The boy who cried "theocracy"
by KrauzeMany critics are fond of threatening their readers with the Coming Theocracy. Indeed, a number of blogs have used the Easter Weekend to "blog against theocracy", warning each other that the end is nigh. But not all ID critics agree. In a post at his blog, Dispatches from the Culture Wars, Ed Brayton urges his fellow critics to avoid overplaying the theocracy card:
By over-generalizing we run the risk of ruining the word theocrat when it really does apply and becoming like the boy who cried wolf. Just because someone thinks the phrase "in God we trust" should be on the money doesn't mean they think we should be stoning homosexuals to death or imprisoning people for blasphemy. The vast majority of people who support such incidental government support for religion, I have no doubt, would be appalled by the idea of replacing the civil and criminal law of the land with the Mosaic law.
I wholeheartedly agree. As it becomes obvious that the "pro-science" crowd is merely using the charge of theocracy as a cheap way to demonize their opponents, their credibility will start to dwindle. "If I can't even trust those people to accurately portray my motivations", many will think, "how can I trust their claims about the origin of life?"
I found this comment to Brayton's post, from a dissatisfied critic, unwittingly revealing:
If the only people you want to call theocrats are people who openly endorse the ideas of R. J. Rushdoony, then you may as well forget about fighting theocracy, those people aren't a threat.
Yes, if you use an accurate definition of "theocracy", then there isn't much to be threatened by. So let's water down the definition so that we can still be scared of the Coming Theocracy. Brilliant!
April 8th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
[off topic]
Hello, Thought Provoker, if you're around you can drop by my blog where I've posted another comment on our discussion of ID that we were having in the "carry over thread" a while back.
Comment by CJYman — April 8, 2007 @ 3:47 pm
April 8th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Brayton is smarter than most critics but even his comment is revealing. I know many conservative Christians and none wish to institute Mosaic law. Brayton knows this and may be using Mosaic law to make a point through exageration. If some people simply dislike Christianity or Christian values why can't they simply say so and expound if they wish with specifics. Why go the route of hobgoblinizing and trying to make it appear that Oliver Cromwell's succesor is lurking in the wings?
Comment by Bradford — April 8, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
April 8th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
If "theocracy" means that the laws we wish to institute are guided by our view of the world, then everyone is a theocrat, even atheists. It is impossible to deduce a morality or even a legality without importing some unproven (and possibly unprovable) ideas.
If "theocracy" means that a certain book should override the vote of the people, then I personally know no one who is a theocrat, and have heard of only a few Christians who would fall into that category.
Comment by johnnyb — April 8, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 3:23 am
Hi Krause,
I am back from vacation and see that things haven't changed much.
Hopefully, you caught the significance of why outspoken religious people "aren't a threat." The threat is from people who want to rally the masses behind some vague, undefined idea that "just happens" to be compatible with religion.
Take Dr. Wells for example…
link
It just feeds the political mess to continue accusing and counter-accusing. It is past time to think for ourselves. To openly present our various positions and defend them. Kind of like what it says in TT's about us…
I have presented my thoughts as to an honest assesment of the source of the Cultural Conflict along with an proposal that provides a logical foundation to answer all of the ID Movement's "observations" up to and including the existence of an Intelligent Designer. Here is the link.
I look forward to discussing this, and other things, in more detail with CJYman.
What is your proposal, Krause?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 9, 2007 @ 3:23 am
April 9th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Hi TP,
Considering that you have claimed that the US already is a theocracy, don't you have some comments to the points Brayton raises?
