Friends in interesting places
Bookworm on Apr 08 2006 at 10:06 am | Filed under: Abortion, America, Culture, Religion
Some time ago, when I was still blogging at Blogger, I wrote a post asking what an American theocracy would look like. I asked this question because it occurred to me that, while liberals were frantically throwing around statements about Bush's "ultra conservatism" and "scary fundamentalism," none were articulating what they thought would happen if Bush really and truly had his way — short, of course, of seeing Roe v. Wade overturned.
My dear friend Patrick, at Paragraph Farmer, took that idea and ran with it. He ran so far and so well that he got an entire article published in "The New Pantagruel." Patrick imagines a world that is actually more humane than that currently dominated by secularism, although I suspect some of that humanity is Patrick's own, and cannot just be attributed to his imagined theocracy. Significantly, Patrick doesn't see any witches getting burned, gays being flayed, or adulterers stoned. It's a nice world. Make sure you go and visit it.
Talking to Technorati: Christianity, Theocracy, Christian theocracies
Email This Post To A Friend
15 Responses to “Friends in interesting places”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Even as a conservative religious person, I see theocracy as a bad idea. What is life like if you are one of the people who choses a differnt faith then the “official” one? Not a position I want to be in.
The goverment can tell you what to believe, and you can act like you do to fit in but only what is in your own heart really counts.
Off topic, did you get your buttons back? This is driving me crazy!
If people are saying that an American theocracy is Mr. Bush’s idea , they’ve not been paying attention.
Remember Bill Clinton’s impeachment? Back when the rule of law mattered? Some say that the drive for impeachment did not begin with Monica Lewinski, but the Religious Rights’ long held desire to takeover American politics. (”I’m for evangelicals running for public office and winning if possible and getting control of the Congress, getting control of the bureaucracy, getting control of the executive branch of government,” the Rev. Billy Graham told viewers of the 700 Club in 1985).
According to Rolling Stone, the idea to impeach Clinton reportedly took root during a meeting of the Center for National Policy (CNP) in June 1997, and by 1998, disgraced House majority leader Tom DeLay — who earned a 100% approval rating by the Christian Coalition — provided fundamentalists with a “direct lobbying line to the U.S. Congress.”
Some Senators were also on board and, with Supreme Court vacancies waiting in the wings, the Religious Right needed an executive partner.
Enter George W. Bush.
The crowning moment for America’s fundamentalists reportedly came in 1999– when candidate Bush made his “king-making speech” before CNP, wherein he was rumored to have promised to take a “tough stance against gays and lesbians” and appoint Religious Right-approved candidates to the Supreme Court. The Democratic National Committee requested a copy of the speech, but was denied, while ABC News and other organizations started asking questions, declaring CNP, which has included John Ashcroft, Ralph Reed, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell among its influential members, as the “most powerful group you never heard of.”
While Bush’s trip to Bob Jones University made headlines, he also made a scantly noticed pilgrimage to meet with about two dozen fundamentalist leaders who called themselves the Committee to Restore American Values, which was headed by Left Behind series co-author and CNP founder Rev. Timothy LaHaye, who Rolling Stone reported, “played a quiet but pivotal role in putting George W. Bush in the White House.”
How valid is this theory? The National Council of Churches, which represents America’s mainstream Protestant churches, has said that Bush is the first President since George Washington to snub traditional churches while giving unparallel access to evangelicals.
Walter Cronkite and Jimmy Carter have both expressed dismay over what Carter calls the “increasing merger in this country of fundamentalism on the religious side [and] fundamentalism on the political side.” And in the aftermath of the 2000 election:
* ABC News openly speculated that Christian conservatives were responsible for Bush’s presidential nomination.
* The Washington Post described Bush as the first U.S. President to double as the Religious Right’s “de facto leader.”
* The Guardian reported that U.S. fundamentalists are “at the heart of power.”
* The Village Voice reported that the Bush White House consults with apocalyptic Christians to make sure that U.S. foreign policy conforms to End Times prophecies.
