Friday, March 21, 2008

Visualizing Theocracy

I met my sister for lunch yesterday. Señoracosa is a Catholic. I am an atheist. She told me she prays for me. I thanked her, offering my own good thoughts in return. We love each other.

It's only recently that my sister learned of my atheism, and when she found out, she admonished me for turning my back on my father's example. All the same, she respected my opinion because "one's faith in God is a personal journey."

I seized on that point. "So you don't think religiously-based laws should be enacted?"

Señoracosa: No.

Me: And you don't think the Constitution should be amended to include specific references to God?

Señoracosa: No. Listen up. Faith is all about the personal. It's about wrestling with your own conscience and finding your own path to God. It's not about control over what you believe in or how you believe it. At least for me, it's not.

I was hoping not to take this post to a personal level, but, isn't that what we're really talking about here? What I'm conveying by participating in this blogswarm is not so much my desire to never live one day under theocratic rule, but to express my fears of such a life.

It doesn't matter what faith or denomination rules the roost. As my father is fond of saying, "your rights end where another's begin," and under a theocratic government, your rights end pretty quickly.

As I was running through the scenarios of the things could happen under a theocracy, I started to visualize the Constitution's Bill of Rights, and wondered what the revised document would look like. Former Presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee came to mind, because one of his campaign pledges was this:

"...what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

So here's how I see the theocratic edits happening.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or but prohibiting the free exercise thereof if does not agree with the state interpretation of the Bible; or and abridging the freedom of speech, or and of the press; or and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free the state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


Amendment III

No sSoldiers shall, in at any time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, in at any time of war, but and in any manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated if God deems it necessary., and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

NoAll persons shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crimes against God, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor and shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb if God deems it so. ; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by a Court of Inquisition. an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by by a Court of Inquisition jury shall be considered. preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Bible Constitution, of certain God's rights are absolute, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The All powers are God's will and you must obey. not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.


As my sister I finished our lunch, she re-iterated her intention to keep praying for me. I thanked her again. But before we parted company she stopped me and quoted Matthew 7:3 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

It's a fair question to ask. But I have to wonder if under a theocracy, even the universal truths of humankind like the one my sister quoted would be allowed. Probably not. But if we don't notice the logs in our eyes, pull them out, and visualize what life under a theocratic rule will bring, we'll have no one to blame but ourselves when the phrase "Under God" translates into a jack boot pressing your face to the pavement.

(Cross Posted at Mock, Paper, Scissors)

For more information on the issues that impact all our lives (Including why Separation is Vital to Democracy), please check out First Freedom First.

While you’re at it, please take a moment to read the other posts in the Blogswarm.

14 comments:

  1. I read the MockPaper Scissors version first and left you a comment there.

    Great post my friend.

    Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. God told me this was an evil post, but Bal said not to listen, and then Zeus said both of them are full of shit, but Loki has an altogether different idea.

    So, in conclusion, I decided to go with Pan's suggestion, and will be heading to the liquor store to pick up a case of wine.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I'll pray for you too, amigo. I honestly don't think we're anywhere near a theocracy, if anything we're moving to a point where any mention of God is taboo, lest we offend anyone. I think your sister has it right, it's personal, and it's a journey. The constitution protects that - and it's not changing anytime soon.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ...when the phrase "Under God" translates into a jack boot pressing your face to the pavement.

    "When"?

    To this humble agnostic--a member of the only group, along with atheists, against whom discrimination is not only tolerated, but encouraged--the term "under God" is already a "jack boot".

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fran, thanks for checking me out over at MPS. I saw the comment and responded.

    Fairlane, Tell Pan he gives some good advice, but make sure you buy a good bottle of wine.

    Anon - Thanks for the prayer. But I really don't care if God is mentioned or not, just keep that word out of the Constitution.

    Kvatch - I suppose it's all a matter of perspective. Living here in the NY area, I've come to realize that pronouncing myself as an atheist leads to a great deal of lively, if not circular, discussion. But the one thing I don't get much of at all is the fear of being "othered" because of my lack of faith. My face is not being pressed to the pavement by a jack boot, just yet, but if I'm to believe what you're telling me -- and I have little reason not to --- then the fear I have is much closer at hand than I thought.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Que hay, mi brother?

    I've weighed in on religion and war and poltiics and everything else today. Being that you and I are roughly the same age, of the same complexion, and grew up a little over a mile apart in the Isle of the Manhattoes, and as it turns out, my cousin, aunt and grandmother lived in your building, I feel comfortable backing your response to KVATCH up 100%

    I never took any shit in NYC for being an atheist. I never hid it outside NYC because I was always looking for a good argument on the subject. And the rest of the developed world is 1/3 atheist or agnostic anyway.

    I fight my corner harder than I have to, though, EXACTLY because of what Kvatch wrote. If the USA were like Western Europe or South America, I wouldn't make such a big deal out of being an atheist. Now that I live in South America I speak about it openly of course but no one ever argues because "freedom of religion" is a given.

