Theocracy is Bad

By DHinMI

Yes, that's a ridiculous headline.  Writing it reminded me of the title of an essay written by a high school classmate; we were asked to write a persuasion essay, and she turned in a paper titled "incest is bad."  Outside of Iran, Sudan, the ranks of the Taliban and about 20% of GOP activists, there aren't many folks with warm feelings about theocracy, so I'm not trying to convince folks of something they already believe.  No, my argument is that political use of the words "theocracy" and "theocratic" probably isn't very effective, and progressives should probably avoid their rhetorical use.

Until the last few years, I'm not sure I had seen the words theocracy and theocratic applied to contemporary American politics.  Unfortunately, the Bush administration and the medieval modern GOP have driven progressives to rummage around some back shelves of the lexicon for terms generally  applied to North American society and politics only when discussing the the Massachusetts Bay Colony.  The problem is that using an academic-sounding term to pejoratively define one's political opponents, even if the term is technically accurate, is that it seldom makes for good political rhetoric.  When a term like "theocracy" is bandied about without care or precision, it's often not effective and possibly even politically counterproductive.  In some cases, it can even be lexiphanic.  [Yes, that last sentence is intentional irony.]

This is what got me thinking about the word "theocracy":

Evolution is going on trial in Kansas.

Eighty years after a famed courtroom battle in Tennessee pitted religious beliefs about the origins of life against the theories of British scientist Charles Darwin, Kansas is holding its own hearings on what school children should be taught about how life on Earth began.

The Kansas Board of Education has scheduled six days of courtroom-style hearings to begin on Thursday in the capitol Topeka. More than two dozen witnesses will give testimony and be subject to cross-examination, with the majority expected to argue against teaching evolution.

Many prominent U.S. scientific groups have denounced the debate as founded on fallacy and have promised to boycott the hearings, which opponents say are part of a larger nationwide effort by religious interests to gain control over government...

School board member Sue Gamble, who describes herself as a moderate, said she will not attend the hearings, which she calls "a farce." She said the argument over evolution is part of a larger agenda by Christian conservatives to gradually alter the legal and social landscape in the United States.

"I think it is a desire by a minority... to establish a theocracy, both within Kansas and growing to a national level," Gamble said.

I have two objections to Gamble's used of the term theocracy.

First, it's probably not true that the people seeking to expel Darwin from school are seeking to establish rule by religious elites, or some type of divinely-derived code of law, like Islamic Shari'a.  Instead, by trying to diminish the authority of the Darwinian theory of evolution, most opponents of the teaching of evolution are attempting to insulate students from anything that might challenge them to question a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis as the full description of the origins and development of man.  They're abusing their political power to push their personal religious beliefs over all other religious and scientific beliefs. 

Abusing political power to push one's personal religious beliefs over all other religious and scientific beliefs leads to my second objection: instead of saying "they're trying to establish a theocracy," say something like "they're abusing their political power to push their personal religious beliefs over other religious and scientific beliefs.  Frankly, many people don't know what theocracy even means.  But everyone knows a holy roller, or somebody who abuses their power to push their own personal beliefs.  To use a fine word and concept that many people mistakenly believe George Lakoff first used in this context, whenever possible progressives should "frame" debates like this in terms of a small minority abusing their political power to shove their narrow beliefs down everyone else's throats, and it should be said in simplest, most direct language that can be used.  Avoid jargon, avoid scholareese, and avoid pejoratives like "Nazi" or "theocrat" that people either don't know or might prompt them to stop listening. 

By arguing against terms like theocrat I'm not trying to dumb down debate.  On a blog or in publications or in discussions with some audiences, using one precise if uncommon term is often better than a less precise and descriptive phrase or sentence.  But in talking to the press, in everyday discussion with people who aren't political animals, or in mass communications, progressives are almost always better served with common words and phrases framed in ways that relate to the audience's everyday lives.  Not too many people use the term or encounter the concept theocracy in their everyday life.  But everyone knows some jerk who, given the chance, would abuse any power he had to push his narrow personal beliefs down everyone else's throats...just like those jerks trying to expel Darwin from Kansas schools. 

Comments

[DHinMI]

Regarding the actual debate in Kansas, I think that the before moving against Darwin, the literalists might want to first spend some time trying to make sense of the conflicting Biblical stories of God's creation of man and woman. Were man and woman created concurrently after God created all the other living creatures, as in the first book of Genesis; or was it man first, then the animals who God let him name, with woman coming only after God put man to sleep and took from him a rib, as in Genesis 2? If God is perfect and the Bible is the literal word of God, why did God have to create man twice?

