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.