Comment by Krauze — April 9, 2007 @ 3:52 am
April 9th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Rather than concern ourselves with the precise definition of "theocracy", perhaps we should merely consider the goals of the GOP and their allies. For example, the DOJ has been systematically purged to make room for graduates of the law school dedicated to the proposition that the wall between church and state should be torn down and christian faith should play a critical role in our legal system. The Wedge Document makes it clear that the long term goal of the primary advocates of IDism is to supplant evolutionary theory with design theory for the purpose of remaking society based on the principle that humans were created by God. These people and/or their allies are hostile to the rights of women, homosexuals and religious minorities, and their worldview has plunged the U.S. into an interminable war in Iraq which verges on a holy crusade. Whether or not their goals fit a dictionary definition of "theocracy" or not, they should be a concern to anyone who believes in a pluralistic society with a government which respects the rights of everyone. Please note I'm not saying that everyone who has an interest in IDism shares the goals of Phillip Johnson or the GOP, but the primary thrust of IDism has been to promote those goals.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 9, 2007 @ 10:27 am
April 9th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Why is it that using correct definitions is sound advice when discussing the words "theory" and "science", but suddenly becomes a troublesome irrelevancy when evaluating claims about a coming "theocracy"
Comment by Krauze — April 9, 2007 @ 10:33 am
April 9th, 2007 at 10:49 am
Hi Krauze,
Because, as I just said, the goals of the GOP, the Discovery Institute and their allies in and of themselves are troubling enough whether or not they meet a technical definition of "theocracy". If christian faith is critical to the US legal system, where does that leave jews and other religious minorities seeking justice in our courts? If you are homosexual, is it ok to be marginalized and harrassed by a government as long as its not a theocracy? Is it peachy to teach falsehoods about science so long as it wasn't decreed by a Mullah? Theocracy is just a word; I'm concerned about policies and actions.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 9, 2007 @ 10:49 am
April 9th, 2007 at 11:04 am
Aagcobb:
Oh, come on! The rights of anyone other than the top 1% of Country Clubbers have never been much of an issue for the top 1% of Country Clubbers. And the "worldview" that took us to war in Iraq even though they had nothing to do with 9-11 (that was Saudis) had way more to do with oil than with gods/God. The pandering is for votes, and politicians pandering for reliable vote blocs is not something new. Surely you know this.
In a pluralistic society it's everyone's business to be vigilant that the government not abuse its authority by playing favorites. Tolerance for minorities and respect for their rights is to be promoted, even if they're a minority saying things the majority doesn't like. That's what the free 'marketplace of ideas' is all about. For so long as the US is the US - still operates under its governmental charter - there will be no theocratic government. Just like there will be no a-theocratic government. That's fine with most of us.
I could as easily say that the primary thrust of the Neodarwinian Orthodoxy has been to promote the nefarious goal of abrogating Constitutional rights of the majority to institute a materialistic a-theocracy. I think that's pretty much what the IDM [Movement] has been pitting itself against on the political front. And the Dawkins/Harris/PZ crowd demonstrates them correct almost daily with their hate speech.
But neither side of this coin determines what is or isn't true (or provisional best guess) about the appearance and evolution of life on planet earth. Just politically motivated radicals doing political things. Beware of targeting just one side of this dichotomy - you might be accused of using a double standard… §;o)
Comment by Joy — April 9, 2007 @ 11:04 am
April 9th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Hi Joy,
You could say that Joy, but it would be false. There are thousands of scientists doing biological research based on evolutionary theory who couldn't care less about politics or IDism, and there has been for decades. That doesn't exist on the ID side; all you have are the polemicists. There is no moral equivalency between IDism and evolutionary theory.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 9, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Aagcobb said:
From DI's "The Wedge Document": "So What?"" http://www.discovery.org/scrip...
How much of this "threatiness" (eg, theocracy imminent, the Iraq religious crusade, IDers want Bibles in science class, etc, etc, etc) goes away if the Dems win in '08?
Who's playing politics here?
Regards
Comment by Rob R. — April 9, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
Hi Rob R.,
It may not even take a democratic victory; neither of the two GOP frontrunners for president is a favorite of the religious right. However, the DI isn't going to go away. All you have to do is look at Kansas, where the creationists on the state school board, defeated in the nineties, got back into power and had to be defeated again last year.
Both sides. IDism is a purely political, not scientific, issue, thus it has to be defeated politically because its advocates promote it politically.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 9, 2007 @ 1:13 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 3:46 pm
Aagcobb:
I consider questions of the actual (most likely) origins of life and mechanisms of its evolution to be as scientific as they come. I do not think Neodarwinism adequately explains the mechanisms, nor the mass of incoming information about non-random mutation, non-mutational inheritance, non-selection, etc. Neodarwinists want to ensure by political policy and law that no one be allowed to question their RM-NS hegemony. I think open questions are very good for science.
Looks to me like you're playing a double standard, Aagcobb. You don't want me to ask certain questions (by law!) and to do that you want to pretend that if I don't believe-in Neodarwinism's simplistic pablum, I'm acting politically. You're a lawyer, not a scientist. Do you ever NOT act politically?
