A friend of mine chastized me on my essay on Roy Moore and Cindy Sheehan. He considers the 'sneering tone' in which I berate the Theocracy Brigade unworthy of me. He thinks I do not come anywhere near addressing the best arguments of my opponents.
At first, my reaction was defensive; it's a bit of a reflexive action since people hardly ever send me responses to say they agree with my essays. That's part of the deal about being a public commentator: critics are usually spurred to express their objections while those agree usually don't.
The essay in question was not really about the Theocracy Brigade, but about double standards. Nevertheless, his criticisms aren't entirely off the mark and worth addressing.
In responding to my friend, I realized something: I don't think I've ever explained exactly what I mean by the objectionable phrase. One of the unfortunate characteristics of modern discourse (one I'm apparently guilty sometimes too) is that controversial terms are rarely defined by those who use them. Thus, a pro-death penalty, pro-war individual can call himself pro-life without batting an eyelash.
To my mind, the Theocracy Brigade comprises individuals who believe in the singular predominance of religion (in this country, Christianity) in all public and governmental realms. It comprises individuals who believe that the Christian Bible should be the unique basis for public policy in this country. My friend thinks this group, so defined, is too miniscule to worry about; I don't.
The primary definition of theocracy is: a government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
Theocracy is not simply a question of government run by a particular church or denomination. Some think that as long as a state is not like the Vatican then it can't be theocracy. That's clearly not the case.
Many northern states of Nigeria have adopted Islamic Sharia law as public policy. The Nigerian federal government strongly objects to this but because of the nature of the Nigerian federation and its emphasis on states' rights, the central government has little power to counter it. While these states retain a nominally secular structure (democratically-elected civilian governors and legislators), it's hard to deny the theocratic aspect of these jurisdictions.
I condede that my Roy Moore essay was not the best one I've ever written. And upon reflection, I further concede that my essays on the topic are a little more strident than the others.
The Theocracy Brigade is so preachy and exclusionary that I have little idea what their best arguments actually are. Perhaps they really do have cogent arguments that are lost in the noise of the shrill. I don't know.
At least traditional conservative thought on social or economic issues follows a certain rational set of reasoning and principles that, while I may disagree with, I can at least wrap my mind around enough to address.
The group I'm talking about simply speaks a completely different language. For example, open-mindedness, respecting minority rights, freedom of and from religion, vibrant democratic debate and pluralism are not only important to me but completely SELF-EVIDENT. The idea that judges should interpret law according to the Constitution not the Bible is SELF-EVIDENT to me.
For the group I'm talking about, the importance of the Bible and Christianity as the sole basis for laws and public policy (even where it contradicts the Constitution) is completely self-evident to them. That open-mindedness is tantamount to vacillation, moral relativism and tolerance for wrong is self-evident to them.
I apologize to my friend but I honestly don't know how to bridge that gap. I wish I did.
My friend does make one good point. I like the phrase 'Theocracy Brigade' because it accurately captures this mentality (and it's not the individuals I object to but the mentality).
While repetition is a common rhetorical device, I do concede that this particular phrase gets tiresome quickly. Part of the problem is that I can't alternate phrases because I don't have another one that really captures the sense of what I'm getting at.
Dennis, over at Moderate Republican blog, uses the phrase 'theocon.' His objections to that group are more interesting since he's an ordained minister. That phrase doesn't really grab me, particularly since it doesn't quite capture the military-like discipline, obedience and conformity that predominates.
Many use phrases like Religious Right, Christian conservative or some variation. I don't like those phrases because they're easy to misinterpret, either unintentionally or willfully. My objection is not to people who are Christian and conservative. That's perfectly legitimate.
My objection is to those who are intolerant toward those who AREN'T Christian and conservative. My objection is to those who believe the Christian and conservative are the only values that any decent person must have AND that the governments should be enforcing this.
Contemporary liberals have a condescending, obnoxious and ultimately self-defeating habit of treating everyone on the other side as stupid. Contrary to liberal stereotypes, these people are not all idiots, they are not all rednecks or whatever pejorative is in vogue.
A lot of these folks are very well-educated, intelligent, charismatic people. They're not some cariciature who can't string two English words together. Yet it's precisely because they're intelligent and well-spoken that I can't simply ignore them.
They inhabit a world that not only I don't understand but can't conceive. For example, I don't think there's any inherent conflict between rationality and faith, between science and religion, but many of these folks do and so say explicitly.
Some of these people are so exclusionary in their politico-religious sort-of Christianity that they even rail against papists, the Bishop of Rome and their anti-Biblical saints. I'd never seen or heard the pejorative papist used in contemporary discussion before, only history books and A Man For All Seasons. Talk about the psychosis of small differences! Even Muslims and atheists refer to Benedict XVI/Joseph Ratzinger as the Pope.
I concede that I really have little idea how to counter this mindset. How exactly can you have a rational debate with someone who insists not only that 2+2=5 but that I ought to respect this, in the name of diversity, as a mere 'difference of opinion'? If anyone has suggestions, I'm all ears.
I can argue with traditional conservatives because I understand how they think and where they're coming from. Even when I think they're wrong. I know how to engage them. I know how to adapt my line of argumentation in such a way that might possibly persuade them. They might say, "Regulation harms health and prosperity because...." I might counter "Some regulation helps health and prosperity because..." We may disagree on means but we both share the core belief that health and prosperity are good things. At least there's that element of common ground upon which a debate can be based.
With the Theocracy Brigade (I'm sorry if the term is sounding a bit like overkill), there isn't that element of common ground. I find them far more dangerous than traditional conservative thought because at least the latter is based on principles compatible with pluralistic, constitutional democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment