Theocracy Hypocrisy
Before I begin, I want to clarify some terminology. I have found numerous, very different definitions of the word “theocracy” while researching for this post. Dictionary.com gave the broadest definition: “1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. 2. A state so governed.” That’s the one I’m using.
More than two weeks ago, the Iraqis finished a draft of their new constitution. Before I’d gotten around to reading it, an entire region of our country was obliterated, and that sort of held my attention for a while. I’m sure you’ve all heard about the passages that deal with Islam, but I’m assuming most of you didn’t read it either, so here’s Article 2.
First, Islam is the official religion of the state and is a basic source of legislation:
a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam.
b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.
Second, this constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people, and the full religious rights for all individuals, and the freedom of creed and religious practices.
This post is not about the fact that it’s impossible to maintain both a and b. Too obvious. Give me some credit. This post is about the relationship of the United States to theocracy.
“This constitution is one that honors women’s rights and freedom of religion,” said President Bush about this very document while praising the Iraqis effusively for their accomplishment. There has been a lot of talk in this country for many months on how to avoid an Iraqi theocracy, but I believe our president just endorsed it. That’s a strange choice considering how poorly things have been going with the nearly-nuclear theocracy next door, Iran. I’ve read all about Allah. I wouldn’t hand him a slingshot, much less a warhead. It’s not like trouble with the Shiite government of Iran is new, either. Anyone remember the Ayatollah Khomeini toying with Jimmy Carter like a cat with a ball of string? Members of the Bush administration have made statements indicating that more democracy is what Iran needs. Maybe more democracy doesn’t mean less theocracy to them, since they seem to buy into the Iraqi constitution, but I always took that position to be an indictment of theocracy.
On the other hand, there’s another big, bad Muslim theocracy right on the other side of Iraq, and they’re our bestest friends, despite supplying the majority of the 9/11 hijackers and Usama himself. The Quran is the constitution of Saudi Arabia. I’d say that fits the definition. The Saudis use religion to oppress women and lop off appendages for minor offenses. However, the United States, watchdog of human rights, does exactly that. We watch the dogs do it.
How about the Vatican? U.S. Presidents have a history of being pretty tight with Popes, but that’s the purest theocracy in the world today. If Vatican City were Muslim would we care? What if it were bigger than a postage stamp? What if they had weapons of mass salvation? Speaking of European theocracies, we’ve been working very closely with one in Iraq. The United Kingdom is a theocracy. The Queen is the head of the Church of England.
I’m not sure I have a clear cut point here, but if there is one, it’s this. The United States government, with its free exercise clause and establishment clause, is tolerant of theocracy. Iran is the exception to the rule, and that’s just because they hate us. I don’t understand why a nation founded on the principles of the Enlightenment is so tolerant of a form of government that went out of fashion centuries ago. Wait, I know. We want to be welcomed into the club when the Christian Reconstructionists take over.
~I AM~
September 9th, 2005 at at 11:22 pm
Occasionally I wonder what life would be like if Gore was elected, all those years ago. Then I go have a glass of ice water and think about bunnies.
September 9th, 2005 at at 11:23 pm
The reason Bushco. has no problem with a theocracy is because
a) They honestly believe Islam is a religion of peace and Jihadists are just “hijackers” of the “true” Islam. The Raving Atheists recent “Katrina Hijacks Hurricanism” post comes to mind.
b) Bushco. wouldnt mind a more Christian America, maybe even a theocratic one. How can Bushco. object to a theocratic government in Iraq when he prays to Jesus before deciding which country to invade (I mean, when he bases all his policy decisions on religion anyway)? Bushco. honestly doesn’t conceive of a theocracy as a problem.
c) Bushco. thinks that the Bible is the source of all our human rights (LOL), so given a) and b) why WOULDNT Bushco. believe that the Quran is almost as good, if not just as good? I can imagine how many Imams and other Islamic religious leaders pumped bullshit into Bushco.’s brain about how the Quran is so respectful of women and human rights, etc…
September 10th, 2005 at at 12:46 am
I remember when I was in middle school and I bought into the idea that churches should be given tax-exempt status because otherwise, “the nation could tax the churches out of existence”. Only later did I realize that this argument would also work in justifying tax-exempt status for anything else you could imagine, including getting rid of taxes altogether. If we really want to be indifferent with respect to religion, churches should be treated just like everything else, and hence be subject to the same taxes. So yeah, I kinda ventured off here, but we are way too supportive of religions, even before the Bush administration. I saw some leader of the Family Research Council or something on TV trying to use the Katrina disaster to justify why we needed to support more faith-based iniatives. How about we just stick to fact-based initiatives until the government balances the budget, eh?