Comment by Joy — April 9, 2007 @ 3:46 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
Why are accuracy with words and political points mutually exclusive? Words have meanings that serve a purpose. When the meaning of a word is changed for personal gain, logic and precision are sacrificed. Some respect for the English langauge would not hurt.
From your link:
This is not a new experience. Carter and Clinton did it too.
Comment by Nathan — April 9, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Hi Joy,
Don't be silly, Joy. You can ask any question you want to, and any law that prohibited it would be an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech. I also made it clear in this thread that I recognize that not everyone with an interest in ID supports the goals of the DI, the GOP and their allies. However, even MikeGene recognizes that IDism isn't science.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 9, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Hi Nathan,
Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. What I'm saying is that even if the political goals of the DI, the GOP and their allies, if achieved, would not constitute a "theocracy", they should be opposed, IMHO, on their own merit. In politics, people engage in extreme rhetoric all the time; people on the right accuse mainstream Democrats of being communists, and people on the left accuse Republicans of being fascists. Joy, for example, just accused me of wanting to censor her speech, which simply isn't the case.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 9, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Aagcobb:
I didn't say there is a "moral equivalency" between IDism and evolutionary theory. I don't even know what the heck "IDism" is, and I am usually quite careful to designate Neodarwinism - and its self-appointed 'orthodoxy' - as my scientific target.
Morality has nothing to do with any of it, beyond the researchers who don't mind getting direct government (i.e., political) money for creating weapons of mass destruction. Which I reserve the right to denounce as immoral any time I want.
It was YOU who said that support for ID is equivalent to rejection of Constitutional rights and illegal wars of aggression. You can't be talking about me, because that's not my position. You say "IDism" (whatever that is) and the DI must be "defeated politically," then claim you're not trying to use politics to abrogate anybody's Constitutional rights. Last I checked, citizens in this country can believe whatever they wish about metaphysical things, and about biology if they care to believe anything at all. And speak, assemble, practice and petition. You are not required to approve.
By the way, the Republican Party [a.k.a. GOP] has been around for a lot longer than ID or even Phillip Johnson. If you're terrified of the GOP then the best thing you can do is vote every chance you get and encourage family, friends and acquaintances to vote. In my experience progressives talk big, but often get distracted on election day. The religious right, on the other hand, is good at motivating "the base" to actually do their civic duty. This is the difference between herding sheep and herding cats.
If some ID supporters are Republicans, that doesn't say anything about ID except that some Republicans like it. So do some Democrats, some Independents, and some Libertarians. So what?
If your complaint is valid, then ID supporters could claim NDS is a Socialist hard-left political propaganda ploy, and it would be every bit as valid as yours. Why would you wish to go there?
Comment by Joy — April 9, 2007 @ 4:42 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Hi Kause,
You asked…
Since you are pressing the point, I review our previous exchange on this matter.
Here is how I responded to your bleating over the theocracy issue…
There is plenty of evidence that the United States is already a theocracy"¦.
Officially endorsed slogans like "In God we Trust", "One Nation under God", etc.
An unbroken chain of religious Presidents. All three branches of government are packed with religious leaders.
If America actually became a theocracy, how would we tell the difference? Would a president have to launch something like a "faith-based initiative" and make it a permanent law of the land?
I still stand by this sentiment. And, yes, it comes downs to the definition of the word "theocracy". Is Saudia Arabia a theocracy? Is Iraq (the new government)? Is Iran?
As to what I think of Brayton's comments… They are what I would expect of a Cultural Warrior. Which brings up the question of why you continually beat this drum? What does it have to do with a subject that isn't supposed to be about religion?
Can we talk about your scientific proposal now?
Provoking Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 9, 2007 @ 6:49 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Well shoot, I guess every government in all the world was a theocracy before 1789. Who knew?
Comment by Wonders For Oyarsa — April 9, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
April 9th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Hi Joy,
I'm not sure why I have to keep saying that I know everyone interested in IDism doesn't buy into the complete worldview of the DI, the GOP and its allies. But there's no point in pretending we don't know what mainstream IDism as promoted by the DI is all about, because its spelled out explicitly in the Wedge Document.
