Freestylin' Against Theocracy!
This is me freestyln' about theocracy. This is me just ramblin' on a bit.
One of the key things to bear in mind is that when those fundie Christians and their ilk talk about how the Christian god has always been part of American government, they've got a point. Sure, a number of the Founding Fathers were deists and reasonably suspicious of religion. A number of them were heavily religious, too. And at the writing of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, all states in the Union would only let white, Christian landowning men vote.
But, more than that, I think it's fair to remember, vital to remember, that the whole enterprise of government originated with religion. It is hard to find a people, anywhere, in the pre-modern world (and many in the modern world) that don't equate their rules were divine or sacred people. I'm not just talking the god-kings of ancient Egypt, or divine right of European kings, or the Chinese mandate of heaven, or the Turkish Emperor being the Shadow of God, or Roman Emperors being pontifex maximus -- well, maybe I will mention them. It is virtually ubiquitous to have governmental and sacredotal authority vested in the same person, or the office of ruler having a sacred quality.
I say this because I think most people fail to recognize how very new the idea of a truly secular government is. Even our Founding Fathers weren't aiming for a really secular government. If they had, they would have addressed the fact every state required a person to be a Christian to vote, but they didn't. Religious freedom was meant to avoid the Christian leaders of America from tearing it up; but it was never in doubt in their minds that Christianity was the religion of America. All states had laws to insure that was the case, and would continue to be the case.
I think that people, in failing to recognize the newness of secular government, also fail to understand how deeply religion is entwined even in technically secular governments. Such as here in America how the number of atheists in Congress that have ever been open about their lack of faith is . . . one. Out of thousands of congresspeople and senators. And no Presidents, no governors, no Supreme Court justices, only a few other officials. The entire elected apparatus of American society is firmly religious and overwhelmingly Christian.
I am not going to say that the US has a theocracy. But we're not far from it, either, y'know, because all but one congressperson, all senators, the President, virtually all judges, all governors, all but a tiny handful of state senators, county commissioners, mayors, etc., they're all religious and overwhelmingly Christian. The US has not, traditionally, needed an overt theocracy in order to advance religious points of view. So, during the fifties, advanced by our secular government, school prayer was enforced in schools, and "under god" was put in the Pledge of Allegiance. No, not quite a theocracy, but simply because a theocracy was unnecessary.
This is, fortunately, changing, but even as it changes I think we need to note that in almost all governments in the world, the origin of state power is indistinguishable from religious power, and in America we've very close to a theocracy in practice if not in overt structure.
Labels: christianity, politics, religion
8 Comments:
I agree with what you say. this is a good post. i don't know why i haven't been here before.
The US has not, traditionally, needed an overt theocracy in order to advance religious points of view.
This is so true.
It's interesting watching how the majority of Americans are reacting to us people that are finding our voices & speaking out. My own family has a hard time with it.
One thing I want to point out. Even though the ancient world had their pagan gods, They were quit different then the God of Islam & Christianity. I mean, in the way they affected people fundimentally. For one thing Paganism is tolerent of other gods. You can change gods & still be a Pagan. The ancient Romans were very tolerent of other religions. But, you can't change Gods & still be a Christian or a Muslim. These religions destroy other religions. It makes them much more dangerous. I assume you know all this, but it factors into the subject.
l>t,
Thanks! And . . .
When I was a kid, and this was before memetic theory, hehe, I realized the difference between monotheistic and polytheistic religions was that a polytheistic religion was more open -- it would accept new gods. This meant a polytheistic person was more likely to accept a monotheistic god, and convert, than the other way around. Nowadays, this is standard memetic theory for the spread of monotheistic religions. If I had a Ph.D when I as a teenager, apparently I could have made history, hehe.
But, yes, polytheistic religions are different than monotheistic ones -- they do tend to be far more tolerant. Indeed, I think that the spread of monotheistic religions is because of the unity of state and religious functions. The Roman pontifex maximus lost a lot of power with all those Asian gods coming in (Isis, Cybele, Astarte, Mithras, Invictus Sol, blah, blah, blah) so Constantine decided to secure the position by naming ONE god as the official one, and once again locking sacred and temporal power in the office of Emperor. You can see a lot of the same things through Western history (say, the Holy Roman Empire), and also Islamic history (with their various struggles with the califate).
It's interesting watching how the majority of Americans are reacting to us people that are finding our voices & speaking out. My own family has a hard time with it.
