[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB, all,



On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:29 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve axed:
>  What other examples of theocracy besides obligatory religious overtures in Presidential addresses do you see? The attempt to get creationism taught in science classes is certainly one attempt at theocracy (imposing Christianity upon nonChristians) through democratic means. Can you suggest some others?
>
> dmb says:
> Oh, there certainly isn't a shortage of example. Took about 5 seconds to find one:
...
> MANDERS: Is there any reason at all for an abortion?
> ANGLE: Not in my book.
> MANDERS: So, in other words, rape and incest would not be something?
> ANGLE: You know, I’m a Christian, and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things."

>
> To use Sharon Angle's analogy, being raped by your father is a "lemon situation" and we ought to make it into a "lemonade situation" by using the government to force the pregnant woman to bare her rapist's child. Nice, huh?


Steve:
Like you, I disagree with Angle's view, and I agree that note well
that her position is definitely religiously motivated. It is theistic,
but I'm not sure that I see anything theocratic here.  Isn't theocracy
more than merely holding political views influenced by commitments to
religious beliefs? If someone believes that we ought to devote a
greater proportion of the federal budget to foreign aid on the
justification that we are called to such charitable acts by the
example of Jesus, is that a version of theocracy?

By "theocrat", I suppose I am referring to wanting to rule or to be
ruled by God's representatives on earth, endorsing The Divine Right
Party. When someone says that they support a particular action because
they think it is what is right and are willing to participate in the
exchange of reasons in support of their position but there reasons
happen to be stated in a religious vocabulary, we aren't necessarily
looking at theocracy at work. (Or are we?) On the other hand, when
Bush told us that God wants him to be President, tacitly claiming a
divine endorsement for _whatever_ he might do, and later justified
going to war in Iraq in part because God wanted him to, thats a
theocrat. He sought to be viewed as a representative of God on earth,
and he subverted democratic means to achieve such theocractic ends.

I'm wonderring where to draw the line so that MLK is viewed as
committed Christian and committed democrat while Bush is revealled as
a sometimes theocrat who undermined democracy. How ought a religious
person work within democratic means to promote their conception of the
good so as not to be a theocrat?

Best,
Steve