In Seach of ... Theocratic Motives!
Politics
| July 30, 2006
| Tim
There's a certain segment which seeks to find a Christian theocratic motive behind every conservative political doorstep: just about everything is evidence of creeping theocracy. Amazingly, these harebrained theories often appear in the mainstream press, presented in authoritative-sounding tones.
It's a tip-off the author in question has no clue what they're talking about.
Let's examine a little background data: George Barna, a well-respected pollster on Christian values and attitudes, conducted a series of surveys to see how seriously most self-labelled "Christians" took their faith.
The results? Barna found that only 4% of adult Americans overall -- 10% of Republicans, and only 9% of "born again" Christians -- embraced a "biblical worldview":
... the requirements for holding to a biblical worldview were minimal. Those holding to such a view had to embrace the accuracy of biblical teaching, the sinless nature of Jesus, the literal existence of Satan, the omnipotence and omniscience of God, salvation by grace alone and the personal responsibility to evangelize. [1]
This certainly doesn't include more detailed beliefs, such as Dominionism or Dispensationalism. Statistically speaking, the percentage of Americans professing any of any of those subsets of Christian belief has got to be infintesimally small.
You are correct. It is a VERY small percentage. However, those who are the media voice for Protestant Christianity such as Robertson or Falwell do share in Schaeffer's ideology. In fact, Moody Press itslef is quite an advocate for Francis's dominionist ideology.
Here are just some examples of what I am talking about:
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'“ - Pat Robertson
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.“
- George H.W. Bush
"Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules." - Randall Terry (Operation Rescue}
So, it isn't that they are a majority. By no means do these people represent the wishes of most conservative Christians. However, they do posses the loudest voices and have access to the most powerful ears. This is what gives some level of validity to the claims of a dominionist threat.
Joshua: Well, that's quite an interesting set of quotes you've dredged up there, especially the one from GHW Bush. Kudos! But your quotes disprove your own case, friend.
First, two of the quotes from people who have almost no political following.
Randall Terry, for example, has a less of a following even than, say, Cyndi Sheehan. And Sheehan says some wacky stuff, but nobody views her as a political power and re-interprets her remarks as a blueprint for governing the nation. The strategy you're employing here is absurd.
Likewise, look at Robertson: Clearly, here's a guy with some nutty views. And he ran for president once -- and couldn't even win a primary. A threat to American democracy? On what basis? He didn't even get as far as Al Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, or Dennis Kucinich. Jackson ran twice. Kuninch holds office. Robertson just has an obscure TV show where he tells us how God is using the weather today.
Yet I am to believe Sheehan -- with her fawning love of South American dictators and hatred of US history -- does not represent the many Democratic leaders (Sharpton, Jackson, etc.) who endorse and appear with her? And that Moore -- who appeared in the place of honor at the last DNC convention -- does not represent the view of democrats? But, that Robertson, who widely condemned by most of the right -- somehow does represent the right or is in a position of power???
I don't understand how you can apply that kind of filter to reality.
Finally, your quote from GHW Bush puts the nail in your case: Bush Sr. was well known -- criticized even -- for being to cozy with Arab states. And he was, in case you missed it, President of the US. Did we notice a "theocracy" in 1992? You know, how he cancelled elections and didn't allow himself to be voted out of office -- his term in office was the end of democracy in the US, right?
If George Bush Sr's presidency was a "theocracy" then "theocracy" simply means having a Christian -- who says he prefers Christians and Jews -- in office. Then we've already been through a theocracy, right? Funny how the press missed that one. Last I heard, Democratic leaders were fall over themselves to say what a great president he was -- in contrast to his son.
And if that's a "theocracy", then what do we say of Democratic leaders like Howard Dean or Dukakis who surround themselves entirely by people who are hostile to religious beliefs? Look, study after study shows the core of the Democratic party is staffed by people who almost never attend a church.
And clearly, given their philosophical monoculture, these people have preferences just like those you've cited from Bush or Robertson. Would that then make rule by Democrats an "anti-theocracy" or rule by those hostile to religion?
That would seem to be the consistent conclusion to draw from the 'reasoning' you're applying here, Joshua.
* * *
So what's your case? You admit almost nobody thinks this way. You cite three sources. Two have almost no power; one is the object of ridicule, even on the right. One held office, but clearly didn't establish any kind of a theocracy.