That's basically the history of progressive movements in America since the 1960s. Previously disenfranchised people (women, blacks, farmers) have been standing up. It's now the time of atheists and gays to demand what white, Christian men have always had in America. (Indeed, the intensity of the backlash against progressive movements is because, I think, of the multi-faceted way that traditional social authority is being challenged -- it's everything all at once, and that is alienating a large segment of society; this is not to justify their attacks on progress, but merely to explain them. So much is changing so fast, it's easy to object to the whole of it, I think.) So, yeah, I agree.
I also dig how difficult it can be to talk to one's family about things. One of the key reasons I don't talk to my own family is because, er, I can't. ;)
I also just blogrolled you. ;)
I got my understanding of the diff. between monotheistic and polytheistic religions from a course I took by Professor Bart Ehrman on "Jesus To Constantine"
I did a blog post about it here Early Christianity
Bringing up the subject again that the US has not needed an overt theocracy in order to advance religious points of view.
I keep thinking about this & the implications of it.
All the Christians that are foaming at the mouth about their "poor innocent" religion being attacked have a valid reason to be upset. The religious powers realize that their hold is being threatened. Or maybe I should say, the Powers that Be, realize that their hold by religion is being threatened. As you said we've very close to a theocracy in practice if not in overt structure.
If this is the case, It seems to me, that we have gotten to the point in the US that for religion to continue to dominate, the US will have to become a real theocracy at some point soon.
Do you see what I mean?
When religious leaders talk about foundations being threatened & all that, it's true.
But, like you said people don't understand how deeply religion is entwined even in technically secular governments
So as a consequence, people aren't realizing what they might be buying into.
Sorry, my thoughts aren't really well put together. But, I'm just begining to put it together in my own mind. & I'm not the best with words.
Anyway, a very interesting subject.
thanks!
If this is the case, It seems to me, that we have gotten to the point in the US that for religion to continue to dominate, the US will have to become a real theocracy at some point soon.
Do you see what I mean?
I absolutely see what you mean, and I believe I agree.
The reason why religion is being brought up so overtly by the religious right (when, traditionally, they've been content to be more covert) is because they must be overt to keep their traditional power in society. Before, they didn't have to do anything and they could be secure that the system -- without prompting -- would do as they pleased (because everyone "knew" that white Christian men with property were in charge). As the assumptions of white, male and Christian prestige are challenged in society, it is natural for them to attempt to cling to their prestige, even if it means coming out overtly with what they once hid.
I don't think it'll come to the point of theocracy, tho'. Religious thinking is altogether incompatible with the lifestyle that Americans really want. When it comes down to maintaining our material comfort or choosing religion, I suspect we'll eventually choose our material comfort and spurn religion. Religion, after all, does not deliver. At least, I HOPE this is the case. ;)
When a Christian says something along the lines of "the Christian god has always been part of American government," I sometimes reply that slavery was an important part of America for quite awhile too. Just because something was once an important part of the origins of a nation does not mean that it should remain so today.
BTW, you are now on my blogroll.
as far as I can see most American Christians seem to find materialism & Christianity pretty compatable.
My hope is that as Human beings we can move past the bullshit of religion by our intellect & reasoning powers.
like vjack says, Just because something was once an important part of the origins of a nation does not mean that it should remain so today.
vjack,
Thanks! And .. . I have used that exact same example, the one about slavery. Whenever anyone goes, "Human nature" I go, "Well, we got rid of slavery and for thousands of years THAT was human nature, too." ;)
l>t,
Oh, yeah, the first thing almost all Christians do is find an excuse to ignore everything Jesus said, generally through cherry-picking the Bible to support what they do, or might do, and condemn what they don't want others to do. Thus, fundie Christianity's boggles with being gay but not divorce (the Bible says you should stone people who get a divorce, and Jesus himself said some very unkind things about it -- where's the rock party for Newt Gingrich?).
Which is actually part of my problem with religion -- that they use magic to justify horrible things. They can say "god hates fags" and point to their Bible as a way of avoiding discussion the issue, or even taking responsibility for it. They were told by GOD. (And it makes me a little eyebrow raised and weird even when the Christians believe what I think is the right thing, because, again, they do it merely because they believe that their god said it was OK for them to do it, not because they are convinced it's right . . . but I strongly dislike worship of authority.)
I also hope people wake up from this nonsense soon.
Post a Comment
<< Home