Obama Akbar!
Barak Obama is the one true God and Michelle Obama is his prophet.
I wonder how the ninnies who squeal about “Christianists” and the “American Taliban” will twist their brains to justify this outright call for a statist Theocracy.
No related posts.
Category: Gimme that Old Time Religion, The 2008 Horse Race
You know, I live in a religiously diverse community. It's not just Wicca and Buddhism here in Boulder. In fact, there are more Jews in Boulder than Buddhists. There may even be more Native American worshipers than Buddhists. Christians are the most common, and we seem to have most kinds, from Mormon to Mennonite. And there are various Hindus, Jainists, Muslims, Sikhs, Taoists, etc. There's even a few Cao Dai. Yet I've never met a "Statist." And it's not just Boulder. I've been in 49 states and more than 20 countries. And I've never met a "Statist" or seen a "Statist" church. I wonder why that is.
Maybe it's because "statism" is not a religion. I'm not even sure it rises to the level of a political philosophy. I've certainly never heard anyone refer to themselves as "statist," even in a philosophical sense. And if it is a philosophy, it is certainly a popular one that includes everyone that has ever participated in democracy. To varying extents, we all believe that government can help us, whether it's protection from our enemies, building our roads, or educating our children. In essence, we are all "statists" to some extent. We just disagree on how the power of the state is to be used. Democrats want to force everyone into health care, and Republicans want to spy on everyone. While both may be examples of an overbearing government, they are not examples of any kind of religious movement. Or even a coherent philosophy.
I'm getting a little tired of the conservative habit of painting any idea or philosophy they disagree with as a religion. Evolution is not a religion, science is not a religion, and neither is statism. Christianity, on the other hand, is clearly a religion. And those who, like Mike Huckabee, seek to replace our Constitution with Biblical Law are truly Theocrats. Those who seek to expand health care coverage are not.
If it looks like a religion, acts like a religion, and people use it to fill the same roles in their lives as religion, what's to separate it from all the other religions?
Seriously, when a candidate for President talks about healing our souls, he's stepped firmly into religious territory.
[...] Sundries Shack: I wonder how the ninnies who squeal about “Christianists” and the “American Taliban” will twist their brains to justify this outright call for a statist Theocracy. [...]
But who uses statism to fill the same role as religion? Nobody. I'm not sure if I'm a "statist" or not, but whatever my views about the role of government are, they do not constitute a religion. Not for me, Michelle Obama, or anyone else. Michelle Obama is a Christian, not a Statist. While her reference to "healing our souls" may reflect her Christian identity, it's hardly an indication that she supports a Theocracy, whether it be Christian or the mythical Statist.
Her statement also hardly even involves sectarian issues. Nearly all religions believe in a soul (Buddhism would be the exception), so any reference to a "soul" can hardly be construed as advocating the establishment of a religion. Maybe it could be construed as anti-Buddhist. But as a quasi- Buddhist, I don't feel in any way offended or threatened by Michelle's words. But I do feel threatened by Huckabee's words. He wants to change the Constitution. Obama doesn't.
And who knows? Maybe Obama could help tone down the acrimony in Washington. And maybe that would have a positive effect on our souls. Or our Karma, in my case. Probably not. But that's really all Michelle is saying. She's not talking about erecting a huge Statist Idol and forcing us to pray to it. Nor is anyone else.
I don't dispute that Huckabee wants to change the Constitution. But he wants to do so using the rules of the Constitution – a very tall task – which will require that his ideas be put in front of all of us and debated. That's the way the system is supposed to work.
Obama, on the other hand, is using the same methods that Progressives have used since Rousseau. They have replaced God with the State. They don't need to change the Constitution. They can simply write new law and since they don't mention any God, they're golden. Meanwhile, they ensconce the government as the thing that should your life meaning and purpose and tie you closer and closer to it. You really don't feel any alarm that he's the only candidate, on either side, who's being advertised as being capable of redeeming your soul? You seriously don't see how that is an explicitly religious statement?
Statism is a religion. It was purposefully designed as such from the very beginning and I can show you a raft of statements from folks like Rousseau, George Sorel, H.G. Wells, Benito Mussolini, and others who explicitly say that they sought to replace convention religion with statism.
I think you're drawing far too narrow a definition of what a religion is. It doesn't have to involve a deity nor a church.
[...] Sundries Shack: I wonder how the ninnies who squeal about “Christianists” and the “American Taliban” will twist their brains to justify this outright call for a statist Theocracy. [...]
"They don’t need to change the Constitution."
Very true, because they do not seek to do anything unconstitutional. The goals of a potential Obama administration do not in any way violate the Establishment clause of the First Amendment. By any reasonable definition of theocracy, it's hard to imagine a theocracy that is capable of eluding the restrictions of the First Amendment. And yet, that is what you are saying Obama will establish. It seems far- fetched, to put it generously. Now, you might argue that the establishment of a government program is equivalent to the establishment of religion. But the courts sure haven't seen it that way. From a legal point of view, there is no credible argument supporting the claim that an Obama presidency would be a theocracy. Even if Obama were a "Statist" instead of a Christian.