[Meteor Blades]

If God is perfect - omnipotent and omniscient from eternity - why did he repent himself and cause the Flood as well as nuke Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did he create Lucifer, full well knowing that Old Scratch would tempt humans into deeds worthy of Hell? Yes, yes, I know that that old lech Augustine already addressed these issues ages ago, but he didn't quite answer them to my satisfaction.

Although I often use "theocrat," I think you're right, DHinMI, to urge us against its deployment in certain quarters, precisely because it is not well understood. Likewise, for different reasons, I would add "fundamentalist" when used as an epithet, since many fundamentalist Christians are not tools of the right wing, just as most fundamentalist Muslims are not tools of Osama bin Laden or other crazies. Not all literalists believe their literalism should be imposed outside their church, mosque or temple.

[Steve]

The thing is, the Democrats want to paint the Republican Party as being in the grip of dangerous extremists, thus leading ordinary religious folks to say, "Wow, I voted for those guys because I thought they shared my religious values, but we actually have nothing in common!"

But the problem is, by pointing to increasingly extreme examples, the Dems leave the door open for the R's to successfully distance themselves from that brand of super-extremism. Hence my agreement with the thesis of this post; very few people believe that we are literally headed for government headed by a council of ayatollahs, so when you use the word "theocracy," you invite the Right to say "Come on, maybe there are a few loony people out there who are actually theocrats, but we're nothing like that - we're more like Joe and Mary America who go to church on Sunday." For an example of this distancing, see the NRO essay at http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200505020944.asp

The bottom line is, with incidents like the Schiavo mess, Frist's appearance on "Justice Sunday," and the like, the Republicans have already given us plenty of example of religious overreaching. When we point to outrageous statements or actions by the Religious Right that aren't directly tied to the Republicans in power, we strengthen the caricature, but at the cost of weakening our overall argument. As DH says, the Republican agenda doesn't have to be a literal theocracy to be dangerous.

[Blue the Wild Dog]

Well, DHinMI, your objections seem to be covered by Article XIII (and possibly XIV) of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Shame on you for using "standards of truth or error that are alien to the usage and purpose" of the Bible. Topically, note Article XII.

[Blue the Wild Dog]

Clarification - your objections to the parallel stories of Genesis ...

[TCinLA]

Hate to say it, but your analysis misses the point, because you haven't taken a good look at just what kind of religious extremists we're dealing with. There are the conventional 'end-timers" of the Pat Robertson variety, who are pretty close to what you are talking about.

They, however, are not the dangerous ones. The dangerous ones are the Dominionists. Allow me to give you two quotes from these people:

First, from founder D.A. Kennedy:

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice-regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors - in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

They open their meetings with this pledge:

"I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe."

So, still think they aren't theocratic?? These are the folks behind the religious-harassment scandal at the Air Force Academy, they are the "extreme conservatives" as they have been reported in the press who took over the Southern Baptist Convention over the past 20 years (if you don't think they're theocrats, you've never listend to their Theological Czar, Richard S. Land). These are the folks who advocated Jeb Bush ignore the law and take Terri Schiavo into custody.

D.A. Kennedy is the guy George W. Bush went to see in 1999 to get his blessing on a presidential campaign. James Dobson is a leader of the movement, and leader of the most-powerful organization on the theocratic right. Tony Perkins, Dobson's enforcer in Washington, advocates the death penalty for women who are "unchaste before marriage."

I highly recommend you get a copy of the May issue of Harper's and read "The Christian Right's War On America." You'll get a lot of information about these people.

They ARE the "American Taliban." They have influence beyond belief in D.C. Calling them the Theocratic Right rather than the Christian Right is a damn good way to separate them from the others, who as you say don't believe in theocracy. They need to be publicized and outed, because they operate "under the radar" and just call themselves "Good Christians," which they certainly are not.

Reverend mel White, who was Falwell's biographer before breaking with them, says "This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush's Clean Air Act is about clean air."

These people ARE dangerous, and they are dangerous because folks like you keep pooh-poohing them. It's like Billy Wilder once told me, how everyone he knew in Berlin laughed at him for worrying about the Nazis - "they all didn't believe Hitler was bad till they were arrested and killed."