September 10th, 2005 at at 1:14 am
There are no moderate muslims. Their holy book does not speak to a moderate. It is designed (similarly to the Christian bible) deal in absolutes and is far more insidious than good. Mixing politics that support it will only lead to death for many. Sadly, I see no solution. And that includes open and frank dialogue between governments and other religions. There is no middleground for Islamic fundamentalists.
September 10th, 2005 at at 7:07 am
This is a minor quibble, but I wouldn’t call the UK a theocracy. Technically, yes, our head of state is the figurehead of the Church and our national anthem begins with the word “God”. I don’t like that at all. But at least we don’t have “In God We Trust” written on our money and no-one would call Britain “one nation under God”. Anyone mentioning god or prayer in parliament would be virtually laughed out of the room. We might have St. George’s Day for our patron saint, but we’d never have a “Day of Prayer”. Besides, the only thing our saint is famous for is killing a dragon, so I don’t mind him too much.
In theory, at a stretch, pehaps you could call the UK a theocracy, but in practice the Church has no power here any more. Whenever a priest gets to say something in the news, he’s usually complaining about plummeting church attendance. Quite frankly, I’d be surprised if the current royal family were particularly religious, especially the younger lot. And even if they were, the monarch has had no practical power since the 18th century. They’re not even allowed to appoint bishops any more, the PM gets to decide that, though I don’t know why the Church can’t do it on its own.
As for Blair, he’s by far the most religious PM in ages, but even he knows better than to mention it when he’s at work. The only thing I’m worried about is his support of faith schools (Muslim as well as Christian) which just lead to further segregation, and god knows what the poor kids get told about evolution.
Anyway, sorry about the lecture, but that little bit was the only part of your post that seemed to be a weak point. It puzzles me why anyone, even the most fundamentalist nut, would want to live in a theocracy. Why do they feel the need to be forced to follow religious law? Perhaps they’re scared that, if they aren’t forced, their faith won’t be strong enough to keep them in line? Subconsciously, they’re afraid they’ll quit the religion if given the chance, so they deny themselves that freedom? Maybe they don’t want to be confronted with non-Muslims, who might show them rational alternatives, so they execute anyone who won’t praise Allah?
In theory, at a stretch, pehaps you could call the UK a theocracy, but in practice the Church has no power here any more. Whenever a priest gets to say something in the news, he’s usually complaining about plummetting church attendance. Quite frankly, I’d be surprised if the current royal family were particularly religious, especially the younger lot. And even if they were, the monarch has had no practical power since the 18th century. They’re not even allowed to appoint bishops any more, the PM gets to decide that.
September 10th, 2005 at at 10:13 am
The UK is also home to one of the highest atheist/agnostic populations in the world.
September 10th, 2005 at at 10:18 am
eohippus:
This is a minor quibble, but I wouldn’t call the UK a theocracy.
Of course I’m not comparing the UK to Iran, but it does fit the definition.
But at least we don’t have “In God We Trust” written on our money
Hey, we’re working on it.
They’re not even allowed to appoint bishops any more, the PM gets to decide that
Wow, I didn’t know that. They really just don’t do ANYTHING anymore, do they?
Anyway, sorry about the lecture, but that little bit was the only part of your post that seemed to be a weak point.
It wasn’t a point, exactly, but OK.
September 10th, 2005 at at 10:20 am
Matt:
Yes, yes. The UK is a secular paradise. I apologize wholeheartedly for offending any touchy Brits in the audience. God save the queen.
September 10th, 2005 at at 11:33 am
This is my first post at EA. I’ve been lurking for a couple of weeks now, and I think I’m ready to participate.
What does Bush actually think — I know, I know, an oxymoron — about the Iraqi constitution? Not sure. But I disagree with many of the other comments connecting his support of an Iraqi theocracy with his attempts to mold an American theocracy. In fact, he’d almost certainly deny he has a theocracy in mind for the USA … just a healthy serving of good old-fashioned non-denominational MO-rality.
Instead, he is congratulating the Iraqi framers because he has to. If he says what a great thing they are doing … often enough … then a lot of us — too many of us — will start to believe it. If he talks about what a lousy religion-centric document they’ve crafted, then that makes his interventionist policy a complete failure.
It’s a lot like what went down with the almost-former head of FEMA. Bush says what a great job “Brownie” is doing down there, completely contradicting all the available evidence. Finally, he is forced by the weight of public opinion to ease “Brownie” out of the responsibility for hurricane recovery efforts.
