Hypocrisy - Part 3

[Originally posted on March 3, 2008]


I mentioned I'd write about this a while ago. I think my exact words were, "I'll write about theologically-based states later. Needless to say, they've proven themselves to not work very well no matter where they are in the world, or what religion they're based on."

Guess I'll have to justify that. Remember, kids, there's nothing worse than having to make good on all the things you said when you were drinking. Pay attention to them, because they'll come back and bite you in the ass. In accordance with that tenant, I'll apparently also have to write about how Beyoncé Knowles and Jay-Z are in cahoots with Madonna and Tom Cruise to bring about the apocalypse through poor interpretation of the writings of James Hogan and/or Douglas Adams.


Let's start with a description from our old friend Wikipedia: "Theocracy is a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler. For believers, theocracy is a form of government in which divine power governs an earthly human state, either in a personal incarnation or, more often, via religious institutional representatives (i.e.: a church), replacing or dominating civil government. [1] Theocratic governments enact theonomic laws." (Source: Theocracy)

Here's the quick explanation for Christians, since if you want to stop reading this now, you can. (Americans pay special attention, because you're on the edge of becoming a theocracy): "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew 22:21)

There was a question posed to Jesus that was intended as a trap (supposedly): the Pharisees wanted to get him to either lose credibility as a Messiah by submitting to Caesar's rule, or be able to bring the power of the Roman empire against him if he didn't, so he was asked whether people should submit to God or Caesar. If you're a Christian, this is both a smart way of escaping a difficult question and a basic call for the separation of Church and State. Hey, don't blame me for the interpretation--it's notmy words (or religion). If we need a quick rebuttal for Judaïsm, let's go with "Jesus-said-it-and-he-was-King-of-the-Jews". For a lengthier one, see this pamphlet from the American Jewish Committee, the First Amendment of the US Constitution, and the philosophical writings of John Locke (here, here, and summarized here). Yes, I realize that these are all North American examples. No, I haven't improved my example-ing ability from the last Hypocrisy note. Yes, I do still think they're valid. Here's why:

Theocracy leads to facism

Regardless of my own political leanings, I think everyone can pretty much agree that those in the extreme end of religions, politics, and activism are generally wrong. Environmentalists are great in theory, but when they start blowing up animal testing facilities, chemical plants, or other people, they're bad. When someone is deeply religious they might be seen as a crackpot or lunatic, but they're not generally dangerous. Unless they blow up the World Trade Center, or an abortion clinic, or lynch a minority family because of a perceived superiority. If a Conservative is calling for mandatory registration of homosexuals and the establishment of a gay-hunting season, that's taking it too far. So would be a Liberal putting a tax on sex & beer, on the theory that happy people don't miss their money as much.

Though I'm sure there are a multitude of people named "Jim-Bob" or "Bubba" who would disagree with me, you don't actually have to be a religious person to live in Israel. That's right: You don't have to be Jewish to live in the Jewish state. You can check it here if you don't believe me.

The relevant quote is, "A member of any religion can be a citizen of Israel with full and equal rights under the law." Sorry, creepy hate-everythings, there's no overarching conspiracy. Don't believe me? Move your hating ass to Israel. It's legal.

Thomas Jefferson is known as the founder of a particular political party. They were called the Republicans. Since then, the philosophical background to the two-party system in the States have shifted. The original Republicans would today call themselves Democrats. Sure, the original Republicans believed in limiting the power of the federal government, but the current Republicans haven't been focusing on that since the beginning of the Reagan administation. But people these days are more concerned with labels than they are the content those labels represent (see here for more). Anyway, Jefferson was once quoted as saying that the First Amendment of the US Constitution provided a "wall of separation between church and state". He wasn't an atheist, he was a dedicated Christian. I have to admit, he was still a free-thinker, considering this quote from his Wikipedia entry: "Though his religious views diverted widely from the orthodox Christianity of his day, throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, spirituality, and biblical study. His religious commitment is probably best summarized in his own words as he proclaimed that he belonged to a sect with just one member."

The fact that he can be a religious person, interested in Bible study, and still understand the reasons for wanting to separate Church and State, implies that it's not an in-graspable concept for religious folks. Here's a reason: religious freedom.

In a truly theocratic state, only the State religion is acknowledged. America, as most free-thinking states, is founded on the concept of religious freedom. Freedom, in that case, is known as the freedom of having any religion, or none at all. Here's a tract that advocates that religious freedom for Jews in America will only be achieved through religious freedom for ALL Americans. In America, they're the singlemost judged-against religious group ever. Including the tri-corner hat-wearers. Evangelical Christians have taken over the politics of the southern states; they've done a good job on a large swath of the rest of the country, too. Then there's the Mormons, who've taken over what most people would think is a quintessential part of an American upbringing: the Boy Scouts of America (download episode 1 of season 4 of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! if you want to know more. For that matter, download every episode you can: it's a great show. Summary here). Religion doesn't encroach on daily life quickly; it's a slow takeover.

Here's a brief thought that is one of the most persuasive anti-theocratic that I can imagine. I'm not able to back it up, other than to ask whether you've felt it yourself, or whether you believe ANYONE you know might feel that way: "I respect your right to believe what you'd like, but I don't share your belief."

I feel that, no matter what your superstition, no matter what tribal belief you hold, you should be allowed to hold it. For the same reasons, I believe that your beliefs do not place you above ridicule. Like Scott Adams says, "mockery is an important tool for social change." For example, if you're a Mormon, I'm DEFINITELY going to laugh at you for wearing special underwear to temple. If you're Christian, I'm DEFINITELY going to laugh at you for believing that your religion isn't based on sun-worship and that eating and drinking your god isn't like cannibalism. If you're Jewish, I'm going to laugh at you because, well, there have been so many hilarious Jewish comics over the years, and they're funny. If you're Islamic, I'm going to make fun of you for thinking that there are 72 virgins waiting for you in heaven if you kill yourself to destroy infidels. I'm going to make fun of myself for thinking I have even the slightest grasp of any of the religions I've just mentioned.

Basically, I feel that countries should be religion-neutral. The easiest way to do that, so far, is to be religion-blind. Religion doesn't intrude on the state, and so the state doesn't intrude on religion. Can you imagine what would happen if we required priests or evangelicals to go through the kind of background checks that Mounties have to go through? The entire church would fall apart! Street preachers would be kicked into...well, the streets!

Anyway, I'm bored with this topic for now, but I'd appreciate any comments you'd like to add. And while I may have let my own beliefs show in this, please don't think that I don't welcome comments from the faithful. Just don't be surprised if any of us find it...funny. Remember, you have freedom of religion, not freedom of stupidity. If you believe something, you'd better back it up if you want to comment on here. And if you think it's an intelligent argument to cite the Bible to back up biblical references, there's going to be a WHOLE lot of mocking going on...