Sometimes the loonies are dangerous, and this is one of those times.

TCinLA

[DHinMI]

Thanks Blue. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy has been on my nightstand for a while, but I've been too busy reading other things the last couple months. ;-)

[Blue the Wild Dog]

Heh. It does tend to show that arguments based on reason will have little effect on literalists. Quel surprise.

[NG]

First, it's probably not true that the people seeking to expel Darwin from school are seeking to establish rule by religious elites, or some type of divinely-derived code of law, like Islamic Shari'a. Instead, by trying to diminish the authority of the Darwinian theory of evolution, most opponents of the teaching of evolution are attempting to insulate students from anything that might challenge them to question a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis as the full description of the origins and development of man.

I tend to agree with TCinLA above, these are dangerous people and these are Dangerous times. DHinMI, when you read your above quote, if you leave out the bolded part that says "religious elites, or", what are you left with? IMO, you are left with exactly what these dangerous fundamentalists are trying to accomplish. Namely absoluter and literal rule over all others by their interpretation of the bible.

[Josh]

I've been fighting the evolution battle, and the term I've settled on is "religious authoritarian."

I think it has the right resonances.

[emptypockets]

Well argued piece, DHinMI, but two questions:

1. First, I appreciate the point that calling the Kansans goal "theocracy" may be sloppy or even untruthful. (Although I am not sure I buy this -- at least some Kansans would surely like to have a Christian government with laws taken literally from the Bible, isn't that right?) But just as not that many people really know what a "trial lawyer" or "activist judge" is, those terms have been mildly successful as derogatory epithets. The unwashed masses didn't spend too much time worrying about who a "trial lawyer" is, or why they are so much worse than a regular lawyer. Can't we (rightly or wrongly) do something similar with "theocrat"?

2. Second, you know your claim that the word "theocracy" in American politics is a recent invention is begging me to find a counterexample. How about the state of Deseret, the proposed Mormon state that more or less became Utah? (Hm, maybe that doesn't count as 'contemporary.')

[Josh]

It's worth noting that the same people pushing science out of science classes are also the leaders of the anti-gay ballot measures, fighting against Sunday liquor sales, gambling, etc. There is a theocratic, Dominionist, agenda.

I decided to drop "theocrat" because it seems so archaic and hyperbolic, plus it makes religion the issue. Religious authoritarian, or just authoritarian, emphasizes the issue of compulsion, which you rightly highlighted.

Thoughts from Kansas is the clearinghouse for Kansas evolution info.

[Kelly Miller]

On the other hand, "Theocrat" has a nasty ring to it (particulary as an adjective), even if you aren't precisely sure what it means.

For example,
"Senator Frist and his theocrat Republican cronies paraded that poor woman all over television and wouldn't let her die in peace."

It has echoes of "bureaucrat," which is not a good connotation. The ugly sounding "crat" is what the Republicans are trying to utilize when they say "the Democrat Party."

On the other hand, "religious" and "Christian" will always have a nice ring to them. It will be impossible to make either of them a perjorative. "Religious authoritarians" will always still be "religious." "Religious elites" sounds like we are talking about the US Bishops conference, not about the "theocrat extremists who want to hand pick all the judges."

"Theocrat" does sound a little hyperbolic, but a little bit hyperbolic is a good thing. "American Taliban" is too over the top, and no one takes the phrase seriously.

But, remember, they are theocrats, they are trying to take over, and they have no tolerance for anyone who doesn't share their views.

[Bill Rehm]

These little fights are just skirmishes for the Dominionists. And they're not exactly non-represented in Congress. Man-on-Dog Ricky being a prime example.

These people were scary when they were working under the radar for the last few decades. The fact that they believe their movement is strong enough to come out into the light should give any thinking person pause.

But I think they've done it too early and I think we should borrow the GOP's tools to derail their movement. Demonize their leaders. Start talking about Mullah Dobson issuing fatwas against even conservative Republican-appointed judges who stand in the way of his edicts. Name the names. Draw the links to Frist, to Santorum, and the rest of them.

I agree there's not much value in using the word theocracy, but there's great value in demonstrating the truth behind by the term.

[Josh]

Under the circumstances, Sam Brownback is a more relevant example than Santorum.

This whole system opens up the Roveian "attack what they perceive as their strength" strategy. They see religion as the issue where they're strong, but with the right spin, it's their greatest weakness. Not the religion, but their desire to impose it on everyone else.

