Theocracy 101

There has been much written recently by those on the left over the “theocratic” impulses of the so called "Religious Right"…Hugh Hewitt has talked about Martin Kaplan’s comments in a recent piece, and Mark D. Roberts has posted a series analyzing the article that Kaplan’s remarks were printed in. Here is Kaplan’s quote from the article:

"Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center at the Annenberg School of Communication at USC, calls the new Christer offensive a drive toward 'theocratic oligopoly. The drumbeat of religious fascism has never been as troubling as it is now in this country,'”

Unfortunately this not an isolated instance where the term “theocracy” or “theocratic” has been ominously bandied about by the left. That charge seems to carry weight when simply thrown out to the public in the form of a generalization. Given the context of the 2004 Presidential election where the religious conservatives played a significant role; in addition to the confessed religious views of many key Republican leaders, even the President himself, this charge seems to ring true for many on the left, especially if the charge is unexamined in any depth.

Demagoguery of this nature has two targets. First, religious conservatives are targeted as having interests that are a threat to the public good and public liberty. Their reputation is maligned and such comments are meant to chill any future political participation on their part. Second, those who are told to fear the religious conservatives are the target as well, for they will carry the weight of concern over their harm at the hands of the "thoecracy." The demagogues intend for such rhetoric to strike fear in those who are not particularly religious; fear that their liberties hang precipitously in the balance. Furthermore, such fear is meant to motivate the fearful to action and to isolate religious conservatives. Such rhetoric seeks to play on existing anti-religious prejudice and to sow the seeds of future prejudice in the minds of those who do not know any better.

I have good news to those who truly fear a “theocracy.” There is nothing to fear and you don’t even have to trust me just trust yourself. Just sit back, take a deap breath, open your mind just a bit and pretend that perhaps...just perhaps the likes of Kaplan might not have a corner on the logic market. Just perhaps they haven't the evidence to back up their claims. Just perhaps he is using innuendo to sway your opinion and strike fear in your heart. In the end, it takes just a little analysis to reject claims of impending "theocracy" as utter nonsense. Claims of theocracy usually find fertile soil in the educational gaps of pseudo-intellectuals who know just enough to be dangerous.

First, those charging theocracy do so by pointing to efforts of religious conservatives to address issues such as abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, embryonic stem cell research, etc. The obvious problem with this assertion is that mere decades ago all of these policies were exactly what the religious conservatives desired (save embryonic stem cells which weren't even an issue); abortion was illegal, school prayer was legal, homosexuality was illegal in most states let alone gay marriage, and yet no one has ever claimed that the United States at any time in its past has been a theocracy. How can this be? Either the United States was a theocracy (by the left’s twisted definition) and we are emerging from some past "theocratic era" or we have never been a theocracy and conservatives just want to preserve a certain status quo. There is no room to argue that conservatives are seeking to institute a theocracy when they merely seek to “conserve” existing policies or reinstate policies that had previously existed. Even at that religious conservatives seem willing to accept significant compromise on most of these issues (e.g. no one is arguing to make homosexuality illegal, but merely to preserve marriage as solely being between a man and a woman). Apparently to secular demagogues resisting any change to the moral status quo in the dominant culture, or even seeking to slow it a bit, is the functional equivalent of instituting a theocracy. To hold this position is to essentially define the word theocracy in a manner that strips it of any real meaning.

Second, the one single silver bullet that will, and has, prevented any type of sectarian government from rising to power since the nation's founding is simply the unprecedented religious pluralism that has always characterized the United States. Those charging theocracy are clearly out of touch with the dizzying diversity that is readily apparant in American religious life; and they are utterly uninformed of American religious history.

The so called “religious right” as the left refers to it, is far from a monolith of theological uniformity. At a minimum, it is made up of religious Jews from varying traditions (Conservative, Reform, and Orthodox), Catholics, Mormons, mainline Protestants such as Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists etc. (each with their own unique theological doctrines), and of course Evangelicals (who are anything but monolithic). All of these groups have significant religious differences among them. Interestingly even in the much feared Evangelical wing of the religious right there are serious theological and denominational divisions; between Calvanists and Weslyans, Pentacostals/Charasmatics and those who are not, just to name a couple big ones. Then there are a myriad of denominational differences from mega-denominations such as Southern Baptists, along with many mid-size and smaller denominations, and then an infinite number of “non-denominational” churches. While all Evangelicals share some broadly defined theology and are committed to spreading the gospel message, all of these various denominations and "non-denominational" churches have varying theological emphases or beliefs. Even this brief list of members of the “religious right” is far from exhaustive. The theological differences between these groups is so varied that any unity on a “theocratic state” is utterly absurd.

Religious conservatives are united on a relatively small slate of public policy issues that have grave moral implications for American society. On some general level they simply decry the erosion of the broad and inclusive Judeo-Christian tradition that provided much of the cultural mortar for the building of this nation and the securing of natural rights for people of all faiths.

The fact that the left has been able to unify such disparate religious groups and motivate them to take united action is a testament to just how deep and vital the outcome of the culture wars are; and just how ostentatious and ambitious the Left has been in assaulting the Judeo-Christian foundations of America.

If the likes of Martin Kaplan disagree with the religious conservatives then he should simply argue his case and explain why Americans should reject the philosophical foundations of their culture. Kaplan’s propensity to use words such as “theocracatic” do little to elevate civil discourse and even less for his cause.

It is worthy of note that back in 1789, when the United States was much more homogenous religiously, James Madison used the “multiplicity of sects” as an example for how a plurality of interests might check one another in government.

Here is Madison in his own words writing in Federalist No. 51:

“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure… Whilst all authority in it [the United States] will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government.”

So even at a time in American History where Protestantism was dominant in American religious life, when some states still had established churches, in a time that Martin Kaplan might argue there was a “theocratic oligopoly” (since gays didn’t have corporate benefits, and abortions weren’t legal), James Madison uses the “multiplicity of sects” as an example of how the new government might function to secure the natural rights of its citizens if the Constitution were adopted. It seems that the religious freedom Americans experienced at that time was so widely acknowledged that it was a strong example to use in explanatory defense of the new Constitution.

This “multiplicity of sects” has only grown exponentially since 1789, America is no longer a dominantly Protestant nation, but a nation that is the most religiously diverse that has ever existed. The idea of one sect rising to power through the democratic process and imposing a theocracy, or a “theocratic oligopoly,” obviously lacks intellectual depth or even a cursory understanding of religious life in this country.

Perhaps intellectuals of the left should educate themselves before throwing out quotes that are better suited to a guest appearance on “Romper Room” than for serious discourse on American politics.

Cruel and Unusual Punishment at Gitmo?

As Americans we are always questioning whether or not our government is using force in our name appropriately...So the question naturally arises...Are we going too far in our interrogation of terrorists...(a term that is slowly losing its impact)? Let me rephrase...Are we going too far in our interrogations of men who belong to a movement that revels in brutality, men who gleefuly slaughter innocent humans by way of sawing their head off on camera for a world wide audience with knives...multiple times. Men who rejoice when their comrades destroy the lives of thousands and their victims are forced to jump from towering buildings rather than be burned alive? Are we going too far in our interrogations of these men?

As American citizens we should critically examine the evidence.

Read this article from Time for a list of the horrible interrogation techniques used by our military on the 20th hijacker on 9/11 Al-Qahtani. Here is a brief glimpse of some of these clearly innapropriate techniques...

Pouring water on their heads. The HORROR!
It was probably Perrier or Dasani no less...don't laugh, I have seen just the threat of brand name water bring grown men to their knees.

Puppet shows: "According to the log, his handlers at one point perform a puppet show 'satirizing the detainee’s involvement with al-Qaeda.'" I just pray they weren't sock puppets, I can't even describe the utter devastation that results when sock puppets are used by well trained interrogators...it is indescribable. Just thank God you haven't had to witness such acts. We can only hope that Iran and North Korea aren't developing sock puppets at this very moment.

God Bless America: "He is taken to a new interrogation booth, which is decorated with pictures of 9/11 victims, American flags and red lights. He has to stand for the playing of the U.S. national anthem." What is wrong with him having to look at the victims of his insanity? I say he should also have to stand and sing along with Lee Greenwood's "Proud to be an American" on the hour every hour...that song may just bring them around to our side!