Of course they can. And the DI's goal is to use anti-evolutionism as part of an effort to defeat progressives politically. And progressives have the right to speak, assemble, practice and petition as well.
Thats true, but last year progressives did a pretty good job of kicking some right-wing butt, particularly of the creationist variety.
Have you read the wedge document? Its not a matter that some IDists happen to be Republicans; its a matter that the most prominent organization promoting IDism does so for the express purpose of supporting an extreme right-wing agenda. I know thats not why you are an IDist Joy, but your motives for posting your speculations aren't particularly relevant, since you are just having some fun on internet message boards, like so many of us.
I already pointed out that the existence of thousands of scientists publishing biological research based on evolutionary theory for the last several decades puts a lie to such a claim. You can sell that line of bull to the church choir, but noone else is buying it.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 9, 2007 @ 9:00 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 12:22 am
Hi TP,
You ask, "If America actually became a theocracy, how would we tell the difference?"
Well, let's see. For starters, abortion would be illegal, divorce would be very difficult to obtain, pornography would be largely underground, movies would have no sex in them, school kids would say prayers in the classroom and, oh, never mind, that just gets us to the 1950s.
Anyway, don't forget that every July 4th is Theocracy Free Day. Perhaps this year I'll try to see if other blogs are interested in celebrating this year.
Comment by MikeGene — April 10, 2007 @ 12:22 am
April 10th, 2007 at 1:56 am
"Their worldview has plunged the U.S. into an interminable war in Iraq which verges on a holy crusade."
Wait. Definitions of this war change so fast! We're on a Jihad for Oil? Or is it a Holy Campaign for Haliburton (and suddenly NOT cheap oil)? Or is it a Holy Vengeance against Threats Made Against the President's Daddy?
How often will the definition of the war change? And where can I find a timetable to keep me abreast of whatever the prevailing definition is now? Did the Congress vote for a "War for Jesus" and I missed it?
And what does "feminism" mean in a member of the order of Primates known for sexual dimorphism and prevalent dominance of males over females in primate societies? Let's be fully materialistic about this, shall we? Let's not half-ass, it shall we?
Comment by Axeman — April 10, 2007 @ 1:56 am
April 10th, 2007 at 2:23 am
Hi Mike,
Why are we having this discussion?
If I had boldly said "There is plenty of evidence that the United States is already a socialist country" would it prompt the same sort of reaction?
I would rather talk about "concepts [that] have real potential to generate insights about our reality that are being drowned out by political advocacy from both sides." Because it continues to be my "…hope this blog will provide a small voice that helps rectify this situation." (From TT's About Us)
I have made is clear that I think most of the leaders of the ID Movement are actively attempting to motivate the religious masses in reclaiming possession of the one and only Truth. I hope my reasons for disapproval are equally clear. However, arguing about a supposedly unrelated subject rectifies nothing.
Therefore, I have earnestly been working towards an ID proposal that I can personally embrace and defend. It, or something like it, could be the common ground that would make our religious differences moot.
I recognize many TTers do not share in the motivation of the ID leaders, and as long as they continue to think for themselves and resist joining the populous "movement", I will encourage such activities. In addition to this, I offer myself as a useful tool in helping differentiate between wishful thinking and logically rigorous ideas. I do this with the clear intent of…
Provoking Independent Thought
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 10, 2007 @ 2:23 am
April 10th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Hi Axeman,
I never bought the notion that this war was about oil. Pragmatically, Saddam would have gladly sold us all the oil we could buy, and it would have been a lot less expensive than invading and occupying Iraq. I think Dubya's religious beliefs are sincere, that he really thinks he has been ordained by God to save civilization. Plus, these people have the mindset that they can dictate what reality is (as a Bush administration official said "create our own facts"). That is also classic IDism; because a biological structure looks designed to them, they can infer it was designed.
Not too familiar with our closest living relatives, chimps and bonobos, are you Axeman? Plus, why is sexual dimorphism in other species relevant to us, when our dimorphism is relatively mild, and our society has rendered it irrelevant to boot?
Comment by Aagcobb — April 10, 2007 @ 7:32 am
April 10th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
Aagcobb:
Ancient history. Yes, members of the DI do have serious concerns about the direct linkage of NDS to the materialist metaphysics, as it is used to indoctrinate other people's children in public schools with anti-theistic arguments designed specifically to challenge their religious views. That is not science's job, and it's not public education's job.