I decided to move away from theocrat because I didn't think people would take it seriously. I have no data on that, but I think it's true.

[paperwight]

Just my $0.02.

1) "religious authoritarian" does, IMO, two things wrong: (a) it moves the debate into religion, where religion gets automatic deference, and (b) how many people do you think know what "authoritarian" means without thinking about it?

2) Moving away from theocrat is a good idea. Myself, I use "Republican Fundamentalist" for the Dominionists / literalists / radical dispensationalists / whatever. It takes away the religious part as a lead-in, and puts them squarely in the political arena where they belong, as the repressive branch of the Republican Party.

YMMV.

[LamontCranston]

No, some of the biggest driving forces - motivation, organization, money, etc - are the theocrats; Dominionists, Reconstructionists, etc.

[DHinMI]

I think Bill has a nice summary of my point; there's not much value in calling somebody a theocrat, but where they show themsleves, there's value in demonstrating the truth behind by the label.

And emptypockets, I forgot about Utah, and it's another good example, even more apt than the Mass Bay Colony. But yes, I was thinking of the US since the late 19th century.

[CKR]

But there needs to be one word for those who would deprive gays of their human rights and shove creation at 6600 bc down their fellow citizens' throats.

So that we can keep referencing them and their actions, just as the conservatives have destroyed the word and concept "liberal."

Hmmm...maybe we should just use "Republican."

[DHinMI]

CKR may have just provided the answer...

[chief276]

The way I'd put it is that theocracy American style is theocracy with a difference. I've been calling it neo-theocracy and referring to its adherents as neo-theocrats or, for short, neo-theos.

[emptypockets]

word coinage: "theo-neo", sorry, "neo-theo" sort of sounds to me like a late-season replacement actor on the Cosby Show.

As long as we're making up new words, how about theologue? (that would be, a religious-minded ideologue.)

You decide whether I'm kidding.

[Barry Freed]

Important correction:

Some good points all around but part of this from DHinMi's original post unfortunately buys into GOP framing:

"they're abusing their political power to push their personal religious beliefs over other religious and scientific beliefs.

Instead I propose: "they're abusing their political power to push their personal religious beliefs over other religious and scientific evidence."

Science has nothing to do with beliefs. It has everything to do with observation, experimentiation, evidence. These religious fanatics want to play the identity politics card by misrepresenting the findings of science as simply one belief among others. This is as false as it is pernicious. I can't emphasize that point enough.

For more see Josh's fine blog (link is in his comments above) and also I highly recommend PZ Meyers excellent blog Pharyngula (despite the fact that I'm currently being hammered by him and others on a particular point concerning atheism/nontheism- it just happens to be my misfortune to be a scholar of religion.) He hammers this point again and again.

I also think Paperwight has some very pithy insights into this kind of thing. In particular, I think his post on destroying the brand is very important. Hence, I suggest things like "Republican extremists", "radical Republicans", etc., And avoid "Repugs," "Rethuglicans," and the like. And it pains me to do that but he's right (it also pains me, a long-time lefty radical to have to give over the term "radical" but it's a small price to pay). Also, I think it's a good idea to eschew the word "conservative" for anything used to describe them.

[Barry Freed]

On second thought, does anyone think we could get away with "fucktards"? Just sayin'

[DHinMI]

Barry--since the Darwinian theory of evolution isn't testable, it's not as easily characterized as most other scientific theories in physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Furthermore, while I'm no biologist, I'm aware that there are big differences between scientists on what's evidence to support various evolutionary theories, what's not, etc; for instance, some of the theories of Gould and Dawkins are, from what I've read, currently looking somewhat shaky. Likewise, even though his overall theory still holds up well, not all of Darwin's specific tenets are accepted, and some have been completely rejected. So, unlike more testable theories like much of physics and chemistry, and a lot of biology like genetics, cell biology, etc, evolution is more "theoretical" and depends on ones interpretation of evidence that can't really be controled, manipulated, or form the basis of predictions that can be easily tested (like with some of astronomy, geology, etc). Thus, it's informed and strongly supported belief, and what's presented as evidence supports evolution over the literal Biblical story of Genesis, but it's not easily demonstrated like most other sciences.

Shorter version of what I'm struggling to say--you can persuasively argue evolution, but unlike most other sciences, it can't be demonstrated, so it's slightly more open to interpretations that Newtonian physics, genetics, chemistry, etc.