Theocracy

There is a blogswarm happening on April 6-8, discussing the notion of theocracy. For a number of reasons I will comment here. Primarily because I feel that theocracy is a problem in a society which has democratic tendencies. First Freedom First is an organization that maintains the "first freedom," that of "freedom from religion" is of primary importance in the bill of rights.

The founders of our nation believed that all Americans should have the right to worship according to their own beliefs, or not to worship at all. So strong was their commitment to religious freedom that they enshrined it in the first sentence of the Bill of Rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It's a reasonable concern. It's even a concern that I hold. I'm on record stating that I am a buddhist, belonging to the pure land section of buddhism (which holds somewhat different values and goals than most people equate buddhism with). And, in a state (the US), where christianity is in fact the majority religion, I do feel a little persecuted. Very much like I'm some sort of novelty. When people assume I have no faith because I do not talk about God, the implicit assumption is that I'd either be christian or atheist/agnostic. It doesn't occur to anyone that I might be pantheist, ambiguously deist, gnostic, or any other of the more subtle religious persuasions.

As such, it troubles me to see movements like the above. It seems that organizations want freedom from religion. I don't see religion as a problem at all. In fact, I think it provides people a stronger (you'll have to pardon the pun) constitution. There's always something behind them (even in nihilism) that explains, to some degree, how everything they're doing or being subjected to, is either relevant or entirely irrelevant, and as such provides us needed answers when there appear to be none.

To me, the freedom "from religion" is just as bad as the xtian hegemony trying to convert all of us to their cause.

No, religion in society and politics should be entirely moot. Religion is a very personal subject by its very nature. Unless god (note little g vs big G) speaks to others as it speaks to you, it's not possible for it to be a societal question. Whether they are deluded or they actually do hear the voice of god, because I cannot hear what they hear, and I cannot verify nor comment on it, it simply isn't a social question. It's anecdotes.

Here is where the anti-theocracy people actually have some convergence with "good ideas."

Theocracy is unstable. Theocracies are driven by mobs, which are notoriously unintelligent, murderous, and mercurial. One moment we can be discussing the virtues of marriage, and the next we can be hanging adulterers from the church tower (with a nod to Stross). The mob can appoint a new "spiritual leader" just about any time somebody with enough charisma or firepower (Hitler, the Spanish Inquisition, Henry VII, the list goes on) comes along to do so.

At this point, mob rule supplants or extends what is the normal rule of law (note I am not discussing the Caliphate or Sharia). In the United States right now, we have a President who is a self-professed evangelical christian, who claims to be motivated by God (big G again) and the bible. We have a constitution that defines the law of the country, and a man bound to uphold it, acting on the interpretation of a mob (the bible, leaders in the evangelical church, the pope, etc), in addition to his interpretation of constitutional law (through yet others – Gonzalez, et al – who are biased by religion).

This is a highly volatile situation. Because churches are subject to moral vicissitudes, and mobs of people tend to make snap judgments (such as lynching, witch-burnings, etc), we cannot tell today what a religion will do tomorrow. We cannot tell because we do not know who the leaders are, and what their values are, as they change with the winds. We cannot tell what the interpretations will be in the future, nor can we be sure "new works" (such as undiscovered religious texts, the virgin mary in a grilled cheese sandwich, etc) will not appear.

And so theocracy is an entirely dangerous proposition for any nation which claims to be governed by secular law. The sort of theocracy we have in America is particularly dangerous because it is not an official theocracy. Anyone asked whether they are performing actions because a burning bush told them to will be coy in answering, or outright dodge the subject. The actions are there, the truth is not. All we can be sure of is our leaders are acting on rationale they do not share with us.

Let me discuss another failure of theocracy, this time in a publicly acknowledged theocracy: Sharia law. While most would call Dore Gold a hate-monger (and perhaps rightfully so), he has a remarkably clear account of how islamic law works, and why islamists are so stridently opposed to America (and of course Americans) in his book, Hatred's Kingdom. The notion of what is "law" in a country ruled by muslim law is a fluid concept. A basis for laws are taken from the Quran, and those laws are then further interpreted as society evolves. In the time of Mohammed, for example, we did not have nuclear weapons or modern democracies. And so, when somebody asks a current muslim leader, "what does the Quran tell us about the west?" or "what does the Quran tell us about making war with the Americans?", it is invariably the subjective interpretation of somebody who is human, and therefore has an agenda.

I am not a Quranic scholar, so I can't get into details honestly. However, one thing that stuck with me through the book was the notion of the fatwa. As religious edicts are issued, they often contradict. One imam in Indonesia may consider it legal under islamic law to wage offensive war on American soil, and another may not. Consequently, those who wish to wage war will cite the fatwa they agree with, and others will state that those attacking are violating the fatwa (and thus islamic law, mind you). This is why people fly planes into buildings, claiming Islam requires it, and others claim just as correctly that Islam is a peaceful religion and does not condone such acts.

America is really not so far off from this corrupted nest of religious subtleties. An overwhelming majority of congressmen claim to be "religious," with the overwhelming majority thereof being christian, of some bent or another. It doesn't matter whether they are a democrat or a republican. Whatever agenda they follow is, in some part, governed by laws which are fluid and subject to vast interpretation, relating to everything from going to war with Iran to abortion.

Theocracy, when overtly expressed, is at least an enemy you can see. Our theocracy, this theocratic republic, is a far more dangerous animal, and has been loosed on the world to great tragedy. How ironic that religion itself loosed this great religious monster back in 2001.