Waking them up with loud bursts of Christina Aguilera...I knew her music was good for something I just didn't know what.

The interrogation technique that apparently broke him down was the deplorable "Invasion of space by female." Imagine that? Pouring water, blasting Christina Aguilera and other forms of cruel and unusual punishment did not break him, but trying to defile him by putting a female in close proximity? He just couldn't take that anymore. Hey, I say if their Achilles heel is their deep seeded misogyny then use whatever means possible.

It’s a Crazy Mixed up World…Gonzales v. Raich

The medical marijuana case handed down yesterday is politically fascinating for a number of reasons...

You have the entire left leaning side of the Supreme Court bench crushing the dreams of the lefty drug legalization crowd joined by moderate Kennedy and conservative Scalia departing from the rest of his conservative collegues in joining the majority opinion (and who write a concurring opinion).

You also have none other than conservative icon Clarence Thomas supporting the right of people to “pass the duche” (for purely medical purposes of course) writing his own dissent and also joining O’Connor and Rehnquist in dissent.

Why this topsy turvy decision, with liberal justices pulling the bong out of the hands of the medically ill, and most of the conservative justices (save Scalia) arguing for a hashish heaven in California?

In essence you have the policy issue and the Constitutional issue moving at cross currents and creating some interesting results. You have several important issues layered upon one another….

1. First, you have the obvious policy issue of whether or not people should be allowed to use marijuana for medical purposes. Liberal left wingers and conservative libertarians are allies on this issue.
2. Second, you have the policy issue of what role the Federal government should play in the drug war and whether the war on drugs is damaged by states passing their own laws that contradict federal law on this issue.
3. Third, you have the larger Constitutional issue of national governmental power and whether or not the Commerce power of Congress extends to the regulation of the economy (in this case Marijuana).

While I haven’t as yet the whole 79 page decision, what I have skimmed shows that the Court was at least trying to step beyond the policy issue and tackle the deeper Constitutional issues. Witness the following from the majority opinion (remember this is the all the liberal judges Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, Souter, joined by Kennedy and Scalia):

“The case is made difficult by respondents’ strong arguments that they will suffer irreparable harm because, despite a congressional finding to the contrary, marijuana does have valid therapeutic purposes. The question before us, however, is not whether it is wise to enforce the statute in these circumstances; rather, it is whether Congress’ power to regulate interstate markets for medicinal substances encompasses the portions of those markets that are supplied with drugs produced and consumed locally.”

Refreshing language from the Court that brought us Lawrence v. Texas, Roper v. Simmons and other great hits, where the court seems preoccupied with their vision of justice and not the Constitutionality of the case before them. Here the Court says that no matter how much they sympathize with those wanting to use medical marijuana, they cannot allow California and other states to violate the will of Congress and Federal law.

So why are the left leaning justices acting as the tools of the “evil”
drug enforcement arm of the “feds?”

This is due to the stakes. For left leaning justices, the very foundation of National governmental power is at stake in these types of cases. The “Commerce Clause” has furnished the authority for Congress to erect the entire Federal regulatory state. If the liberal justices on the Court are not about to undue the authority of Congress to regulate pretty much whatever it wants just to provide pot to ailing cancer patients. The stakes are just too high.

In terms of precedent the case seems very straight forward. The majority relied on well established precedent namely Wickard v. Filburn 1942, which was vitually identical to this case if you substituted the word “majrijuana” for the word “wheat.” The dissent relied upon U.S. v Lopez and U.S. v. Morrison. However, in Lopez (I haven’t read Morrison) the Court, while placing limits on Congressional commerce power, explicitly did not overrule its Wickard precedent.

At the heart of all of this is the fact that the Constitution was altered during the New Deal era. However, this alteration was not recorded in the Constituitonal Text. Congressional power to “To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” was altered. The Supreme Court decided, with pressure from FDR and Congress to begin interpreting this phrase as if it read, “Congress has the power to regulate the economy of the United States.”

Over 70 years of precedent and dozens of Federal agencies, and probably millions of lines of federal regulations have been predicated upon this alteration to the Constitution. Now if the American people wanted Congress to wield this power then they could have amended the Constitution via Article V and added that power to Congress legitimately. While there would still be plenty of court cases to be interpreted on these issues, at least the text of the Constitution would not be at obvious variance with reality.

