Monday, December 20, 2004

Linguistic Restraint: The Case of "Fascist Theocracy"

There are times when I start to get somewhat annoyed by the increasingly vociferous cries of "fascist theocracy" from some people over here on the left (I won't name names). I get annoyed not because I think they're entirely wrong. That there currently exist in the U.S. struggles related to the role of religion in government and the public sphere, and the curtailing of civil rights, is obvious to anyone with eyes. Instead, I get annoyed because the use of such powerful terms as "fascist" and "theocracy" tends to leave little room for the making of many important distinctions, while exaggerating the extent of others. For instance, while religion certainly plays a bigger role in politics and public life in the United States than it does in some of the more liberal western European states, the difference is not so large as to warrant calling the centrality of religion in American politics "theocratic." On the other hand, the use of such labels tends to blur the distinction between the role of religion in America and its role in a country like Iran. Clearly, many of the people who are haphazardly throwing these terms around are intelligent enough to recognize both of these distinctions, but many in their audiences may not be. Even for those who are, it leaves little room for intelligent discussion of differences.

What's even more important than discussing the differences between the U.S. and other nations, though, is the difference between the role of religion in American politics now versus the role of religion in America's past, and the potential problems we could face in the future. There is currently a relatively small, yet extremely vocal minority in America that longs to see a political system much closer to that of a country like Iran than the one we currently have. These people have their own hyperbolic rhetoric, with terms like "secular revolution," "judicially imposed atheism," and "Christophobia." In their minds, the country is not moving towards a fascist theocracy, but in the opposite direction, toward atheistic totalitarianism. As much as I would like to, I can't seem to find a reason to see the rhetoric of some on the left as more dangerous than this rhetoric from the right. They both have the effect of undercutting the possibility of intelligent discussion by contracting the conceptual space in which important distinctions can be made.

A recent example might help to illustrate my point. In a recent article by Bruce Walker entitled "The Nuclear Solution to Judicially Imposed Atheism," the following amendment to the Constitution is suggested:

“SECTION ONE: The government of the United States holds this truth to be self-evident: that all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

“SECTION TWO: Religion, morality and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, shall forever be encouraged. The foundational principles of the American government are based upon the faiths of Christianity and of Judaism.

“SECTION THREE: When any judge of the United States or justice of the Supreme Court of the United States construes the Constitution contrary to the foregoing sections of this amendment, then when two thirds of the members of the House of Representatives concur, that officer shall be removed from office.

Jason Juznicki has already written an excellent post on the substance of this proposal, and I have nothing to add to it. Instead, I want to use this as an example of the problems with the rhetoric on both sides, and on the left in particular. The suggested amendment is clearly reactionary, and to an absurdly unnecessary degree. There is no evidence whatsoever of a concerted effort of secularist judges to infringe upon the religious freedoms of anyone. Sure, some conservative Christians feel like judicial decisions which force the removal of religious symbols from courthouses, or disallow the teaching of their own creation myths in science classrooms, amount to infringements on their religious freedom, but these infringements, if they can even be called that, are minor relative to the rhetoric and proposed solutions some conservative Christians are using. The government, including the judicial branch, has made no attempts to curtail the rights of individuals to worship privately as they please, or even to remove such visible religious symbols as the references to God on coins. Once we've made such overstated accusations as "judicially imposed atheism," how do we begin to discuss government attempts to impose limits on private worship if and when they actually do occur?

Fortunately for all of us, and those conservative Christians who are crying foul in particular, there are few people, if any, in the U.S. today who are calling for the government to infringe upon the rights of citizens to worship as they please. There are, however, people calling for a substantial increase in the role played by religion in the public sphere. Walker's proposed amendment to the Constitution is an excellent example of this. If such an amendment were to pass, then we would be right to express worry about theocratic tendencies in America. Yet, as Jason notes, amendments like this have absolutely no chance of passing in today's United States. This is because overall, the theocratic impulses of the American people and their government are at most extremely limited. Yet the distinction between an atmosphere in which such an amendment would have a chance of passing, and the current atmosphere in American politics, disappears when we describe our current situation as "fascist theocracy." How, then, are we supposed to combat the theocratic tendencies in some, if we can't articulate the distinction between a fairly marginalized political view and a genuine threat? Wouldn't it be more productive to use language that allowed for such distinctions?

For now, both those who feel we are in the midst of a theocratic revolution, and those who feel an atheistic one is well underway, are in the extreme minority. My impression is that to the average American, neither of these fears seems realistic. Yet I worry that the influence that those who use such claims to attract attention, and even those who genuinely believe them, might be growing. What would we do if these two ways of speaking about the direction of our country were to reach the level of national debate, or worse, to dominate it? That is a fear that I think is much more reasonable.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well said. This whole slew of rhetoric from both sides is highly annoying. I can kind of understand it from the right because the group in question isn't exactly what one would call intellectual. But the left is coming from people like philosophers who really ought to know better. 

Posted by Clark

Anonymous said...