* Karl Rove consulted James Dobson (the man “Focus on the Family” co-founder Gil Alexander-Moegerle called “a tremendous threat to the separation of church state”) regarding President Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
* The Marriage Protection Act passed in the House, using an untested provision that further weakens the wobbly wall between church and state.
* The Constitutional Restoration Act of 2004, which states that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over “any matter” regarding public officials who acknowledge “God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government” was reintroduced in 2005.
In Sept. 1960, Presidential candidate John F. Kennedy eased concerns that his Catholicism would interfere with his presidency. “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute–where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote–where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference–and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him,” he said.
During the 2004, election, however, the GOP was caught dipping its pen into God’s inkwell when the Bush campaign asked user-friendly congregations to hand over their church directories. And while one pastor even told parishioners to “vote for Bush” or leave, the IRS targeted one liberal church for giving an antiwar sermon.
While the Abramoff scandal has underscored ways the GOP has manipulated the folks Lee Atwater once referred to as “extra chromosome conservatives,” concerns over “apocalyptic politics” cannot be overlooked. Today, one third of all Americans believe that Israel will soon be destroyed to make way for the second coming of Christ, sharing the same theology as the Islamofascists America’s democratic quest is supposedly disarming. “And as far as the imminent apocalypse is concerned, [America's fundamentalists are] on the same page as the Mullahs in Tehran,” conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan pointed out. “Just in case you were sleeping soundly at night.”
Hrm, this segues quite well into the ability of Democrats to manipulate and the ability of Republicans to manipulate.
As I wrote here, Democrats have historically been more manipulative and ruthless
The Story Ends
AGAIN AND AGAIN in my mind I have reviewed the events that preceded the Japanese attack, seeking to determine if I was unjustified in drawing from the orders, directives and information that were forwarded to me the conclusions that I did. The fact that I then thought and now think my conclusions were sound when based upon the information I received, has sustained me during the years that have passed since the first Japanese bomb fell on Pearl Harbor.
When the information available in Washington prior to the attack was disclosed to me I was appalled. Nothing in my experience of nearly forty-two years service in the Navy had prepared me for the actions of the highest officials in our government which denied this vital information to the Pearl Harbor commanders.
If those in authority wished to engage in power politics, the least that they should have done was to advise their naval and military commanders what they were endeavoring to accomplish. To utilize the Pacific Fleet and the Army forces at Pearl Harbor as a lure for a Japanese attack without advising the commander-in-chief of the fleet and the commander of the Army base at Hawaii is something I am wholly unable to comprehend.
While I am still able to do so, I feel that I must tell the story so that those who follow may fully realize the imperative necessity of furnishing the naval and military commanders at the front with full and clear information. Only in this way can the future security of our country be preserved.
Specifically, Kimmel’s account. This doesn’t have anything to do with theocracy, of course, other than the objective analysis of which part of the spectrum has more powers in propaganda and manipulation.
If we survived Roosevelt’s 4 terms as President for Life (until he died), then I tend to believe we can survive the far less advantageous Republicans and Religious Right. There were quite a number of things most people didn’t know were going on in Roosevelt’s time. This has quite a lot of relation to “The Perfect Leftist World”. Democrats are ruthless, and while they’ll blow up the enemy, they will also sacrifice a lot of Americans as well unfortunately. That’s not so good.
Because the Democratic propaganda apparatus is better because they are ruthless about applying it to their enemies and opponents, Democratic Presidents get far less criticism than their Republican counterparts, like Lincoln and Bush for example. This probably segues straight back to Jefferson’s times, when he was working in Washington’s cabinet. Jefferson leaked some documents he left on his desk, and then he said “He didn’t know how they got the documents”. Amazing.