But statism as a religion? Come on. I had to search a while to find a definition of religion broad enough to include statism (nearly all include supernatural aspects). Here it is: "a set of myths or sacred truths held in reverence or believed by adherents." Geometry, by this definition, is a religion because it has a set of sacred truths (axioms) and is very much held in reverence by those who practice it. I surely won't violate Euclid's Second Postulate in my line of work, nor will my software even allow me to. Euclid's First, Second, and Fourth postulates are truly Gospel, and the Gospel is enforced by the software industry. His third and fifth are held in high esteem by engineers but scoffed at by physicists (who are actually right). But whether we are Euclidians or non-Euclidians, we are pretty much all Geometrists. Even those who don't understand Geometry still believe in its truth. And that would make nearly every modern state a Theocracy because they spread to Gospel of Geometry in their public schools, and they enforce Geometric Accuracy in their building codes. They are even so religiously oppressive that they enforce a value for pi. This is all pretty ridiculous, but only because the definition of religion is too broad.
If nothing else, our definition of 'religion' should include some concept of exclusivity. Under the above definition, I'm a "neo-Keynesian, quasi-Buddhist, Native American, Environmentalist, Geometrist, Physicist, Mathmatist, Evolutionist (but not Darwinist), Pluralist, Egalitarian, Texas Barbequist, Foreign Policy Realist." Wow! And I thought I hadn't really found a religion, and I already have at least twelve! For me, that's an unsatisfying result. To me, a religion is a singular concept. We have but one set of core beliefs. And that set may include beliefs from many sources, but it will always have a primary source. For most of us, that primary source is what most people think of as a religion. You know, Christianity, Wicca, etc.
Obviously, there are Agnostics and Atheists who by definition place something else above God, but I think very few of them would put the State at the top of their reverence. In fact, most Agnostics and Atheists I know are Libertarian. When I was Agnostic, I revered Physics above all. And while I strongly believed (and still do) that Physics should be a guiding factor in our daily decision making, I never thought of Physics as a religion. And I always thought of myself as a non-religious person.
It is certainly true that there are a small number of Agnostics and Atheists who do hold the concept of the State in the highest reverence. We usually call them "Communists," but even Communism is sometimes mixed with a generous helping of Old Time Religion. I've only met two Communists in my lifetime. One was American and possibly fits your concept of a Statist. But he's the only such person I've ever met. The other Communist I met was part of a very small movement of Islamist- Communists in Turkey. But they aren't even talking about replacing Allah with the State. Allah will be the State if they get power. Fortunately, they have no chance of gaining any power, thanks to Turkey's viability threshold in seating MPs. Strangely, I never met any Communists in Vietnam. Even the Communist Party officials hated Communism. They were Buddhists. And they were only in it for the money. So I've met thousands of people in my life, and I've only met one person who actually worshiped the State above all else. And I don't think he would consider his Communism a religion.
Statists are obviously very rare under this definition, and Obama is not a Statist. He is not trying eradicate God and impose a Statist Caliphate. His most radical proposal is to enact a national health care policy that would be considered too capitalist by most of the industrialized world. And that, supposedly, is a Theocracy. And by that standard, the Netherlands would also be a Theocracy. My experience with the Dutch tells me they would take serious issue with that characterization.
I'd also add that maybe our definition of "soul" may not be what Michelle was talking about. Is this John Paul II soul, or is it James Brown soul? Does she want us to See the Light, or Get our Funk On? The latter interpretation seems appealing, actually. Seriously though, 'soul' has a wide range of meaning. Maybe we're reading a little too much into it.
I may go into this more, but c'mon. I think yuo're giving Obama a lot more slack than you'd give a lot of other folks in the same position. Heck, you're giving him more slack than you're giving Mike Huckabee simply because you don't believe Obama's God is one worthy of the classification.
Still, the folks who came up with statism certainly treated it as a religion and sought to replace conventional religion with it. I'm not sure how you can deny that someone like Rousseau or Bismarck, who explicitly said they wanted to replace God with the state in the role of what provides citizens of a nation with fulfillment and purpose, weren't attempting to establish a new religion.
"I’m not sure how you can deny that someone like Rousseau or Bismarck, who explicitly said they wanted to replace God with the state in the role of what provides citizens of a nation with fulfillment and purpose, weren’t attempting to establish a new religion."
I wouldn't deny that they wanted to replace religion with the state, but how many people really bought into that? Very few. Maybe their theories rise to the level of a cult, but not a religion. Let's put it this way: If I come up with a set of ideas that I think people should follow, is that necessarily a religion? If nobody follows me, it's hard to say I started a religion. It would be easier to say that I was just some rambling idiot. And if people followed me but then died off without being replaced, then it would no longer be an active religion at that point. I think that's where I'd put Rousseau. I don't think I've ever heard him referenced in a political conversation, and he's certainly not an important influence anymore. Maybe he tried to start a religion, but he has so few followers now that they barely constitute a cult.
As for Huckabee, he has explicitly stated that he wants to replace our current Constitution with Biblical Law. I'll admit that he has no chance of succeeding, but the simple fact that he thinks such an approach would be reasonable in the US is damn frightening. And it's even more frightening when about a third of the Republican Party thinks he's okay. He's not just some raving street lunatic, he actually has real support in one of our country's major parties. And, believe me, I'd be just as frightened if he were talking about "restoring the Dharma." We are a society of many religions, and attempting to establish one sect of one religion as the predominate element in society is simply unacceptable. Changing health care policy isn't really in the same league as that.
As for Obama's God, He is the God of Abraham. We've mostly done alright with presidents who worshiped the God of Abraham. In fact, they have all worshiped the God of Abraham, and done it within the narrow confines of Christianity. It doesn't really scare me. I would hardly be anything new. But it would be new if Huckabee did away with the First Amendment and established a Baptist theocracy. And we can be thankful that that won't happen.