And NONE of the quotes you cite actually demonstrate the kind of dominististic beliefs attributed to the right, in which the right takes power by force and ends American democracy.
So, this begs the question: Why is it that even people who apparently believe this narrative can't produce any meaningful evidence for it? How does one become convinced of a view that one's own evidence disproves?
And why is the left so obsessed with imagined threats to democracy on the right (even if a Christian President only chose Christian staff members, it wouldn't end democracy) but apparently can't detect the more obvious and real threats in their own ranks: moves to restrict speech and political contributions, efforts to move power to unelected judges, massive secretive movements funded by eccentric multi-billionaires who openly say they're against American individualism and sovereignty (Soros), and people like Sheehan and Ward Churchill, who openly support dictators and terrorists?
Um, did you miss my entire post? I said I agree with you that they don't represent the majority of Christians. My argument wasn't that they could overthrow government, but that there is a small sect in this 10% of the voting population that supports theonomy, not theocracy- a belief that democracy be used to establish the supremacy of 'Christian' (usually referring to more fundamentalist beliefs) values.
The second point was that these few people hold some political and media power. For example, Robertson's CBN brought in $186,482,060 in 2004, which shows the magnitude of his media power and makes him a desired outlet for endorsement by the Religious Right. Terry was endorsed by Dobson in 1998 and Dobson is now one of the key players of the religious right with a radio show that reaches 7 million people per day and two very active political organizations (ADF and Focus on the Family). Not to mention McCain's recent attempt to win this small sect (which makes up 25% of the people who voted for Bush in 2004) by speaking at Falwell's Liberty U.
You can argue that people with this ideology don't wish to overthrow democracy and you can argue that they don't represent most Christians. Both of these are true. As a Christian, they certainly don’t represent me. But they DO wish to see Christian supremacy and a 'biblical worldview' established as state law and they DO hold media and political power because they are a highly active group which makes up a large portion of those who vote for Republicans.
So there is power there, whether it is widely supported or not, there is power in that small, yet highly politically active, sect of society.
I am not worried for this country if Christian values are established. It may actually help in some respects, such as lowering the high divorce rate by enacting government sponsored marriage counseling. However, as a Christian I am scared for my religion. From what I have seen in the last few decades, politics perverts Christianity more than Christianity helps politics.
Um, did you miss my entire post? I said I agree with you that they don't represent the majority of Christians.
You said you agreed they were a small percentage of the population. You also said they don't represent the "wishes" of most. True enough: I agree, they don't represent the "wishes" of most -- meaning plans.
But you also said this, to which I was responding:
However, they do posses the loudest voices and have access to the most powerful ears. This is what gives some level of validity to the claims of a dominionist threat.
I hear "loudest" as meaning mass influence -- on Christians, of course. Hence I responded with comments about the lack of influence Robertson and and Terry had.
Next, regarding "access": The alleged threat of "dominionism" is the undermining of democracy and civil rights. Having accesses to some set of democratically-elected ears is another thing entirely. It's the difference between a coup and lobbying. I'm not nuts about lobbying myself, but it's quite another thing.
My argument wasn't that they could overthrow government...
Okay, that's not your argument. But it certainly is the perception most people are getting. I'm just addressing the common belief here, in which people are fearing we'll lose our democracy.
The second point was that these few people hold some political and media power. For example, Robertson's CBN brought in $186,482,060 in 2004, which shows the magnitude of his media power...
That's quite a bit of cash. But it's a net number, not gross, and a drop in the bucket comparatively. Businesses typically net about 4-5% of the gross, meaning we're talking about a mere $22 million profit. I wouldn't turn it down, if offered, but it's nothing impressive.
Disney, who owns ABC, Miramax and others brought in $32 billion (as compared to CBNs paltry $186 million you cite) during the same time period. Viacom, who owns CBS and cable systems, brought in at least $9 billion in the same year. And AOL Time Warner, projecting outward the 10.5$ billion declared in this quarterly report, pulls in about $42 billion each year.
Together, just these three companies alone amount to about $83 billion in gross revenues, or about 450 times the earning power of CBN. And I haven't named Pulizer, nor NBC, nor Gannet's holdings, nor dozens of other powerful players in the media market.
$186 million sounds like a lot, but it's simply not.
Terry was endorsed by Dobson in 1998...
And Terry's bid for office failed.
And your logic here is faulty: Just because someone endorses person X for office doesn't mean they agree with every statement out of their mouth.
