American democracy and the Enlightenment itself are menaced by would-be theocrats and their Republican operatives, contends Salon.com reporter Goldberg. The author brands conservative Christian influence in public life as proto-fascist and a Western version of Islamism. In her view, the subversives are everywhere, passing anti-gay-marriage initiatives and lobbying for anti-abortion judges; more subversives are on the way, because homeschooling is simply an incubator for revolution.
The menace is 'Christian nationalism,' a movement whose tenets Goldberg seeks to relate to the Reconstructionist theology of the late R.J. Rushdoony. He was a genuine theocrat, a postmillennialist who held that Christ would return after believers had thoroughly Christianized the world. In contrast, premillennial American evangelicals hold that Christ will return to a collapsing world, which implies that political reform by believers would ultimately be futile.
One of the great stories in the history of the past generation has been the search of newly vibrant American evangelicalism for a political theory. The author infers that Reconstructionism is the new master philosophy, in part because conventional politicians and religious leaders sometimes appear at the same public events as Reconstructionists; she makes no mention of the systematic efforts by some evangelicals to engage Catholic social theory.
Goldberg does provide some good reporting, however. She shows that the fiscal controls on the Bush Administration`s faith-based initiatives are loose. During her investigation of abstinence-only sex education, she allows its proponents to make a case she finds unpersuasive but plausible.
Members of what is called the ‘Christian Right’ in the US are not, it should be noted, out rioting in the street whenever they are mocked or their faith is slandered. They are not chopping off the heads of their detractors or sentencing Muslim converts to death. The latter is a must, according the constitution of various Muslim countries, including the new one in Afghanistan and Iraq today. According to the new constitution they choose in Afghanistan and Iraq, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the religion of Islam. And of course Islam punishes conversion to another religion by death. And no. the Christian Right in the US is not imposing "Sharia" law nor are they blowing up rival houses of worship. (1)
Also, the Bush Administration (favored by the Christian Right as it is) was not, motivated by securing energy sources in moving into Iraq, instead as seen today with high oil prices, they did not carefully enough plan out to ensure the continued availability of Gulf oil for the U.S. consumer. And this in a world where the growing Chinese super-economy has already in a special deal with Iran secured long - term energy supplies, and is doing the same now with Russia.
Already Ted Fishman in his work on the rise of Chinese society as commercial empire was concerned about whether the United States will be able to retain its economic first- place in the world. The rise of China, the recalcitrance of Russia and the possible Chinese-Iranian- Russian anti- American alliance bolstered by the weakness of Western Europe also threaten America.
As for oil, others (not me), have compared the American oil empire with the Dutch 17th century Empire with its wind and sea power, and the British empire fueled by coal- both of the latter overextended themselves, and lost their historical primacy. True, the end of previous empires corresponded with the obsolescence of their dominant energy source.
Netherlands was the wind and water hegemon from 1590 to the 1720s. In the mid-18th century, Britain, harnessing the newly discovered power of coal, became the leading world power, only to be left behind by oil-fueled America.
I did explain however, why the American way of life, the car culture, agribusiness, frequent air travel, might become untenable soon. Experts differ about when we might pass the peak, but even relative optimists see it only two or three decades away.
This problem of course also connects with the shrinking of America's industrial sector and the rapid economic development of other areas of the world. Not only is the Bush Administration on its way to abandon traditional Republican principles of fiscal responsibility, the shift from a manufacturing to a financial-services economy, instead of making things, Americans increasingly make money by moving money around.
But so if we take the above historical comparisons of America with past global powers could we ad the intolerance of Christian Rome, the militant, expansionist Catholicism of 17th century Spain, the theocratic Calvinism of the mid-18th century Netherlands and the evangelical enthusiasms of Victorian Britain? Well, to a small degree yes; Dutch Reformed pastors did call for national renewal and incessantly attacked laziness, prostitution, French fashions, immigrants and homosexuals.
Thirty years ago however, when it was just emerging as a political and social force, the evangelical movement was typical of most religious denominations. Evangelicals viewed conservative churches as havens from the relativism that emerged in the 1960s. These churches provided a conservative home for those who considered liberal social values, particularly the overriding trend toward secularism -- anathema to their own values. This nascent period lasted for 15 years, during which the foundation for the modern religious right was built.