Public opinion turned the tide here because we Americans care a lot more about what happens to other Americans than we care about Iraqis, and we were seeing graphic evidence of the disconnect between Brownie’s “great job” and Brownie’s total failure. Unless public opinion of the Iraqi constitution starts to be informed by the content of the Iraqi constitution rather than Bushco’s lame self-congratulatory BS, he’ll get away with it.
September 10th, 2005 at at 11:39 am
“fact-based initiatives”. I like that, Delta. Copyrighted or can others use it?
September 10th, 2005 at at 11:49 am
Religion never works without an army to force people into submission.
September 10th, 2005 at at 1:14 pm
” How about the Vatican? U.S. Presidents have a history of being pretty tight with Popes, but that’s the purest theocracy in the world today. If Vatican City were Muslim would we care? What if it were bigger than a postage stamp? What if they had weapons of mass salvation? ”
It’s always bothered me that Presidents bother to consult the Pope on national policy. Why, in the world, would the American president need to consult an asshole in a silly hat about our national policies? It’s just more pandering to the theistic crowd, as far as I’m concerned.
September 10th, 2005 at at 4:19 pm
The easy part of this in understanding is simply put. GOD: Guns Oil Drugs. Dissension which is continuous always results in the purchase of weapons. If we have a vested interest in Iraq and can call it a democracy then we can sell them arms. Oil is obvious. Drugs? What was the first thing out of Afghanistan. Opium, and in less than 3 yrs it is the worlds largest supplier.
Wrap it up in a few praise the lords and a couple of allahu akbars and we’ve got a deal.
JIM
September 10th, 2005 at at 4:30 pm
Yeah cubic rooms, I thought it sounded catchy too. Feel free to use it if you like
September 11th, 2005 at at 3:35 pm
You know, I’m a pacifist at heart. I truely am. When it comes to conflict, non-agression is the only way to go if you want to win on all fronts (including the ethical)
However… I still like the right to own small arms just because of Christian “reconstructionists”.
Does that make me a bad person?
September 11th, 2005 at at 10:57 pm
On what planet is the Iraqi Constitution supportive of women’s rights? Or is this one of those “all the rights women would possibly need” things?
September 12th, 2005 at at 10:29 am
While Britain is officially ruled by the Queen, she effectively has no political power. She is an icon representing the traditions of Britain. She is the head of the Church of England for the sake of tradition. The British government does not slavishly stick to traditions, but recognises them as such. The British government does not pass laws because they are what would be approved by the founders of the country. They pretty much adapt with the population.
I would hardly call Britain a theocracy.
On another note, I just posted a new song on my podcast called “He doesn’t care”. It’s inspired by Kanye West, but from an atheist perspective.
September 13th, 2005 at at 5:37 am
The women’s rights part of Bush’s quote reminds me of the cartoon strip where he’s listening to news of the Islamic Constitution and wearing a Pro-life tee shirt, jumping up and down shouting something along the lines of, “Now that’s good-old American values!”
Not to sound like a conspiracy theory nut, or a doomsday preaching theist, but America is sliding toward theocracy. Or just at the overly-religious peak of the social pendulum swing.
Do British citizens pay the monarchy’s “salaries” through taxes? Other than that, the Brits here pant a pretty damn inviting picture of teh UK. Now if we can just make toothpaste porpular…
Cheap shot, I know. I apologize for my compulsive behavior.
September 13th, 2005 at at 6:35 pm
Ug…three typos in one, two-sentence paragraph.
It really was playful taunting. Please, don’t be offended.
Unless your teeth look like Indian Corn.
September 16th, 2005 at at 9:10 am
Another Brit here.
Agree with the comments about the Brits not being a Theocracy. Most of the Americans i know really are surprised when they come over here about how much religion doesn’t factor into British life and politics. As Eohippus says, anyone MP calling for prayer or a return to religious values really would be laughed at.
It annoys me too about how much clout the Pope has. Old JP II had his faults (being head of an enormous sky fairy cult being one of them) but the guy was lovely compared to Ratzinger. Regime change in the Vatican anyone? Bring democracy to the Papacy?
Why can’t people (East and West) just live by their own religious rules and let their neighbours live by theirs? I’ve not no real problem with the muslim families in my street, or my Christian housemate because they don’t try and make their religion any kind of imposition on me. Its these arsehats that want to enshrine religion in local/global policy that scare me. Why would you need that?