I’ve no doubt that some fundamentalist Christians meet with each other for political purposes, but the argument from T.S. that purports to sketch a portrait of evangelical Chrisitianity rising has serious flaws, starting with sourcing: every organ T.S. quotes from is either hostile to or befuddled by religiousity of any sort. When the secular describe the devout, many things get lost in translation. Moreover, against those assertions T.S. cites, we have contrary evidence of waning Christian influence in American politics as many Christians forego politics altogether to devote themselves to home schooling, or church, or running their businesses, etc. Think of the annual “Christmas wars,” wherein Nativity scenes and carols get short shrift. Think of the doomed efforts by citizens of San Diego to keep a cross atop a war memorial on Mount Soledad. The lawsuit that started that contretemps was brought by one atheist, but he’s had the ACLU and the courts on his side, not to mention spineless municipal and federal governments. Think of the continuing Roe v. Wade litmus test for Supreme Court nominees. Think of the Muslim and Wiccan chaplains in the U.S. military. Think of tax dollars going to Planned Parenthood. Think of Terri Schiavo. Try praying in public school. Need I go on? The harbingers of theocracy are vastly outnumbered by the battalions of secular humanism.
But it’s a fun discussion– and Bookworm, you say such wonderful things.
While reading T.S.’s comment, I thought the same as Patrick about the sources he sites and their, in some cases, blatant hatred of Bush, the right, religion.
I do, however, find it interesting that this paranoia of religion did not come into play when Carter was president. He made no bones about the fact that he was/is a highly religious man and that he was a “preacher” as well.
“every organ T.S. quotes from is either hostile to or befuddled by religiousity of any sort.” — Patrick
Andrew Sullivan is hositle or befuddled by religiosity? I dont think so.
Ditto for Jimmy Carter.
You may can say a lot of things about the former President, but he is certainly not hostile to religion. Even so, this is what he said on Dec 5, 2005:
“Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers, said that we should build a wall between the church and state. That wall is being deliberately and ostentatiously, not secretly, broken down. . . ”
In short, Religiosity simply does not belong in government.
In the 1960s, when John Kennedy’s Catholicism had people up in arms, people seemed to understand that.
But there has been a shift. A rather noteworthy shift.
The “Emerging Republican Majority” author and former GOP Strategist Kevin Phillips has bluntly stated that “[T]he Religious Right and the would-be theocrats are the danger now.” Phillips’ latest book “American Theocracy” was also the basis for a question posed to Mr. Bush in Cleveland recently when a reporter asked, “Do you believe this, that the war in Iraq and the rise of terrorism are signs of the apocalypse?”
It took Bush five minutes to answer, when a simple “Yes or No” would have sufficed. Why? As Phillips later pointed out, with 45% of Americans now believing that the Antichrist is already on earth, Bush risks alienating a large segment of the population, regardless how he answers. “He can’t answer the question weather or not he believes in Armageddon or it’s happening in the Middle East,” Phillips told Lou Dobbs. “He’s damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.”
Is Phillips befuddled by religiosity? I dont know. But before the war in Iraq, former Nixon aide Charles Colson, who is most certainly not hostile to religion, said the following:
“Some wonder if the president might be influenced by evangelical teachings that envision an end-of-the-world battle between Israel and its enemies. It would be dangerous for a president to take a particular theology like that and apply it to world events.”
Long before that, James Madison said:
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” (1803)
The danger of melding church and state is obvious. While the Village Voice may be hostile to any form of religion, the e-mails the paper uncovered, proving that the Bush adminstration consulted with End Times zealots before setting policy, are nevertheless alarming.
I do, however, find it interesting that this paranoia of religion did not come into play when Carter was president. He made no bones about the fact that he was/is a highly religious man and that he was a “preacher” as well. — Anna
No, but Carter shocked the country when he said he “lusted in his heart.”
A person who is NOT religious would never get elected in this country. A recent poll by the University of Minnesota found that Americans rate atheists “below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Luckily, atheists only account for 3% of the American population.
There was paranoia over Jimmy Carter, however, but it has nore to do with his ties to organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Trilateral Commission, which became “hot topics” during the 1980 presidential primaries,
Back then, candidates for the Republican nomination (save George Bush and John Anderson) clamored to prove they weren’t associated with either entity.