I don't think this rhetoric is anything new. It's just that now these people have a public voice. Without his blog, Leiter would be pretty much unknown outside of philosophy circles. Likewise, Men's News Daily would be unheard of.

Also, just a note on this (actually, a question):

"The government, including the judicial branch, has made no attempts to curtail the rights of individuals to worship privately as they please ..."

Why do so many people want to restrict religion to being "private?" Maybe that's not what you are saying, but a lot of people seem to think that it should be something that remains in your home or your church or synagogue or mosque but should have no part in "the public square." Actually, I guess that is what you are saying when you say "There are, however, people calling for a substantial increase in the role played by religion in the public sphere." What is wrong with religion playing a role in the public sphere? I agree that what Walker has proposed is ridiculous, but that is surely a very narrow approach to the issue.

The cries of "atheism" do at times worry me, not because I want creationism taught in public schools or because I'm buddies with Roy Moore, but because of statements like what you've made that imply that we should be a-religious in the public arena.  

Posted by Macht

Anonymous said...

I've always felt that a lot of this rhetoric gets its strength from a confusion between a) a genuine worry about a potential slide into totalitarianisms of various sorts, which is always legitimate in a democracy; b) and the fact that people don't draw their 'line in the sand' against totalitarianism in the same place. One thinks of Baptists, who, because of their active involvement in political issues, get labeled things like 'theocratic fascists' all the time; but, as a rule, Baptists tend to be vociferously for the separation of Church and state: they just have a different idea about how to go about it than other groups. In other words, people aren't really discriminating between genuinely fascistic moves and moves that are a bad idea from one's particular perspective (e.g., a move that in itself is not problematic but perhaps concedes too much in a given direction). One sees this on both sides. I worry, too, about the potential of these sorts of extremism; ironically, I think it's such refusals to make distinctions that most easily lend themselves to totalitarianism. Totalitarianism of one sort or another becomes a serious danger when too many people begin to be labeled as public enemies of one sort or another. 

Posted by Brandon

Anonymous said...

Macht, I don't think we should restrict religion to homes and private places of worship. I have no problem with people praying wherever they want, as long as a.) while doing so, they are not acting in the capacity of a government (federal, state, or local) employee, b.) carrying out some official policy of a particular government institution (e.g., a public school). I also want to keep religious symbols out of courtrooms, and take God out of the Pledge, because I find the mixing of a particular relion and the law a bit scary, and because I don't want my son learning about God from his teacher's explanation of the Pledge (which is how it actually works). I don't think any of these things infringes on anyone's rights.

Brandon, I think you're right on all counts. The "fascist" label is really just a clever use of framing, perhaps unconsciously (though not always). It says "this view takes things in a direction I don't like, therefore it's fascist." I also agree that by so easily dismissing opposing views, totalitarianism really is a threat. It was, to be partisan for a moment, one of the things that scared me the most about Bush and his common "you are either with us or against us" rhetoric. Instead of charges of "fascism," that type of speech lead to charges of "supporting terrorism" where they obviously did not apply. 

Posted by Chris

Anonymous said...

I think that there is a genuine difference between pluralism and secularism, where the latter wants to exclude all religions and the former wants to include all religions.

Frankly, I don't care if some government official wants to pray or meditate or bow to Mecca 5 times a day or whatever as long as they make it clear that nobody has to join in and as long as people of all religions are allowed to do so.

I don't have a kid but if I did I wouldn't have a problem with her learning about what his teacher thinks about God. She going to have to learn sometime that people believe different things, it might as well be in school.

What do you think about, say, the state funding a religious school so that they can buy maps or lab equipment for chemistry class?

What do you think about a child whose parents are abusive and therefore, using government money, is put in a foster home where the parents sit down and pray with her every night before going to bed?

The interpretation of "separation of church and state" in the U.S. is really strange in that most people don't seem to have a problem (in practice) with the later but they do have a problem with the former. 

Posted by Macht

Anonymous said...

I don't mind the public official praying, even on the floor of Congress, say, as long as it's not in any official capacity of his or her office/position.

Oh, and I don't really see any good reason for giving money to any private schools, but if you are going to, I wouldn't exclude schools on the basis of religion.I would just make sure that the standards that had to be met to receive funds were designed in such a way that schools sponsored by any religious group could receive them. 

Posted by Chris

Anonymous said...

Why assume that those who use phrases like fascist, fascistic theocracy, etc. with reference to the current state of affairs as on the political Left? 

Posted by Chris

Anonymous said...

I think the left tends to use terms like "fascist theocracy" far more than the right, particularly of late, because of the increased political force of the religious. Indeed it sometimes seemed like everyone threw up their hands on Iraq and Al Queda, having no really good answers, and focused in on thing they did understand.

I think when the right discusses fascist theocracy and the like they are almost always referring to particular strains of Islamic fundamentalism.

I think the left worries because there were issues we were inching towards more or less inexorably that suddenly don't seem to be accepted anymore. I'm not sure issues like gay marriage or so forth ever really were accepted nor do I think we have changed direction in any substantive way. But there is the appearance of it with all sorts of slippery slope fallacies on both sides. 

