." Can't quite say it yet.
Ever read "Lucifer's Hammer"? It's the Niven/Pournelle S/F story of a comet called Hamner-Brown that pretty much ends life on earth (Or as HHG2G might say, "It's the story of the end of the world and the happy-go-lucky days that follow.") In such a case one crazy prophet arises and tries, almost successfully, to create a theocracy. Same case in Heinlein's "Year of the Jackpot," except it was a nuclear war. In both cases, an external event had to destroy the gov't with such force that rudderless people gravitated to a natural leader, one who also happened to convince them that he had the ear of God and enough pull to pull them through tough times. I really believe that type of an event would be necessary for a real, honest-to-God theocracy in America.
We may, of course, have all sorts of religiously-based laws passed in the meantime as we always have. Democracy is funny like that: give the majority the right to run your life and by jove they'll do it even if they cannot run their own. And I don't like them any more than anyone else. But ebbs and flows ebb and flow. 40 years ago we were in the midst of a great liberal shift, now it's a conservative one. In another 20 years, it'll be liberal again, assuming we don't have some cataclysmic event in the meatime. The thing it won't be, unfortunately, is a shift toward less government. Seems to me the choice is between Christian socialism and secular socialism. I'd rather have to choose between pyorrhea and gonorrhea.
TheTom is correct to be paranoid about patriotism and to never underestimate propaganda. Most people don't think; they look for someone to tell them what to do. But so long as people believe in the mythology (and I mean that in a good way) of democracy, the mythology of theocracy is not something to really fear.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
There may have been some miscommunication about my "theocracy comments." I think I said a couple of times that it seems that in this country we are *moving toward* a theocratic state by which I don't intend to imply that we could actually have a pure theocracy here. Maybe a better expression would be a "unique American blend of a democracy with blatant theocratic tendencies."
My ideas and observations in this regard may be a matter of perspective. Having lived here and in Europe for many consecutive years I can say with confidence that in comparison to developments there over the centuries (our western political and religious origins after all!), we definitely demonstrate rather striking theocratic leanings and sympathies.
And I'm still not saying that those (in my mind questionable) theocratic leanings and sympathies could become an actual reality here in the purest sense of the term "theocracy." But the push in that direction is getting a bit too strong for me anyway. And to me it's also a bit unnerving that these tendencies are gradually becoming more and more acceptable.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"And I'm still not saying that those (in my mind questionable) theocratic leanings and sympathies could become an actual reality here in the purest sense of the term 'theocracy.'"
Gotcha. And I apologize if I misunderstood. My concern is with the misuse of the word, that confusion of "The democratic will of a religious majority" with an undemocratic (or as in the case of Iran, pseudo-democratic) rule by those who draw their authority from religious position.
I am, of course, opposed to the latter. I don't like the former, either, because I'm not all that enamoured of the foresight of my neighbors. Occasionally, mankind goes seemingly mad, and the less impact thay have legally on me in those periods, the happier I am.
But I'm just a curmudgeon that way, I guess.
cfdxprt (anonymous) says…
morgana - Unfortunately, Europe's lack of religion in gov't and unsustaining birthrates amongst the indigenous people are leading to a largely Muslim population that is becoming dissaffected, and radicalized; due to poverty and other reasons (witness recent riots). While I disagree with having a Chrisianity dominated gov't and have real problems with where the Repub's have gone (I score a 100% on the "are you a Libertarian" test), I'd rather have people who at least call themselves Christians leading me than radical Imans.
In the end, there should be a definite seperation of church and state, but what the majority of the people want, the people get in our great, if semi-flawed, system get.
Now, don't get me started on GW stating that God told him to go to war with Iraq and free the Iraqi people - IMO that was pure insanity.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
cfdxprt: I may have misunderstood your comment, but I don't think the "lack of religion in government" in Europe has anything to do with the current riots. The Muslim minority in Europe has experienced many problems, but the reactions are more akin to race riots here. Just like a pure theocracy could not occur here, there will be no Iman in a European country. That's not the intention of the riots. These people are upset about poor housing conditions and other injustices that minorities often suffer - comparable to the experiences of many minorities here.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Even Misty came out and said that given a choice or theocratic leaders, she'd have to pick Christians b/c at least they SAY they want peace on earth and good will towards all.....as opposed to "death to infidel" principles.
