Quite a lot of liberals express concerns about whether America is heading in the direction of theocracy because of the theocratic goals and efforts of the Christian Right. Some believe that these concerns are overblown and that the risks are much smaller than the rhetoric makes out. Perhaps some rhetoric is overblown, but is the risk really so small?

Ed Brayton comments on a piece written by Joe Carter:

I don’t think that most religious right followers or leaders are actual theocrats. A theocrat is one who believes that religious law, as defined by sacred text, should be the civil and criminal law of the land. There are disagreements among theocrats as to which laws specifically should be enforced and how to do so, but this general definition works for our purposes. I think we should define this narrowly enough that it does not include, for example, someone who applies such laws only minimally.

I think that Ed Brayton is making a mistake here by defining “theocrat” so narrowly as to apply only, as he acknowledges, to Reconstructionists. Why should we imagine that “theocracy” should be construed in a very narrow and limited manner? Consider, for the sake of analogy, the parallel concept of “democracy.” Does anyone define it narrowly? Are “democrats” only those who believe in majoritarian, winner-take-all votes (to cite a common, but not the only, feature of democracy)? Of course not — there’s a lot of nuance to what constitutes a “democracy” and as a consequence just about everyone recognizes that a political system may be “more” or “less” democratic — there’s no simplistic either/or choice we have to make.

The same is, I believe, true of most political systems — including theocracy. Attempting to constrain the concept of theocracy to a narrow definition is, I believe, to portray it in a simplistic manner. Theocracy is no more simplistic than democracy because people aren’t simple and their social, political, and religious relationships aren’t simple. A Christian theocrat is not, as Ed Brayton contends, necessarily someone who wants to impose “the whole of their religions’s laws as the law of the land.” Someone who wants to do that is a theocrat; someone who wants to do a bit less than that is also a theocrat. There are gradations of theocrats, just as there are gradations of democrats.

For this reason, I disagree with Ed Brayton’s position that someone who wants to define civil marriage according to their interpretation of biblical standards of marriage are not theocrats. They may not be very strong theocrats, if that’s the extent to which they would impose biblical standards or laws on the nation (unusual, yet possible), but the desire to define any civil laws according to religious doctrines and laws still qualifies as a type of theocratic position — just as extending the vote to some body of citizens qualifies as a type of democratic position, even if it’s a weak form of democracy because the demos is defined narrowly.

I agree with Ed Brayton that the chances of America becoming a theocracy are probably slim; however, I think that the chances may be higher than he perceives. I think that there can not only be gradations of theocracy, but also that theocracy can be strengthened or increased step-wise by re-defining civil law according to religious standards bit by bit. Ed Brayton is right that we should distinguish between theocrats and those whose views are simply shaped by religious beliefs — but I think that the defining “theocratic” as the act of defining or structuring civil laws according to religious standards, doctrines, or laws — even if in a limited sense — accomplishes that important task.

Don't define theocracy down. A person who would use their religious laws to define civil laws, even if minimally, is still a type of theocrat — just minimally, though. Extending the vote to any body of citizens is an important and laudable step in the process of democratization; extending the reach of religious law is an important and objectionable step in the process of theocratization. When we define theocracy down, we fail to fully appreciate the dangers inherent in such steps.

 

Christian Right & Christian Nationalism:

• Religious Right News
• Religion in America
• Confederate Southern Nationalism & Christianity
• Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany, and Christian Nationalism
• Christianism & Christian Nationalism
• Christian Identity, White Supremacy, Christian Supremacy

 

Christian Nationalism & Dominion Theology:

• Dominionism & Dominion Theology
• Christian Reconstructionism
• Leading Christian Reconstructionists
• Reconstructionism & Christian Right: Common Goals, Beliefs

 

Christian Right Issues & Agenda:

• Religious Privilege
• Christian Privilege
• Christian Supremacy