h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=667491

And keep in mind this is written by a Baptist minister of 40 years experience.

Hi paperboy

I have formed the impression over a number of years that the USA is heading in that direction. I have to admit though that I am British and my knowledge is limited to the UK press for the most part.

I am an Atheist at heart and it concerns me not that there is a possibility of a theocracy (which in itself is not such a severe problem) but that the movement is being driven and promoted by fundamentalist and 'far right' conservative christians. The bigotry and intolerance that they espouse (and which they would deny) is the worry.

In addition there would appear to be apathy on the part of the rest of the populace (I welcome contradiction on this point) which will allow America to go down this route.

turvy

If you were in the US during the last election, you'd be well aware that 'apathy' is quite far from the correct term. A pretty good chunk of the population is actively campaigning against the theocratization of the US. Unfortunately, we're at a point in our history where a slim majority of our country actively supports heading down the theocratic path -- some, because they believe that is truly the right direction, and some because they believe that those on the other side of the fence wouldn't "protect" America from all of its "enemies". It's this latter group that we are targeting the strongest, but I do expect it to be a bit of an uphill battle.

Hi Turvy

Where did you find my cat?

Novo


PS
I agree with your post!

Turvy is right about too many Americans being apathetic. The low voter turnout is a clear indication of this. This makes it appear that there is broader support for the Christian Fundamentalist agenda then there actually is.

And I agree with Mikey about targeting those who do not necessarily support the agenda but feel that they have to put up with it in order to 'Keep america Safe'. There is little to be gained from arguing with a true believer. You don't change their minds and waste your own time.

What we need is a campaign that can motivate and mobilize those people who stay home on election day. And a campaign that will take one-issue voters and get them to see the broader picture.

> The low voter turnout is a clear indication of this.

I don't know that I'd consider recent elections 'low' voter turnout -- the 2004 presidential election had the highest voter turnout since the 1960s. The county I live in had a turnout rate of over 80% -- I don't know that we'd be able to do much better than that. Yes, there are places where turnout is low, but that's far from just a recent thing, and also far from being just an American thing.

The turnout in my area is usually less than 50% of registered voters. And many, many people are not registered. I wish the turnout rates were as high here as they are in Mikey's district.

This gets brought up all the time here. The United States has a Christian majority but a fundamentalist minority. Secularism is enshrined in their constitution. Neither of the major political parties wants to see fundamentalist government. Fundamentalist government would destroy the liberties and economic system that have made the United States powerful. It's never, ever, going to happen people.

<>

Och, Zagreb, I believe you're right! ( I can't help coming over all Scottish when I talk to you!)

Oh, I dunno... I'm pretty scared right now. The university senate at the place where my mum and dad work has refused to uphold the right of one professor to academic freedom to teach a course from an evolutionary viewpoint - she's being challenged by a creationist student and, though the course is clearly evolution-oriented, and the professor should have every right to teach this, they're still refusing to do anything about it!

That's not David Horowitz' bunch of nutters is it? Even so, free speech still exists, and that's not the whole country!

I hope you are right Zagreb, but I think you are wrong. The Republican party is in the hands of a few who are willing to make any deal they can with any group that will keep them in power and the conservative fundementalists are a sizable power block that can deliver plenty of votes and are easily energized by a few simple rhetorical gestures (for now) like Tom DeLay's actions during the Schavio affair.

I would recommend having a look here for a further, more detailed look at the drift toward a facist theocracy

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2005/05/undertow-of-totalism.html

It's a bit long, but this is not a simple issue.

good point
if German conservatives like von Papen hadn't thought (wrongly) that they could use and control Hitler he wouldn't have been able to gain power

I think the problem, as it relates to the US, is that the christian viewpoint is being steered by a very vocal minority. Hopefully, some way can be found to light the fire under people who would "go with the flow" and not be dragged along as the path of least resistence.

Interestingly, there is discussion in some Islamic communities that the same thing happened to them. The majority of muslims are NOT Arabic fundamentalists, yet that is how the rest of the world is beginning to see all of them, because that is the vocal minority. The rest of Islam is letting them do all the shouting.

SC

Sheesh, when will I learn to preview???
That should have read: "Hopefully, some way can be found to light the fire under people who would normally "go with the flow" and keep them from being dragged along the path of least resistence."

SC

"the conservative fundementalists are a sizable power block that can deliver plenty of votes" - big, but not that big. Marginal at best. Fundamentalists are probably the worst possible people at achieving unity of opinion - just a small divergence from their extremist views represents heresy in their eyes.

Is it a problem? Yes. Will it lead to a theocratic state? I don't think so. Judging by the 49% of Americans who voted against GWB in the last election, they have one hell of an uphill struggle against them if that's what they want to do.

I guess that depends on how you define "theocratic state".

The US is already a country where religious views dictate portions of

family law and policy (affecting everything from marriage to adoption),
what can and can't be taught in classrooms (and this isn't just evolution, it's health, and literature, and history as well),
health care policy (and again, this isn't just about abortion)

Plus, it's been made quite clear in recent years that American citizens can and will now be held without charges, bail, or trial. And that the government now has unprecedented rights to snoop in the private affairs of everyday citizens. And that the degree to which these kinds of things will come into play in your life are largely affected by which religious beliefs you publicly profess.

Sounds like we're on the theocratic path to me....

"I hope you are right Zagreb, but I think you are wrong. The Republican party is in the hands of a few who are willing to make any deal they can with any group that will keep them in power..."

Not quite. They are willing to use the fundys as 'useful idiots' who will supply the Republican Party with votes. All it takes is for them to keep enough bible-belt ministers 'on message' and give off the impression that the Republicans are some sort of Jesus-party. In fact, the Republican elite are largely secular and expect the same liberal freedoms that the democrats do. That's why things such as Christian doctrine on abortion and even gay marriage is unlikely to ever be legislated at a federal level. There is, apparently, some real concern within the Republican party about George W Bush (who is a born-again Christian) but, so far, the only Christian doctrine he's tried to pass at federal level was the ban on gay marriage and that was thwarted.

It's worth considering the following - for a short period in the 17th century England was ruled by a puritan dictator, one Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell was a puritan protestant and a strong believer (he believed that the End of Days was close and that he was to oversee the creation of a New Jerusalem in England). At the time, England was a country of strong religious belief, more so than the USA today. Cromwell's 'Protectorate' was very unpopular with the English people. Despite sharing his religion, they disliked having their beliefs 'imposed' on them by law (most notoriously in Cromwell's banning of Christmas festivities). History teaches us that religious countries welcome the idea of religous government until they are forced to actually endure that govenment. See also: Iran.

Fundies may be misguided and/or barking mad, but they're not stupid. Tactically, the way to get what they want is just to increase their power as a political pressure grouping and use their influence to get what they want, one small step at a time. Why take the throne if you can be the power behind it? My guess is that there's no chance of a full-on theocratic takeover, but I fear that there is a chance of creeping theocratcisation (if there is such a word).

Interesting to read in the article about the conflation between the US constitution and the Bible. I have to say that the original authors of the constitution did a pretty good job (on the whole), bearing in mind the values and beliefs of the time. However, it does puzzle me that the constitution appears to be held in reverential awe as a moral touchstone by some people - including some who certainly *don't* believe that it was dictated by God.

'the only Christian doctrine he's tried to pass at federal level was the ban on gay marriage'

Well, not a wholy accurate portrayal: http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/

When the executive branch has an office devoted to disbursing public funds to organizations that support the President's religious convictions, what does one have if not a theocracy?

As for the end of days, when large aspects of a countries foreign policy, including foreign aid, are determined with deference to millenarian cultist beliefs, what have you got?