[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Steven Peterson]

Hi All,

I'd like us to try to explore the political implications of Pirsig's
anti-theism. Philosopher of religion and pragmatist Jeffrey Stout
(Yes, Bo. I've been reading again.) agrees with Sam Harris that
theocracy is a threat to democracy, but he sees secularism, the notion
that religion needs to be stamped out and has no place in political
discourse, as equally anti-democratic as are any imposed limits on the
sorts of justifications that are permissable in politics.

Since theocrats believe that God's representatives on earth ought to
rule everyone else, theocracy is a threat to democracy which holds
that political power ought to be shared equally among all citizens and
not denied based on religious affilitiation or the lack of religious
affiliation. Secularism takes religion itself rather than some
particular way of being religious as the problem, but not all
religions are theocratic and in fact the religious are very often
committed to democracy. But there has certainly been an upsurge in the
sentiment( or at least public awareness of the sentiment) that
Christians ought to dominate non-Christians. There seems to be a
positive feedback loop at work in modern politics. Such theocrats
motivate more secularism which feeds theocratic impulses and so on.
Stout notes that the position of the secularists who think that
democracy will not be safe until religious people give up their
delusions is mirrored by that of the theocrats who will also not be
satisfied until everyone agrees with their position. But democracy is
the way we are trying to work out for people with different beliefs to
coexist peacefully where all people are respected and all views are
taken into account. It seems to me then that the way to attack
theocracy is by promoting liberal democracy rather than secularism. We
Pirsigian anti-theists have to be wary of the appearance that we
represent a threat to religious ways of life in general and seek to
impose a secular worldview on all. Since we are anti-essentialists we
don't think that religion is _essentially_ anything.  It isn't
essentially good or  bad any more than technology is. Both can
certainly be used for evil as well as for good.

When religious traditionalist complain that they are being handicapped
by the demand that they restructure their political arguments in
secular terms before they can be aired in the public square, they
blame secularism while it is in fact religious liberty that requires
this restructuring. Secularization happened because the various
religions can't agree on religious premises, so such premises cannot
be presupposed in political arguments. Atheists have never had such
political power and numbers to be able to enforce a moratorium of
religious language in political arguments. It is not because an
external imposition by secularists that religious traditionalists must
do such restructuring of their arguments. It is because religious
traditionalists hope to be convincing to those who don't share their
premises and not just to those who already agree with their narrow
interpretation of what fidelity to God means. Even among Christians
there is much disagreement about the authority and interpretation of
the Bible. It is that fact in addition to the fact that there are more
and more members of non-Christian religions that religious
traditionalists can no longer rely on the authority of Bible quotes or
the Church to argue for their political positions. Nothing prevents
them from doing so other than the rhetorical disadvantages of pursuing
such a strategy of presuming the agreement on premises upon which
there is such a diversity of opinion.

Secularist atheists wrongly take credit for the secularization of
political discourse and reinforce the idea that atheism is something
for believers to fear. I have become convinced by Stout that atheists
and Pirsigian anti-theists should not identify as secularists, since
imposing any limits on what sorts of arguments can made in the public
sphere is as anti-democratic as the theocratic vision that secularists
seek to oppose. While we should see the process of secularization as a
positive consequence of religious liberty toward a more inclusive
society, we should not justify the bigotry we experience by posing as
though we are somehow responsible for the secularization of political
discourse.  Also, by lumping all religion as a theocratic threat to
democracy we lose the allies we need among the American religious
people who are committed to democratic ideals and identify more with
the democratic reform of Martin Luther King than with the theocratic
vision of Pat Robertson.

What do you think? Do you see a theocratic movement gaining momentum
in the US? How is it manifested? How can it best be opposed? Hasn't
anyone noticed that while the politics of difference, identity,
recognition of the disenfranchised has dominated public debates in
recent decades the plutocrats have seized the opportunity to
consolidate even more wealth and power? Don't the friends of democracy
whether religious or secular need to enlist one another's help to
confront the plutocrats? If so, an agenda of secularism is not at all
what is needed in the US.

Best,
Steve