As for ebbs and flows, it really is just that (IMO). If you go to the Dole Institute (on KU campus, by the Leids Center) the first exhibit there are things from Sen. Dole's youngest days. In that exhibit is a copy of his Russel Highschool graduation program. It is replete (chock full) with prayers and hymns. Yes, that's right; in the 1940's (that is to say a mere 60 years ago) it was common for an American PUBLIC school program to include a ton of religious stuff. No one objected or protested about it until later. And gradually, such things became so "verbotten" in the public arena that we see stores like Walmart being hoisted on petards for saying or not saying "Merry Christmas" to shoppers (note - Walmart is privately owned - not the government sponsoring/favoring one form of religion over another).
Anything or anyone that/who becomes too polarized one way or the other is bound to see a push/pull towards the other way of doing things. What is happening now, it appears, is a swing back (not backwards IMO) towards the other side of life. If IT goes too far, rest assured that nature (which prefers but never gets pure balance) will start the ebb/flow process over again.
And ElB.... It's OK to not be able to say the "W" word. It's enough that you at least understand/stood what I was trying to say to you.
thetom (anonymous) says…
Bill, in the strictest reading of your definition of theocracy, not even Vatican City qualifies. The church is run under the authority of the pope. Who is elected. The idea that HIS authority comes from God is MY decision. So the idea of a theocracy is a certain myth only realized in the minds of it's governed. And not to nitpick but the 'essence' of the Church does not lie in it's organizational structure.
For my own thinking I have expanded the definition to include those governments whose laws are based on religious principles.
But, as in my first comment, I am not paranoid about the end result. I loathe the actual reality that there are people today fighting and winning battles in this direction. Terrorists beheading an American may be over-reaching when discussing what can happen here, but it is the symbol of my objection to fundamentalist thought when it is used to gain political power. You can't really call Nicholas Berg paranoid.
Some of these issues seem tame next to the blood being spilled in the name of Allah, but here's my take.
Discussing reproductive rights, some see dead babies, I see bloody coat hangars.
On gay rights, some see Sodom and Gomorrah, I see American citizens having to lead secret lives in order to make a living and serve their country.
On blue laws, some see honoring the sabbath with sobriety, I see drunks on the road to the next county, (or state).
On evolution, some see a battle waged by heathens against the word of God, I see the natural sciences and technology as the most valuable gifts that God has given us to reveal His work. (thats on the days I wake up believing in Him).
Its not the future I fear, it's the present I loathe.
We have a president elected on a morality vote. That has happened. Not because a majority of Americans are stupid. But because the republicans are brilliant architects of an effective propaganda machine. And a small margin (there was no 'mandate' in 2004) of people who happen to vote bought into it.
Don't think me a democrat on this either. Yellow dogs are yellow for a reason. It's all that pissing on each other. I know dogs.(albeit not biblically).
I am disgusted NOW with the american voter. I am disgusted NOW with the board of education. I am disgusted NOW with people who say (to my six year old son) that our troops are dying in Iraq fighting for our freedom. I am disgusted NOW with the fact that an agnostic or atheist candidate would not have a chance. I am disgusted NOW with our choices in 2004 and our prospects for 2008.
And Ladylaw, I have heard your speech, and although I would make a shitty dog catcher, bet your bottom I am at the polls at every opportunity.
thetom (anonymous) says…
Don't get me wrong. It is the citizens of a great country I am disgusted with. It is a great system that is flawed. Patriotism need not be blind.
That's all I'm sayin.
thetom (anonymous) says…
Except how bout that Lynyrd Skynyrd.
cfdxprt (anonymous) says…
morgana - I guess the point that I was trying to get at is that the lassiz faire attitude of European gov'ts to religion has allowed radical Islam to fester more than the Christian based gov't here. Keep in mind that the London bombers were long term Britons, not imports sent there to do a job.
Up until 2 months ago I had a roomate who was Jordanian. We would have him read us arabic websites and give us his opinion on where things are going. His primary comment was that what had been mainstream websites a few years ago had become much more radicalized; or in other words, it was becoming much more acceptable to use violence to achieve one's means (I won't get into a discussion on why this happened, I think the reasons are fairly obvious).
While you liken the French riots to race riots in America, there is a fundamental difference. In America the riots were primarily precipitated by a culture of discrimination based on race. In France they were precipitated by people moving to a culture that had nothing to offer them except for housing in delapidated neighborhoods, while they expected more. Throw in the fact that many of them now believe that violence in the name of their god is justified and you have a tinderbox.
