[MD] Theocracy, Secularism, and Democracy

[david buchanan]

Horse said:
I realise that in the strictest sense we aren't looking at the USA as a theocracy, but in the broader sense I think this is the case.


dmb says:

There is a sociologist named Phil Zuckerman who looked at the levels of religiosity in the various nations and their possible correlations to the basic quality of life in those nations. He also looked at the levels of religiosity within the United States, from state to state, and compared that to the levels of social dysfunction. This would include everything from drunk driving to divorce, domestic abuse, poverty, ignorance and crime in general. As it turns out, nation by nation or state by state, the more religious the population the more social disease there is. Other surveys show a correlation between religiosity and low educational and intelligence levels. Most Americans (85%) say they believe in God. By contrast, less than 1% of the members of the national academy of science say they believe in any kind of personal God. Most Americans also believe that you can't be a moral person without religion, but the demographic facts say the opposite is true no matter where you look.

Sam Harris said, "Contrary to the views of many conservative pundits and the Christian Right, the least religious countries in the world today are not full of chaos and immorality, but are actually among the safest, healthiest, most well-educated, prosperous, ethical, and successful societies on earth. Based on a year’s worth of research conducted while living in Scandinavia, Society Without God by Phil Zuckerman explores life in a largely secular culture, delving into the unique worldviews of secular men and women who live in a largely irreligious society, and explaining the reasons why some nations are less religious than others, and why religious faith doesn’t seem to be the secret to national success that so many claim it to be."

Zuckerman's book, "Society Without God" shows that societies are better off in all kinds of way when they are secular rather than religious. As in the case of the United States, the nation in question need not officially be a theocracy for it to count as a religious nation or a nation with a religious culture. Outside of Africa, Afghanistan is the poorest nation on earth and, probably NOT coincidentally, the home of the Taliban. Consider Tibet and North Korea. Consider the difference between Vermont and Alabama. 

This is NOT a cause and effect relationship, of course. As I see it, religiosity and the social problems associated with it are two aspects of the same lack of development. The social level morality offered by religion fits like a glove in a social situation where a regression to biological values poses a real threat. When a mega-church goes into a high-crime neighborhood the crime rate drops. The church is a step up when you're in a situation where the laws of the jungle rule. This is the social level putting its restraints on the instincts for sex and aggression and hedonistic pleasure in general. On the other hand, religion has always been quite useful in serving authoritarian political interests. And this is really what we see in the USA. The religious right is just as right-wing as it is religious, if not more so. And the Taliban-style authoritarianism or any kind of militant fundamentalism is far more political than spiritual. In fact, as I understand the term, there is no "spirituality" in that level of religion. If religion is supposed to help you grow in your inner life, these social level religions would have a very low success rate, so low that they might not even count as religions. Personally, I think this part of the problem needs more attention. 

Why should we be faced with a choice between a mean, stupid religion and no religion at all? That's gotta be a false dilemma. Like other aspects of the culture, these things evolve or they perish. And this brings us back to secularism and religious freedom. It doesn't just mean you're free to choose from among the available institutional organizations like so many brands of breakfast cereal. The idea is to open up a non-coercive space so that each of us has the room to cultivate some kind of inner life. The best thing about NOT being in a theocracy is that cultural and religious evolution, as well as personal development, is far more possible. We don't want the government to tell us what's the best way to live because that can only be discovered in the process of living, it's too dynamic, too situational to be issued by decree.