In the mid-to-late 1980s, evangelical churches became increasingly active in politics. Politically active evangelicals, led by Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition, believed that, rather than simply providing the disaffected with a conservative alternative to mainstream culture, they needed to engage with the mainstream -- to simultaneously encourage a negative reaction against "postmodernism" and also offer an alternative to its relativism.
Internal discipline (particularly in public pronouncements) coupled with a lack of serious analysis by the media led to a general perception that the "religious right" was a solid, unified movement. It was broadly portrayed as a single constituency that was becoming responsible for various changes in national politics and, particularly, within the Republican Party. Of course, like every other significant social movement that came before it, the religious right was really never a monolithic political actor. Had it not been for discipline and organization, the differences among the various elements of the evangelical right would have been clear to the general public a decade ago.
But now, due to a number of factors, it is becoming easier to discern factions within the movement, and with the potential for a power-shifting election in November, these factions are beginning to move in different directions. The evangelical right is fragmenting along two lines, religious and political -- and divergent approaches to policy are beginning to come into conflict.
At the core of the political fragmentation is an implicit debate over whether the current government , with George W. Bush as president, Republicans controlling both legislative branches and a majority on the Supreme Court having been placed there by Republican presidents, represents the best that religious conservatives can hope to see in power. This debate reflects the traditional splits between idealistic political activists and pragmatic, realistic activists.
For those who fear the current composition of the federal government represents the apex of the religious conservative movement's power, now is the time to make concessions in order to win whatever prizes are possible. The realists want to consolidate their gains before the November election, which polls indicate could turn at least one chamber of Congress over to Democratic control. Currently, these realist groups, typified by the Christian Coalition, are pressing for the immediate approval of federal judges and for a variety of religion-centered policies to be passed and signed into law. They are conceding ground on certain priorities and are showing a willingness to break from the GOP on non-religious side issues, such as energy policy and health care.
The idealists, typified by the AFA and Family Research Council, believe the president and current congressional leadership do not sufficiently represent the views of conservative religious voters. Many within these groups complain that Bush has not fulfilled the promises he made when (as they see it) the religious right decisively turned out conservative voters in 2000 and 2004, and they do not trust him to act in their interests. They also do not believe that either Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., or House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., adequately represent the views of the religious right. In the run-up to November, the idealist segment is likely to step up its activism on behalf of Republican candidates, hoping not only to maintain GOP control of Congress but also to impress upon the party's leadership that evangelicals are responsible for their position in power.
Idealists, almost by definition, argue against compromise on the vast majority of issues. Instead, they want voters to continue pushing the Republican Party further toward religious conservatism and are demanding increased orthodoxy from Republican politicians. These stalwarts are active not only on what traditionally have been priorities for the religious right -- issues such as abortion and prayer in schools, but also on core GOP issues that are not necessarily religious in nature. For instance, Dr. James Dobson's group, Focus on the Family, in February lashed out at other evangelical leaders, including Duane Litfin, president of Wheaton College, who spoke out in favor of federal policies addressing climate change.
Taking a long view, these splits between realists and idealists will be exacerbated by a more fundamental fragmentation that is developing within the religious right. As the evangelical movement morphs into its third stage of existence, a new thread, a "progressive" movement, is emerging. This movement reflects a dramatic shift in evangelical Christianity, one that dramatically threatens the conservative dogma at the center of the movement's politics.
Activists within the new "progressive" thread express impatience with the battle being fought by realist evangelical conservatives, the idea of maintaining an influential political bloc while winning as many victories as possible. Rather than fighting mainstream culture -- or making concessions to it, these new evangelicals are willing to embrace American culture and are attempting to slowly transform it, from within (heeding the Biblical calls to be the "salt of the earth" and "light of the world") into one that reflects their own evangelical beliefs. This approach is antithetical to the aggressive political strategies and tactics of the idealists and realists discussed above. And the progressives don't want to be a power bloc in Washington.
Politically, many of these evangelicals vote for Democratic candidates, though the abortion issue keeps most in the Republican camp, and they are all-but-deaf to calls to boycott an automaker on grounds that it runs advertisements in gay magazines.
Within the near term, the November 2006 election will be the primary source of agitation and anxiety within the evangelical right. Members of this constituency almost certainly will vote for the GOP more consistently than any other bloc within the party. Still, they alone cannot carry the election for the Republicans.
