[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[Steven Peterson]

Hi DMB,

On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 7:38 PM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Steve said:
> 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?
>

> dmb says:
>
> First of all, MLK was a preacher and Bush was the President. One wanted to end bigotry and extend rights to more Americans and he did so from the pulpit, which was about the only respectable occupation a black man could have in his day. The other was as privileged as a prince and invoked the name of God to flatter himself and to wage war. Gee, that's real tough call.

Steve:
Yeah, yeah, yeah, and one was black and the other white. I'm not
saying that I can't tell them apart. I wondering about the utility of
theocracy as a cleavage term to distinguish them. Can you offer a
working definition of a theocrat?


DMB:
> But seriously, there no reason that a religious person has to fear the first amendment or secularism. If your religious views are respectable, then people will respect them. I think it's as simple as that.
>
> If the Tea Party candidate wins, she'll be a law maker for six years. Her view on abortion is contrary to the law, by the way. The supreme court has decided that anti-abortion laws are a violation of our rights. Theocracy is also against the highest law, the highest. I mean, the line has been drawn already and it sure would be nice if our political candidates actually understood and respected the system they're supposed to serve.

Steve:
But we are allowed to disagree with the law as part of the democratic
process. We are even allowed to disagree with parts of the
Constitution and try to change them through democratic means. So I'm
still not sure what you mean by theocracy. I'd really like to be able
to wield the term to criticize a certain anti-democratic movement that
swept W into the White House, but I also want to be very clear about
what it means. Can you help clarify?

Best,
Steve