Posted by Clark

Anonymous said...

I've yet to hear someone on the right describe our current situation as "theocractic" or even moving in the direction of theocracy. I hear it from people on the left with growing frequency. That's why I only refer to those charges from the left. 

Posted by Chris

Anonymous said...

If you think terms like 'Christophobia' are over the top, then how do you explain the kind of bigotry that you're complaining about? If people really are over the top in their outrage at Jesusland, as I agree with you that they are, then why is it not simple hatred for Christians who don't intend anything theocratic at all but merely vote their conscience? The fact that so many people have painted all evangelicals who vote conservative as theocrats suggests to me that there really is a hatred of evangelical Christians from many of the people in we're talking about. I can't think of any other way to explain the venom coming from those who keep talking about Jesusland with the kind of derision we've been seeing.

Also, I think you vastly misunderstand what the Intelligent Design movemenet wants taught if you think they're calling for someoen to teach the book of Genesis in science classes. What they want is the argument from design taught in science classes. This is philosophy, not creation myth. They call it science. It's based on scientific premises, but it's really philosophy. Of course, much of scientific reasoning involves similar philosophical reasoning. I'd much prefer seeing this taught in high school philosophy classes, which I think should be mandatory, but since we don't have that I don't see why it should be problematic to spend a day on intelligent design arguments if only to explain why so many people are convinced by them and why so many scientists are not. Where's the harm in that? That's all the Intelligent Design movement wants. 

Posted by Jeremy Pierce

Anonymous said...

Jeremy, on the ID movement, I think it's clear that many of the major proponents of the ID movement, including Bill Dembski and just about anyone associated with Baylor U., are trying to get Christianity, not an areligious philosophical or scientific theory, into the classroom. Dembski himself has made no bones about it.

As for Christophobia, I would definitely agree that there are some who fit this label, just as there are (as the example indicates) theocratic Christians. The point is, neither group really has any power, but if you listen to the rhetoric, you'd think that both groups control the country to the exclusion of the other. Hell, I fear Christians who legislate civil rights (e.g., marriage rights) based on religion, and I would never try to deny that, but I know that the theocratic-leaning Christians are as far from power as the absolute secularists. 

Posted by Chris

Anonymous said...

Well said. I think that your post raises an interesting problem associated with the judiciary too. I think the problem is usually termed "judicial activism." The judiciary is supposed to interpret the law without legislating from the bench. When justices use their power to make laws - on some accounts - they may overstep their constitutional responsibilities.

What are your thoughts on judicial activism? 

Posted by Joe

Anonymous said...

It seems to me that the problem with criticisms of the judiciary is due to the ignorance, of the populace at large, of legal theory. Further the press does a horrible job of never explaining the reasoning behind decisions. Because decisions are divorced from reasons they can appear to be "activism" when they don't make sense in someone's "folk interpretation" of legal theory. This is especially the case with regards to constitutional matters. How lawyers view the constitution and how many lay people (especially conservatives) do is often radically different. I'd add that I think liberals end up in that as well. The diversity of thought in law simply isn't addressed.

It's unfortunate and one of the many failings due to ignorance in our democracy. That's not to say that activism doesn't happen. But it seems like it is "found" more often than it is present. 

Posted by Clark

Anonymous said...

I agree that the press does a horrible job explaining the reasoning behind judicial decisions. While living and working in Washington, D.C., I was an analyst for a high-profile law firm. I assisted in one of the cases that involved an anti-trust action by the SEC. I cannot tell you how many times the press released bad information and publicized incorrect arguments on both sides.

The criticisms I have heard regarding "judicial activism" rarely cite the divorce between court decisions and reasons for that decision. Critics of judicial activism usually cite very clear reasons for the court deciding one way or the other.

Clark, would you cite a few articles that make this sort of argument? I'd like to add them to a file for a philosophy of law class. Your assistance and insight is greatly appreciated. 

Posted by Joe

Anonymous said...

Joe, I'm more thinking of "popular" views of judicial activism rather than more closely argued ones. Not being a lawyer, I'll confess my general ignorance of reasons within law - although I do read many blogs run by lawyers and often find such discussions fascinating.

My complaint was as much an indictment of the media as anything. I simply find it very, very hard to find out what was going on. The recent blog phenomena certainly has helped.

As to source, I was more thinking of popular media figures like Rush Limbaugh. My office mate listens to him rather regularly. He and many other conservative critics appear to my ears to have a "folk interpretation" of the constitution. Anything which doesn't make sense in that context appear to my ears to be taken as justification. This isn't so much their direct argument than what appears to me the grounds their arguments rest upon. Of course that is reading into them a bit. But justifiably so in most cases.

I should hasten to add that I consider myself a conservative. That initial post may have made it seem otherwise. However I deeply dislike poorly argued positions - either from the left or the right. And, in my experience, both sides tend to have their fair share of strawmen and sophistry. 

Posted by Clark