According to the History Channel, not only did Ronald Reagan repeatedly express a distrust of these organizations, but promised that CFR and Trilateral Commission member George Bush would not be offered a position in his administration.
During the Republican Convention, Reagan broke his promise — and tradition. Making a late night dash from his hotel room to the convention floor, following televised speculation on a Ronald Reagan/Gerald Ford “co-presidency,” he said: “I know that I am breaking with precedent to come here tonight and I assure you at this late hour I’m not going to give you my acceptance address. But in watching the television at the hotel and seeing the rumors that were going around and the gossip that was talking place here. It is true that a number of Republican leaders . . . . felt that a proper ticket would have included the former president of the United States, Gerald Ford, as second place on the ticket. . . . I then believed that because of all the talk and how something might be growing throughout the night that it was time for me to advance the schedule a little bit. . . . I have asked and I am recommending to this convention that tomorrow when the session reconvenes that George Bush be nominated for vice president.”
I don’t want to hijack this thread, so I won’t keep returning to it, but I think the case T.S. is trying to make grows weaker with each example. As to whether Andrew Sullivan is befuddled by religiousity, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (note that he’s a priest) and many others have commented on the narrowness of Sullivan’s religious sympathies; he’s famously hostile to anything that questions his own proclivities. Jimmy Carter sees chinks in the wall between church and state because as a very progressive Southern Baptist, he’s troubled by co-religionists who don’t agree with him about the Democratic party platform being an instrument of social justice. I don’t know enough about Kevin Phillips to evaluate his motivations one way or another. I do know that George W. Bush is frequently inarticulate, but the question that T.S. and Phillips say he bungled is not a fair one. I’ll even grant that the president bungled it.
Consider: “Do you believe current events in the Middle East are signs of the apocalypse?”
Possible answers are yes, no, or maybe, but each requires context (in spite of what Phillips claimed) or it’s simply fodder for partisan traps.
Worst-case scenario is “yes, and I’m doing everything I can to hasten Armageddon”– that’s the answer given by the president of Iran, with a curtsy to the so-called “twelfth imam”– but the the president of Iran never worries about church/state separation.
One could also say “Yes, they are signs of the apocalypse, but I’m a politician, not a theologian, and I try to act in the best interests of the United States as I’ve sworn to do. Period.”
Or the smarter answer, “Maybe, but theology isn’t my area; all I know is that threats to the American republic from Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else will be met with steadfast resolve.”
Or, “No, I don’t believe that. I know some people do, and I respect their views, but when I sit down with Condi or the Joint Chiefs, we go over the Presidential Daily Briefing, not the Book of Revelation.”
As to whether Andrew Sullivan is befuddled by religiousity, Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (note that he’s a priest) and many others have commented on the narrowness of Sullivan’s religious sympathies -Patrick
Why count on others to decipher what Sullivan is saying? He clairifies his own position on his blog today: http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/2006/04/christianism_a_.html
“Or the smarter answer, “Maybe, but theology isn’t my area; all I know is that threats to the American republic from Iraq, Iran, or anywhere else will be met with steadfast resolve.” –Patrick
The point is that President Bush can’t say that without alienating a large percentage of his base. Why do you think John McCain is changing his mind about Jerry Falwell?
McCain won’t get the party’s nomination without catering to the evangelical vote. That is the new reality.
Bush will say anything he wishes to say, regardless of who it alienates. That is sort of his problem.
John McCain can’t even take care of his constituents in Arizona, inundated with spanish linguistics in school. McCain can’t get the nomination because nobody trusts him.
Another person that doesn’t trust McCain
Some religions like environmentalism or Islam are okay, Carter didn’t get hit for it. If you are a good public speaker or demagogue like Kennedy, then religion isn’t so much of a problem. It’s only when it doesn’t sound right, that people see a weak spot and attack.
Some people want to disenfranchise a part of the political spectrum, but I wonder why they seek to do so. It’s like saying people can’t get elected if they can’t get the vote of moderates. Well, duh. That’s how the world works, and it is how the world should work.