James Madison argued that at some point established precedents gain a legitimacy over time and should not be overturned. My guess is that the commerce clause jurisprudence falls into this category. However, the cognitive dissonance that results from such muddled jurisprudence that increasingly does not square with the text of the Constitution should be example “A” of why it is best to secure alterations to the Constitution by established means and not with a wink and a knod to the established means of amending the Constitutional text…

Paying Respect

I credit Dennis Prager (see title link) with increasing my awareness of the importance of public ritual as a means of providing meaning and purpose to our collective lives. Usually Memorial Day has meant a three day weekend and no more. This year I was resolved to have a “meaningful” Memorial Day honoring those who have sacrificed themselves for our country in battle. I thought I would share some of my thoughts on the weekend…

First, Friday night I assembled a group of friends to watch Saving Private Ryan in this special theatre setting that was available to us. I provided a brief history of Memorial Day and some facts and background on D-Day before the movie. Saving Private Ryan is a truly great film (the best “war” film ever made in my mind) and perfect for the purpose of reflecting on Memorial Day.

SPR (Saving Private Ryan) does an excellent job of showing the pure horror of war while not diminishing the sacrifice of the men who fought in it. The soldiers are portrayed with respect and reverence but none of the brutality of combat is glossed over. The “bookends” of the movie with private Ryan as a old man, a grandfather, with a familial legacy immediately present give a context and a perspective to the sacrifice of those who did not make it and were not able to “pursue happiness” and get married and have a family, or make it back to see their wife, their mother, father, or children. SPR is a deeply personal look at the characters and their sacrifice that also takes in the scope and importance of the Normandy invasion. It is a truly great movie.

I highly recommend viewing it as a Memorial Day ritual; it definitely puts one in a reflective posture and causes one to be thankful to those young men who have given the “last full measure of devotion” for their country.

Second, on Monday we attended a Memorial Day service at the local cemetery. When we drove into the cemetery I was amazed at the hundreds of large American Flags lining the entrance drive and the surrounding roads, supported by over 3,500 small American flags on the graves. I expected a small dedicated crowd, mostly older largely WWII generation; but, I was thoroughly surprised and tremendously encouraged by the one thousand people and overflow crowd who had shown up for the ceremony. Even more notable perhaps was the cross-generational cross-cultural make up of the crowd. Our culture is so niche marketed with youth music, youth clubs, and restaurants and movies targeted to certain ages and tastes…it is rare to have a community event and location that draws people from all ages and backgrounds. There were the WWII generation folks, veterans of every recent conflict, as well as young families with their young children, teenagers, young couples, boy scouts, the fire department, the police department, all types of service organizations. I was really buoyed by the crowd and their enthusiasm and respectful demeanor. It felt good to share this experience with fellow Americans, Americans who were proud of the service that our Armed services have provided, and thankful enough to take their day off to attend a service commemorating their sacrifice. As I looked around and took it all in I was enjoying the communal experience and the respite from the normal isolation that our individualistic society normally serves up (don’t get me wrong I love individualism, but there needs to be a balance).

It was a fine and reverent service complete with a speech by a Marine General who had just returned from Iraq and gave first hand accounts of the battle for Fallujah. He praised the parents, teachers, coaches, ministers and everyone who had shaped the lives of the young marines that served under him. He said he had internal skepticism about whether or not this “MTV” generation of Americans would have the metal for battle and sacrifice, but his hope was renewed by the tremendous valor, courage, and sacrifice of those who served in his command.

There were some songs, a laying of wreaths on a memorial to the overseas war dead from all the wars and it ended with the whole crowd joining in “God Bless America.” I must say that I truly enjoyed my first Memorial Day service and I look forward to making it a tradition.

We have lost a sense of public ritual in our society. Our many national holidays are minimally celebrated and are usually not cause for celebration and reflection but merely as an excuse to take a three day weekend trip to Vegas, the river, the beach etc. Even if we do take these times for trips and fun in the sun, it seems appropriate to make space for some form of ritual and tradition to remember the purpose of these holi-days…