    FranIam and I have come to what I believe is the perfect peace on Catholicism versus Atheism/Agnosticism. We both like the teachings of Jesus. And we don't let a little thing like the Council Of Nicaea come between friends. There's a friend of my mother's, a Marine, a serious Catholic, whom I look up to as an uncle. When I mentioned that a friend of mine who had survived 5 years in prison, drug addiction and breaast cancer was resuming work on her novel but had another set of medical tests scheduled, my "uncle" said "my granddaughters and I will light candles for her every night, Kelso." I cried after I hung up with the dude.

    I don't hate religion. I hate the perversion of it for financial and political ends. We all have "ultimate questions." If I could use an easier means of reason alone to answer them, I would. I can't because I can't make myself believe something.

    Now, FranIam and my "uncle" are Roman Catholics. I've already had wonderful discussions with strong believers from the so-called "high-church" (Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Methodists and Quakers). I've had wonderful conversations with practicing Jew and Muslims. And so on...

    ...What is it, I really want to know, that makes Fundamenalists of all faiths such narrow-minded assholes?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kelso,

    Los que hay es una broma y nada mas...

    I don't sense that Kvatch and I are not necessarily at odds, but share a different perspective on the same point; like two people standing on the same beach but at different points on the shoreline as high tide comes in -- the tide arrives at different times.

    As far as your question goes, it's power through delusion. I feel that those who are fundamentally faithful to this religion or that are being manipulated by those who lead those faiths. They stay in power because they've figured out how to keep their masses deluded.

    You pointed out FranIAm as an example of a faithful person with whom you can be friends. Me too. In fact, I know quite a few Christians like that, not the least of which is my sister. They believe that faith is a personal journey and a choice. Put in that context, it leaves believing up to the individual. Yes, there will always be lively debate and discussion, but in the end what are we talking about here? The abstractions that are faith or lack thereof? Or are we talking about people and humanity? When it comes to you and Fran, my friends in the blogosphere and in the meatworld (h/t to the cunning runt for that reference), faith never steps on humanity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. why cant ANY elected officials see that faith is a personal journey, not a bus ride for the masses

    great post
    and especially peace to you in this season

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thanks DCap, but in order to answer the question, we need to ask why can't any ELECTED officials see that the power of this state rests in the people. Your question and mine are ordinal and answering the first, answers the second.

    ReplyDelete
  10. My face is not being pressed to the pavement by a jack boot, just yet, but if I'm to believe what you're telling me -- and I have little reason not to --- then the fear I have is much closer at hand than I thought.

    Well at least not literally, eh? I think what I was getting at is that atheists and agnostics are the single group that experiences a low-level form of discrimination that is widely tolerated and frequently encouraged?

    Let me ask a question: Do you ever aspire to hold office in the US? As an atheist the chances are that you will not be able to since many polls have shown that a majority of Americans won't vote for an atheist no matter how qualified.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Agreed Kvatch, but in my neck of the woods, the discrimination is so low-level as to be un-noticeable. Seriously, despite being one of Rep. Peter King's constituents -- a moniker I despise greatly -- the empirical evidence suggests that my atheism is not a problem for people.

    As for my desire to hold office, I have none. That's just way too much fucking work and aggravation for me to handle. Having said that, I can't recall any of my local elected officials -- Mayor of Lindenhurst (NY), Town of Babylon Supervisor, or Suffolk County Executive ever being subjected to a religious test, and I've lived out here for 13 years. Does it exist on the State and Federal level, probably. But at levels to which I have the most access as a citizen, what one believes is their business. That's how people run in my neck of the woods.

    ReplyDelete
  12. KVATCH: Haven't see your handle around these parts before but I like the way you think and write. Maybe you're someone I already know WELL!

    I support SPARTACUS again here. New York is tribal, not religious. Oh, occasionally guys like Donahue try to stir things up, but religious tests don't come too often in big elections and small ones.

    You are absolutely right Kvatch that no politician can FEATURE his or her lack of religion with huge hopes of winning because that's just how the USA is. Founded by extreme Calvinists, how did you expect it would be? I don't know exactly what the figure is but I'd imagine that it's probably around 5% atheist/agnostic.

    I could well be wrong about this but I don't remember either Wellstone or Sanders having to carry on about their Judaism at all.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Very thoughtful post, Spartacus.

    Thinking about logs in our eyes, I wonder if things would be like they were during the days of the Puritans in the Mass Bay Colony if we had a theocracy. Everyone was quite busy judging each other and spying on each other,,, paying no attention to logs in anyone's eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kelso - thanks for the support. Again, I don't think Kvatch and I are far apart on this at all.

    Liz, I think we have the spying part down cold. As for the judging, that's where the log comes in. We're so eager to judge someone that it blinds us to what's going on in government.

    ReplyDelete

Talk to me...