Their big mistake was in adopting their enemy's tactics and attempting to do the same thing for specifically religious reasons. And for this, they suffered well-deserved defeat in the courts. This says basically nothing about the relative scientific merits of either NDS or ID, it speaks to motivation. Now that the 'New Atheist' gloves are off and the anti-theistic, evangelistically atheist corruption of science is publicized daily, the next court ruling may not be to EA's liking.
Luckily, while both the EAs and the DI were busy dueling about their metaphysics, textbook publishers finally grew some brain cells and went after their products for biology with a fat blue pencil. If theistic arguments are not allowed in public school science classes, anti-theistic arguments are just as questionable. People are becoming more and more aware that the issue is in fact metaphysical and not scientific. That's a good thing.
The political tide has finally turned. That's a good thing too, and I expect that the GOP has suffered enough damage by its own excesses that it'll be at least a couple of decades before they've cleaned up their act well enough to try again. I also expect that the next administration will enforce laws that have been abused with impunity for the previous 8 years. Like laws against preachers telling congregants from the pulpit how they must vote.
But don't fool yourself into believing progressives are exclusively or even predominantly atheists. Believing in the wisdom of a separation of church and state does not mean promotion of anti-religion by the state.
I'd really like to believe it's because the cats finally stopped toking the bong long enough to get to the polls, but I suspect much more strongly that previous supporters stayed home in droves rather than reaffirm rampant corruption and insane foreign policies. 'The Base' was never more than 30% - the GOP lost the middle 40% by being arrogant crooks and liars.
Then your speculations aren't particularly relevant either, are they?
None of the contributors here denies that evolution happened. Most of the research you cite is related to evolutionary theory only in so far as it assumes the same thing. There is hardly any research into random mutations because science cannot predict or quantify randomness. All it can do is state the assumption that this gene appeared at random. Assumptions are not research.
And telling tales about how the leopard got his spots is just storytelling about the primary assumption that all biological phenomena came about by environmental imposition. Again, assumptions are not research.
It's when the assumptions are exempted from critical examination by force of law, in an environment where their metaphysical nature is promoted to conscripted children as some sort of Absolute Truth [TM] that the enterprise becomes highly questionable. Now that the NAM [New Atheist Movement] has acted to make metaphysics the sole point of contention, things have been thrust firmly into the political arena.
Appeals to scientific authority don't work as well in that arena as they do in public education. Because now you're dealing with adults who can vote, and counter-propaganda you can't silence by force of law.
Comment by Joy — April 10, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
April 10th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Hi Joy,
I agree that the state has no business promoting atheism, which isn't the same thing as teaching evolutionary science.
No, they're not. I've never pretended to be an authority on biological science, and no-one should rely on my opinion about biology.
Then the opposite would be true as well, which would mean that design cannot be detected scientifically. If science cannot determine if a mutation was random or intentional, then doesn't that mean that ID can't be science?
Comment by Aagcobb — April 10, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
April 11th, 2007 at 11:36 am
Aagcobb:
Ah, but this is the crux of the matter of 'living matter', isn't it? Is the random qualifier necessary? Does it tell us anything useful about biology or about evolution, or is it ideologically motivated?
…and how the heck can people who believe matter can be 'alive' not see that if it is, it's not the environment doing the causing or the acting?
They're drowning in self-imposed contradictions. I'm just waiting to see if they'll ever grab the life-ring.
Comment by Joy — April 11, 2007 @ 11:36 am
April 13th, 2007 at 4:17 am
That's just silly. Regardless of what feminism could be to other species. What does its absence among humans (where it has its only presence) imply? That is it was behavior, common among humans until somebody made the argument that it "should not" be the case. The fact is that it was never an empirical argument, and it is understandable from many other social animals, both "silly male" pecking order and male dominance.
So regardless of exactly how it works in neighboring species–no one would argue that the chimp acts exactly like the gorilla or the orangutan–so it's likely that you would see a redistribution over species. I'm still living in a world where the average man is about 4" taller than the average female and manifestly stronger as well. The only way to come to grips with what the natural form of humans are is to look back to how we used to act, until somebody made the argument that we should act other than our innate social behavior, and whether or not they made an empirical argument.
Comment by Axeman — April 13, 2007 @ 4:17 am