America has its problems and probably does have too much religious influence in gov't, but it seems like the European countries are going to have much more of a problem with religious influences in their societies. This goes back to the fact that they didn't have religious influences affecting their laws or societal norms for a long time. It's my opinion that this is going to lead to their gov'ts becoming more Christian. We've already seen it in France where all religious attire was banned from schools. While this could be seen as an across the board sweep, a cross on a necklace can be tucked in your shirt, a burka can't...
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
TT: "And not to nitpick but the 'essence' of the Church does not lie in it's organizational structure."
No, it lies in its structure of perceived authority. Catholics believe that Jesus built his Church on Peter and through unbroken apostolic succession Christ's mantle rests on the Pope. While he is elected, his authority to speak ex cathedra is believed to come directly from Christ as "Christ's True Teaching"
http://www.secondexodus.com/html/cath...
Protestants want none of that. By calling that the "essence" I was trying to say it was the single indispensible property that separates it from Protestantism, like the single indispensible property of theocracy is that authority is preceived to come from God, not people. I think our disagreement arises from no more than different definitions here.
TT: "...the idea of a theocracy is a certain myth only realized in the minds of its governed."
Precisely, as is the case with the mythology of democracy. Why should the majority get its way? Because we think/beleive/propose that they have a right to impose it. Those who believe the mythology of the divine right of kings or the rule of wise philosophers all share the fact that their belief in the right to rule cannot be proven, it can only be enforced. Mythologies change based on many factors, but that does not change the fact that they are mythologies.
cfdxprt: "It's my opinion that this is going to lead to (Europe's) gov'ts becoming more Christian."
I'm afraid I'm not as optimistic as that. Europe has long had an undercurrent of pagan warrior culture, far longer than they have been Christian. I fully expect that we'll see a resurgence of that ere we see a resurgence of Christianity in Europe. I hope you're right, because if not, the future of Europe will be as bloody as its past.
citizenx (anonymous) says…
For those who doubt the possibility of an American theocracy, there are many sources or stories that will disappoint you. Here's one:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.a...
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Bill wrote: "Europe has long had an undercurrent of pagan warrior culture, far longer than they have been Christian."
Here's some useful information on the Christianization of Europe to clear up some confusion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historic...
The "pagan warrior culture" you refer to simply precedes the Christianization of these pagan peoples. If you are European American that is your history. These are the common historical origins of those whose ancestry stems from Western Europe. Maybe I don't follow your point in bringing that up?
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Thank you for that link, citizenx. It's unnerving and it reinforces my fear that we are really moving toward a theocratic state - as well as that can be done in this country. And they are doing what they can by infiltrating government in such a manner.
I think I'm going to have nightmares tonight.
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
I am not going to say this as well as I'd like and will most likely be lambasted for it....but I'll try anyway:
A theocracy in Amercia did not happen in the 1940's and 1950's - a time when christian religion was ALL over the public sector. So what makes anyone think it is likely or possible NOW in light of all the hyper-sensitive and vigilant ACLU/Atheists etc. who will be defending the lines between church and state that began to be drawn back then and to this day?
The Christian Coalition or what ever you want to call a move towards religion in government is not something recent or new. It's been around for a long time (decades at least). However, we may now be seeing the pendulum swinging more in one direction and less in another. That may be because it had swung real far one way, for awhile, so now some self-correcting may be going on. It has happened before and it will most likely happen again. Nothing is forever. Ebb and flow. Pendulum, etc.
However, those who fear a theocracy is in the offing and who want to stop it before it spreads further, can do what TT is doing and what those who are now in office did to get the power.... (over a period of decades) get involved in the political process!
Until you take the vote AWAY from those who hold certain religious beliefs, they will continue to vote. And if the majority of them constitute the majority of voters, that mean they'll put people of like mind into power. If enough people feel differently and get involved, the pendulum will again swing in another direction.
If enough people do NOT feel differently or do NOT get involved...well - welcome to democracy (majority of votes hold the day)... And I hear that Ireland is a nice place to live these days (but it too has a highly religious atmosphere....)
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"These are the common historical origins of those whose ancestry stems from Western Europe. Maybe I don't follow your point in bringing that up?"
My point in bringing it up is that one culture never truly replaces another. Catholicism spread across Europe, yet in doing so it did not eliminate paganism so much as merge with it, rounding its harsh edges, which is why we have Easter bunnies, yule logs, and Halloween today, and why Jesus is said to born in December. The Germanic tribes which make up most of Europe may have forgotten why they have Yule logs, but they are still who they were to a great extent.