In the media, blame for a GOP loss in November would be placed squarely on the president. However, the splits in the evangelical right will be clear after the election. Democrats and moderate Republicans will come to see factions within the religious right that are potential allies in the 2008 election. Both parties will begin to look for ways to appeal to various segments of a bloc that once was viewed as a monolith. The real application of this understanding will become evident in subsequent primaries and the general election in 2008.
In conclusion, George W. Bush didn't start the USA on its march of folly, but he spurred America toward military quagmire and escalating debt, which have made its access to the oil controlled by the seething countries of the Middle East ever more precarious. And it is unclear if a Democratic president could really turn things around.
Historical Case Study:
Sociology of Religious Nationalism in Europe P.1
Sociology of Religious Nationalism in Europe P.2
Part 3-a: Albania, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria,Croatia,Cyprus ,Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Overview.
Part 3-b: Iceland, ltaly, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, The Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia and Montenegro, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Switzerland, Ukraine.
1) I am referring here to the anti-caricature campaign started by attacking a newspaper. It then focused on Denmark as a defender of the freedom of the press, and since, it has all of Europe in its sights, which it accuses of having a double standard. I also should ad here, why are jokes about Muhammad permitted, but not those about the genocide of the Jews? This was the rallying call of fundamentalists before they initiated a competition for Auschwitz cartoons. Fair's fair: either everything should be allowed in the name of the freedom of expression, or we should censor that which shocks both parties. Many people who defend the right to caricature feel trapped. Will they publish drawings about the gas chambers in the name of freedom of expression? Bu can the negation of Auschwitz be put on a par with the desecration of Muhammad? This is where two philosophies clash. The one says yes, these are equivalent "beliefs" which have been equally scorned. There is no difference between factual truth and professed faith; the conviction that the genocide took place and the certitude that Muhammad was illuminated by Archangel Gabriel are on a par. The others say no, the reality of the death camps is a matter of historical fact, whereas the sacredness of the prophets is a matter of personal belief.
This distinction between fact and belief is at the heart of Western thought. Aristotle distinguished between indicative discourse on the one hand, which could be used to reach an affirmation or a negation, and prayer on the other. When the Islamists affirms that Europeans practise the "religion of the Shoah" while he practises that of Muhammad, he abolishes the distinction between fact and belief. For him there are only beliefs, and so it follows that Europe will favour its own.
Civilised discourse analyses and defines scientific truths, historic truths and matters of fact relating to knowledge, not to faith. And it does this irrespective of race or confession. We may believe these facts are profane or undignified, yet they remain distinct from religious truths. Our planet is not in the grips of a clash of civilisations or cultures. It is the battleground of a decisive struggle between two ways of thinking. There are those who declare that there are no facts, but only interpretations - so many acts of faith. These either tend toward fanaticism ("I am the truth") or they fall into nihilism ("nothing is true, nothing is false"). Opposing them are those who advocate free discussion with a view to distinguishing between true and false, those for whom political and scientific matters – or simple judgement – can be settled on the basis of worldly facts, independently of arbitrary pre-established opinions.
A totalitarian way of thinking loathes to be gainsaid. It affirms dogmatically, and waves the little red, or black, or green book. It is obscurantist, blending politics and religion. Anti-totalitarian thinking, by contrast, takes facts for what they are and acknowledges even the most hideous of them, those one would prefer to keep hidden out of fear or for the sake of utility. Bringing the gulag to light made it possible to criticise and ultimately reject "actually existing socialism". Confronting the Nazi abominations and opening the extermination camps converted Europe to democracy after 1945. Refusing to face the cruellest historical facts, on the other hand, heralds the return of cruelty. Whether the Islamists - like it or not, there is no common measure between negating known facts and criticising what are only ‘beliefs’. The Jews are past masters at criticising Yaweh – they've even made it a bit of a speciality. That does not prevent the true believers of any confession from believing, or from respecting those of a different faith.
But joking about gas chambers, raped women and disembowelled babies, sanctifying televised beheadings and human bombs point to an unbearable future. Plus what is at stake here is not only the freedom of the press, but also the permission to call a spade a spade and a gas chamber an abomination, regardless of our beliefs. What is at stake is the basis of all morality: the respect due to each individual starts with the recognition and rejection of the most flagrant examples of inhumanity.