I preferred George Bush to John Kerry. That doesn't mean I support Bush's every policy: I certainly don't. If that's Dobson's own belief, you should be able to find him saying something to that effect.
Dobson is now one of the key players of the religious right with a radio show that reaches 7 million people per day and two very active political organizations...
Yes, Christians are involved in politics. Duh. But, again, I'm asking you, what do you mean by "theocracy"? Is it simply Christian involvement in politics? If so, then they only way to avoid "theocracy" is to ensure Christians can't act or vote or organize on matters of conscience.
And that would indeed the death of democracy.
And if not, then why bother saying Dr. Dobson has influence? Of course he does. But that not the same thing as believing Christians are destined to control the planet.
You can argue that people with this ideology don't wish to overthrow democracy and you can argue that they don't represent most Christians. Both of these are true...
But they DO wish to see Christian supremacy and a 'biblical worldview' established as state law...
No, Joshua, they don't wish "to see ... a 'biblical worldview' established as state law." Show me one place, for example, where Dr. Dobson (just picking an example) wants to make it "state law" that people must hold a biblical worldview. Please. Produce one shred of evidence for this fantastic assertion.
Perhaps you mean to say he supports legislation which is consistent with a biblical worldview. Well, again -- duh, why do you think he finally got involved in politics? To support things which a 'biblical worldview' would oppose?
But once again, you're apparently simply equating "theocracy" with voting for issues consistent with religiously-informed conscience. If so, then this nation's history has been one giant theocracy: Abolition of slavery, the prohibition of booze, women's rights, prohibition of child labor, laws against prostition and gambling -- all are laws which reflected Christian conscience.
So there is power there, whether it is widely supported or not, there is power in that small, yet highly politically active, sect of society.
Okay, let's remember this is a Democracy, Joshua. In a democracy, it's contradictory to say "power is there" and then say nobody supports it. If nobody supports it, it won't get into office. Or, if it gets into office, it'll never pass legislation, since people will phone their representatives and get bills changed or killed.
On the other hand, if you're saying there is popular support, then you're not talking about a theocracy. You're just talking about a shift in the nations' values and the natural democratic reflection of that shift.
I am not worried for this country if Christian values are established...
I really wish more people would learn about how our political system in the US works. According to Thomas Jefferson, by voting for some bit of legislation you don't establish the or enshrine the idea behind it.
Example: Feminists might oppose pornography because all sex is rape. Fundamentalists might oppose pornography because it undermines our values. If both get together and sponsor some successful legislation prohibiting pornography, neither underlying argument is enshrined as a legal principle. Congress only arrives at action, it doesn't enshrine specific values.
It may actually help in some respects, such as lowering the high divorce rate by enacting government sponsored marriage counseling...
Huh? Neither point makes sense here.
First, Christians have the same divorce rate as everyone else. So even if we made Christianity the state religion (which I'd oppose, and I see no meaningful support for), I don't think the divorce rate would change.
All we'd do is turn into Europe, which has state churches and religions. Which nobody believes in.
Second, conservatives generally want fewer government programs, not more. Bush is somewhat of an exception with his faith-based-initiatives, but, to be fair, most of these are simply allowing faith-based groups to compete in existing areas where they've been locked out previously.
However, as a Christian I am scared for my religion. From what I have seen in the last few decades, politics perverts Christianity more than Christianity helps politics...
Can you give any specifics?
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« The Ancient Gnostic Threat to Christianity |
Front Page |
Page Two
| An Experience with Amway (Quixtar) in the UK »
|
You are correct. It is a VERY small percentage. However, those who are the media voice for Protestant Christianity such as Robertson or Falwell do share in Schaeffer's ideology. In fact, Moody Press itslef is quite an advocate for Francis's dominionist ideology.
Here are just some examples of what I am talking about:
"When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. `What do you mean?' the media challenged me. `You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?' My simple answer is, `Yes, they are.'“ - Pat Robertson
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.“
- George H.W. Bush
"Our goal is a Christian Nation... we have a biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules." - Randall Terry (Operation Rescue}
So, it isn't that they are a majority. By no means do these people represent the wishes of most conservative Christians. However, they do posses the loudest voices and have access to the most powerful ears. This is what gives some level of validity to the claims of a dominionist threat.
Posted by: Joshua on July 30, 2006 02:13 PM