The German-Jewish theologian Franz Rosenzweig noted the dichotomy in the 19th century. Spengler explains it thus:
"Christianity's weakness, Rosenzweig added, lay in the devil's bargain it made with the old paganism. Christianity's salvation lay beyond the grave, in the wispy ether of heavenly reward. Humans require something to hang on to this side of the grave. By providing the pagans with a humanized God (and a humanized mother of God and a host of saints), Christianity allowed the pagans to continue to worship their own image. Germans worship a blond Jesus, Spaniards worship a dark-haired Jesus, Mexicans worship the dark Virgin of Guadalupe, and so forth. The result, wrote Rosenzweig, is that Christians "are forever torn between Jesus and [the medieval pagan hero] Siegfried".
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/front_pa...
Examining the religious side of WWII shows that Seigfreid was resurgent, for what is Naziism but tribal worship masquerading as an economic program? It's no surprise that the Nazi mythology referenced all manner of Germanic pagan legends. Wagner's music percolated throughout the culture in which Naziism arose.
Europe finally ceased to be Christian in the horror that was WWI, but historical Christianity was already on death's door there and was being replaced in Germany by a resurgent paganism and by an occultism and mysticism elsewhere. I don't think the pagan impulse (and I choose that word because I don't think the movement is conscious) was ever suppressed completely.
Europeans (and yes, I am descended from them) are masters of warfare without mercy from time immemorial. Today they are taking a break from it, but if the Moslems push them enough, I fear what Seigfreid might do in response.
reticentscrivener (anonymous) says…
So the next time someone says, "Is the Pope Catholic?" they really mean "No"?
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
ladylaw wrote: get involved in the political process!
i'd love to, but unfortunately, I would never be elected to office because I'm an atheist. It doesn't matter how many great workable and widely supported ideas I may have for any given community. It doesn't matter that I may have a flawless background and that I may in other ways be highly qualified for the office concerned. It also wouldn't matter that my integrity and my morals are strong and uncompromised. If people found out that I am an atheist, I wouldn't stand a chance.
Recently I cited a poll on one of these blogs that had gathered the following information: approximately 80% of the people polled stated that they would have no problem electing a woman, an African American, a Jewish person or a homosexual person to an elected office. Only about 20% of the people polled said that they would vote for an atheist.
Of course, if I were dishonest and claimed a religious affiliation of some sort, despite my atheism, that would be OK. It might even get me elected. But that would fly in the face of my integrity, my morality and my respect for the truly faithful.
It's too bad really.
thetom (anonymous) says…
President LeFay. Nice ring.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Ain't gonna happen, thetom. But it does sound pretty cool, eh?
ladylaw (Terry Bush) says…
Sigh. Getting involved does not mean just running for the office yourself. If you aren't electable (and I know I probably would not be either - I am WAY too old not to have plenty of skeletons in my closet) there are a lot of other options.
In 1984, when I first moved to Lawrence from Wichita, it stunned me to find out how many people I met at church were precint chairs or held some other postion of leadership in a political sense. I knew that such tactics were popular in Wichita, but I had been told that Lawrence was the last hold-out for Democrats/liberals. So, silly me, had thought that in Lawrence there would be more involvement in politics by said "lefties". Au Contraire. I don't know where they were, but they were not running for precint chairs etc. I went to meetings and joined groups (e.g. women in law) but that all that happened was talk talk talk talk talk.
When I say "get involved" i mean at all levels and (this is key) involved in all parties!!! Stuff envelopes, put up yard signs, go door-to-door for candidates, write letters (on your own - signing form letters rarely has much impact), make phone calls, write editorials, go to the state house (or even DC) to talk to your elected representatives, etc. Kathy Greenlee is a wonderful person, and the current head of the Douglas county Democratic party. She is a fine example of someone who probably won't ever be elected to an office, but who can help others get elected. Contact her if you want to play!
You do not have to actually hold the office to make changes. All you have to do is get people in the office who'll make the changes you want. That is exactly what the Christian Right did (and is still doing), and they started making plans to do it two decades ago (or more). They followed the rules of "the game" (politics is a game in many respects) and made them work for them. Anyone upset with the path being taken by their currently elected officials is free (so far) to join with others of like mine and also follow the same path, and put THEIR choices in office! It takes planning, work, and years. But it's been working now for 200 years.
thetom (anonymous) says…
Ms. President:
Ladylaw is right, we should round table your electability.
Sorry.
Anyway, Mr. Law always has a way of putting things in perspective. There's days I think he's my daddy.
http://snoopzone.blogspot.com/2005/11...
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
ladylaw wrote: "You do not have to actually hold the office to make changes."