Wow. I’m so glad to be a ‘fundamentalist Christian’. Is the majority of Americans who have elected Bush and Congressional majorites considered ‘fundamentalist’?
I think it’s great to get back to values. To the person speaking of end-timers, if you don’t believe, it’s your problem, right? I’m not worried. The Prophecy is being fufilled in a timely manner. The signs are increasingly present. Hopefully, you will also be included in the Rapture.
Is that ‘fundumentalist’? Great!
To the non-Faithful, keep speaking out against the Faith and embrace the false prophecies (Dan Brown and others). You will see what happens.
“The signs are increasingly present. Hopefully, you will also be included in the Rapture.. . .To the non-Faithful, keep speaking out against the Faith and embrace the false prophecies (Dan Brown and others). You will see what happens.” - Brent
As far as the End Times go, if a 2003 poll in Time magazine is correct, 59% of Americans believe in the Rapture, and 45% believe that the anti-Christ is currently among us.
Those numbers seems high, but even if they’re accurate, it’s no big deal. People can believe whatever they like, provided their beliefs don’t infringe on mine.
I was raised Catholic and we dont rely heavily on the Book of Revelation or the Rapture. The Jesuits who taught me were rather found of education and of the existence of true faith.
While I’m grateful for my experience, I realize that it is mine, and not others’. That is the nature of non-fundamentalist thought, though, no?
What troubles me (if leaked e-mails are true)is the allegation that End Times zealots have been consulted by the White House to make sure that official U.S. policy comforms with Biblical prophecy.
That suddenly makes it my business.
I realize that a lot of people are praying for Armageddon, but, if the end of the world truly is God’s plan, why the need to actively make sure it occurs?
And while I’m not so sure about the nature of prophecy, I do, however, believe in self-fulfilling prophecies.
For that, and other reasons, I am unwavering in my belief that religion and politics do not, and should not, mix.
Given that people like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice have significant input into what becomes official U.S. policy, I’m more sanguine about GWB’s evangelical friendships than you are, T.S.. I don’t think any of those three is trying to conform U.S. policy to biblical prophecy, and probably all of them are smart enough to realize that there are widely varying interpretations of said prophecies, anyway.
Given that people like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney, and Condi Rice have significant input into what becomes official U.S. policy, I’m more sanguine about GWB’s evangelical friendships than you are, T.S.. ” — Patrick
These concerns aren’t mine alone.
You said you’re not that familiar with Kevin Phillips’ research into the church and state merger. As luck would have it, he wrote an op-ed in yesterday’s Washington Post.
addressing it.
As someone who’s been fascinated by this (and reading about for a very long time), it’s refreshing to see someone with such clout making such observations.
This is what he wrote:
“Today, a leading power such as the United States approaches theocracy when it meets the conditions currently on display: an elected leader who believes himself to speak for the Almighty, a ruling political party that represents religious true believers, the certainty of many Republican voters that government should be guided by religion and, on top of it all, a White House that adopts agendas seemingly animated by biblical worldviews.
Indeed, there is a potent change taking place in this country’s domestic and foreign policy, driven by religion’s new political prowess and its role in projecting military power in the Mideast.”
http://www.annistonstar.com/opinion/2006/as-insight-0409-0-6d07q0954.htm
I’m familiar with his thesis and understand fully how he came up with such claims.
You dont have to agree with Phillips, but one thing is clear: Such concerns are not simply the product of paranoid, religion-hating lefties.
A lot of really smart and capable people sense this shift.
A lot of really smart and capable people are hindered by their imagined fears. It’s categorical that only the smartest people are capable of the highest level of self-deception.
There’s no proof that the regiments T.S. refers to is infringing or harming anyone else. While there is plenty of proof that the opponents of Christianity, have their own religious affiliations bent on the militant conversion of the non-believers. Going by intellectual honesty, one is forced to believe the side with the more justifications holds sway.