I know, I know....Of course I know that. I was just focusing on the elected office end of things.
And I've done some of the things that you mentioned.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Well, I can't say I'm surprised, but what a disappointment and what a precedent this sets:
http://www.news.ku.edu/2005/December/...
Now they'll think they can dictate everything we do. If only Mirecki hadn't written that e-mail and if only they hadn't hacked into it, it wouldn't have come to this and the students would have gotten the course they enrolled in.
The lesson we learn? I've said it before: Watch out! Big (christian politico) Brother is watching you!
citizenx (anonymous) says…
Along with the ID thing being taught in hard science contexts, the list of demands is --
>Mirecki in different department
>Chancellor fired
>Politicians get to examine (and presumably put the kibosh on) all courses and their content.
Helllooooo Jesus State! That's what every University in this state will be called pretty soon. I'm just hoping KU becomes 'first Jesus State, since we are, after all, the flagship institution of this great state of Kansas.
I don't deny that republicans have been busier, and more organized, and probably harder working with a clear plan of action than the liberal contingent. Slap on our wrists, all. But this is really F***ed up.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
It's unbelievable isn't it, citizenx?!
And where did that Altevogt guy get these bright ideas: "Mirecki in different department; Chancellor fired"
This shows just how much he and like-minded individuals know about higher education. Nothing! What does he want to do? Which department, pray tell, would he want Mirecki, a man with a PhD in Religious Studies, to be transferred to? Math, Physics, Philosophy, English, Business (not qualified, not qualified, not qualified, not qualified, not qualified). What kind of thinking is that? Kind of reminds me of Catholics transferring child-molesting priests to other churches. And all the man did was say some tasteless things about fundamentalists. Of course, fundamentalists are allowed to insult others as much as they want. Crazy double standard.
And what's his problem with the Chancellor? Hemenway investigated the situation and even canceled the course. What more do they want? State Attorney Phil Kline (conservative republican) even thought that the course should have been taught.
I'm sure everyone will forget (or ignore) this pretty soon, but the Chancellor never disapproved the content of the course, only Mirecki's conduct in writing the e-mail. If Mirecki had never written that mail, Altevogt and his compatriots would have never known about the course, or at the very least, they would have had no ammo.
And then you mentioned this: "Politicians get to examine (and presumably put the kibosh on) all courses and their content."
Like you said, Jesus State. The first step toward a theocracy. After the whole theocracy discussion on this blog, the most interesting thing that stuck with me was the definition of a theocracy that I provided: "government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided." You only need officials who are regarded as divinely guided by themselves and others. Since, of course, no one can prove divine guidance. So, I'd have to say that after giving it some thought and in light of recent events, I think it can happen here, however gradually and covertly.
Rest assured, the course will be taught again. But next time it's offered they'll know to be a little more careful because they will know that the "fundies" are watching.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Here's a little something to reflect on:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec...
I guess these guys just felt a need to commit assault in the name of Jesus, spread a little Christmas cheer - whatever.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
The result of the madness:
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec...
Sad state of affairs. This is a clear message to all KU faculty. Watch out what you say. Freedom of speech is relative. Big Brother is watching you closely.
thetom (anonymous) says…
For the record, before this thread goes completely away, this guy Mirecki is proving himself to be an imbecile.
I was almost going to let the stupidity of the whole listserv thing go. Privacy there is equivalent to a conversation at a cocktail party. No amount of opinions by any number of law professors willing to support this idiotic assumption of privacy will change what most jr high school kids nowadays know. Any one in any kind of public position who does not understand this, should be shot for getting anywhere near a computer.
OK, you're in a bit of a controversy, and you get your ass kicked under questionable circumstances. If you're legit (like a good agnostic, I assume the good professor is), just cooperate and HELP the police find the perps.
Now he's is finally showing his true colors by threatening to sue the university. How completely and utterly stupid can someone be?
I wanted to support this guy, but he keeps scoring points for the other side. No one is doing more to legitimize the conduct of the religious right in this situation than Mirecki himself.
Look, Mr. Mirecki, I'm sorry you got your ass kicked. Really. But past that, you are an embarrassment to anyone interested in the current debate involving science vs religion.
El_Borak (Bill Hoyt) says…
"Privacy there is equivalent to a conversation at a cocktail party."
Yup, one with video cameras and tape recorders all over the place.
This could be a whole other blog (and probably will be eventually)
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
Don't forget: The only reason Mirecki's comments about the religious right became public is because that nut Altevogt put some serious effort into making the comments public. And with that I am *not* saying that the listserv postings were "private," though there are lawyers and law professors who will argue that point. But I'm not a lawyer, so I won't.
If I'm at a cocktail party, talking about something with someone in confidence and whatever I said is made public when it shouldn't have been and ends up ruining my career or reputation among colleagues, then I may have a case of slander or something. It's been done. How many celebrities have sued for slanderous photos and so on? But then again, I'm not a lawyer, so don't attack me on this!
Mirecki also didn't ask to be beat up - or do you have evidence to the contrary? And if he and his lawyer believe they have a case against the university and the sheriff's office, then maybe they do - or do you have evidence to counter their decision to take legal action. And who says he isn't cooperating with the police? Were you there?
It's very strange. People are so ready and willing to blame and doubt Mirecki - even for the attacks! Why don't I hear any outrage about so-called Christians assaulting a person?
thetom wrote: "No one is doing more to legitimize the conduct of the religious right in this situation than Mirecki himself."
I don't follow.
One thing is certain: KU's Chancellor did not even come out with a one-sentence statement condemning the attack against Mirecki, which is as good as condoning it. That makes for a great work environment for KU faculty, doesn't it?
But I should probably stop, because Altevogt could use his skills to reveal my true identity and make it look like I agreed with Mirecki's original comments against the religious right.
thetom (anonymous) says…
Morgana,
My rant is a reaction to this article from a few days ago.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/dec...
When you ask if I was there, I can only tell you that I was there when I read this article. If the paper is mis-quoting Mr. Mirecki, then that'll be another issue for another day.
I don't know why you are not hearing any outrage about 'so-called christians assaulting a person'. I hear it in every conversation I have. Especially from christians. But I suspect a lack of public reaction is based on the general feeling that the beating was staged. You can look at the story itself and apply a little common sense, or you can look a little deeper and realize that the story really only seems plausible from the point of view of a middle class white guy that doesn't watch much TV. Hmmmmm.
Do I have evidence? Apparently nobody has evidence. So without evidence, either one believes his story and is for freedom and justice and against the American jihad radical fundamentalist christians, or suspects he stage the poorly thought out and foolishly executed stunt and is a fat faced fundie. Thats the choice?
You can't create the bogeyman. I just plain don't believe that the fundies are out there planning attacks against university professors. This all reminds me of Ross Perot and the "Black Panthers" running across his yard.
Do I think it's impossible that he was beaten? No. I have lived and worked among those comfortable with this kind of violence (past life) and who would easily feel justified in the name of Jesus (or budweiser or something). There's idiots everywhere, and they no more represent christians than I do. But I'm picturing one of these types getting up off the couch and saying "lets go out at, say, 5AM and go give that Mirecki guy a thrashing in the dark", and its not working.
Look, Mirecki has embarassed me. I'm not a liberal, but ask my stand on most issues, and I'd qualify in most peoples books. He is giving truth to every wacky comment about liberals that Coulter, Rush, O'reilly, ElB, and Snoop ever made. He has solidified the position of the fundamentalist right. Don't follow? They basically said he is a fool, and then he acts like a fool. You there yet?
And, Morgana, I hope that your position would not be threatened by your words on these blogs. You have not done much to hide your identity. Your screen name is witty, but not exactly subtle, if you know what I mean. People have outed others on here. The one situation I know of was handled with poise and grace by the victim, but it's a reminder to everyone that there are losers (left or right) on here or anywhere else in cyber space would gladly see you lose your job for their own entertainment. And they are not all fundies. Be smart. If you can't be smart, then be careful.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
thetom wrote: "People have outed others on here.[...] it's a reminder to everyone that there are losers (left or right) on here or anywhere else in cyber space would gladly see you lose your job for their own entertainment.[...] Be smart. If you can't be smart, then be careful."
Good. I'm out of here then. I'll see if I can get everything I've posted thrown out by the editors. Maybe I'll come back with a better name.
thetom (anonymous) says…
Your welcome.
morganalefay (anonymous) says…
I didn't say "thank you." I'm just admitting defeat by Big Brother...whatever. That's why I didn't respond to anything else you wrote in your previous post, though you can probably imagine that I would if I felt that I could. Clearly, I haven't left yet, but I probably will soon. That's all I was saying.
Maybe I'll just comment on less substantive or "dangerous" topics from now on, i.e. nothing that has to do with religion or politics. Too bad. Those are some of my favorite topics to discuss and the reason I started commenting on these blogs to begin with.