A Follow On To Yesterday's Post

Once upon a time the Geek's mother sat him down and said, "Geek don't ever discuss either religion or politics--and above all else don't talk about them together." Mom was right. People tend to see or hear what they want to see or hear and not what is actually said or written.

So it was with yesterday's essay on "Christianism" as the first cousin of "Islamism."

The Geek has been contacted by some good, sincere Christians who took his essay to mean that he was under the impression that all Christians wanted to roll back the calender to pre-Enlightenment times and wanted to install some sort of Christian theocracy.

Of course the Geek wrote nothing of the sort. The fault must, of course, reside with him and not the readers who missed his point, leaping to the erroneous conclusion that the Geekster had turned anti-Christian in his dotage. To make the record clear: The Geek is not against any particular religion or even religion in general.

The Geek is, however, very much in opposition to groups or individuals who attempt to enforce or impose their belief system through either the power of the state or the even more potent force of fear.

Islamism is a subset of Islam in which the goal of the proponents is the eradication of the "House of War" as all non-Muslims are dubbed by the sacred writings of the faith. Similarly "Christianism" is a subset of Christianity in which the political goal of the adherents is the creation of the mythic days of long ago when the Great Chain of Being was the official paradigm for a secure, orderly, harmonious, and just social and political order.

To both the Islamist and the Christianist the accomplishment of the goal reigns supreme. The presumed benefits, it is believed by members of both groups, would be so beneficial to the entire human race that all methods might be used with ethical justification.

The Islamists, particularly those who have embraced jihad have made it abundantly clear that even the most violent and fear producing tactics are acceptable, even laudable, in pursuit of the goal of defeating the "House of War" and those Muslims deemed to be apostates.

Given the nature of the majority of Muslim majority states in which the instruments of democracy are either weak or absent, the rush to violence can be understood even if not applauded. Also quite easy to understand is the frustration and anger bred within the Islamist community by the existence of major disparities in political power, social status, and economic security which exist in so many Muslim majority states. The perceived failure of either society or polity to solve the many problems along with the palpable lack of judicial, economic, and political independence, transparency, and incorruptibility provide a sound basis to advocate a return to the putatively"pure" faith of the early years of Islam as illustrated by the Koran and the life of the Perfect Man, Mohammad, and his Companions.

The motivations of the Christianists in the US are also easy to both see and understand. When the Christianists critique contemporary America, they emphasize their perception of moral decay on a massive scale along with rampant materialism, a degenerate focus on the rights, privileges and worth of the individual, the corruption of business and politics. In these criticisms the Christianists take a position identical to that of the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood after his short stay in the US immediately after World War II.

In their criticisms the Christianists are no different from a large number of Christians, Jews, and secular humanists. One need not be a Christianist or even a Christian to view with dismay the end effect of the multitudinous changes which have manifested themselves in the US during the post World War II period.

There is nothing unique, nothing new, nothing noteworthy in the Christianist indictment or its bill of particulars. It has all been said before. Many, many times.

The difference between Christianists and all other Christians--and non-Christians as well--is their view of the necessary solution and the means which might be justified in securing that solution. The Christianist is identified not by religion per se or the nature of the complaints but simply by the nature of the solution and acceptable methods.

This is precisely the same mechanism by which the distinction between Islamist and all other Muslims might be parsed. Or, to err on the side of accuracy, parse themselves.

Now for the hard part. Take a deep breath, we are going to enter some deep historical, anthropological, and psychological water.

The first, most important task for a community of faith to undertake is one of decision. A decision must be made between several options. The community may remain silent, detached from social, economic, and political matters, focusing instead upon the religious development of every member of the community. Or, the community may choose to actively join the political process with a view toward becoming an integral part of the governing elite. Finally, the community may decide to stand back, apart from the political class, and engage in the prophetic activity of criticism and exhortation.

At different times in the history of the US and Europe, the assorted communities of faith have chosen each of these options. The distillation of historical experience demonstrates that a community of faith has the greatest, most positive impact upon the larger society when it uses the third option--the prophetic option.

The avenue of avoidance, of ignoring the problems, turbulence and disorder of the larger society so that maximum efforts can be made on the individual's development in the faith by definition assures a smaller impact on society generally. Still, a close reading of the historical record for both Europe and the US shows clearly that leaders in all fields of endeavor have been guided and motivated by the principals and beliefs of their faith. Sometimes the outcomes have been bad. At other times the result has been good, even very good. On balance, the latter has been more common than the former.

The lure of power is more seductive than any aspect of sex. Indeed it has been observed that power is the greatest aphrodisiac known. Thus it is not at all surprising that communities of faith have joined not only the political process but the governing elite as well. Historically, right on down to the years of the Bush/Cheney administration, this option has been the worst choice.

OK. That is one set of basics. Take another breath. Time for the second round.

In the US a community of faith has three avenues available to it in seeking to address the problems it believes demand solution. These are the same three alternatives available to all groups seeking to solve problems, change the status quo in any manner.

The three avenues are these: persuasion, litigation, coercion.

It must be understood that communities of faith--including those of the Christianists-- deserve access to the Public Square on an equal footing with all comers. Unfortunately, perhaps tragically, communities of faith have been denied their rights to the Public Square increasingly over the past fifty years. This wrong-headed denial of access has been incorrectly predicated upon the requirements of separating church from state.

As a result faith predicated speech in the Public Square has been denatured to the more-or-less formula sort of "God talk" which typifies election campaigns. Far from being a triumph for the secularists amongst us, the suppression of faith derived speech in the Public Square has been a defeat for all of us.

Arguably the blockage of communities of faith from the Public Square has been a major contributor to the sense of alienation and victimization which has characterized much of the rhetoric coming from Christianist groups.

Persuasion is not guaranteed to work. Certainly history demonstrates that efforts to persuade a large and diverse population of the necessity of a given action do not bring quick results. Nor do they bring results which are necessarily satisfactory to the initial proponents.

Everything connected with politics whether local or national is inherently messy, slow, untidy in outcome and the result of necessary compromise. This is guaranteed to dissatisfy many people, particularly those for whom the compromised "cause" constitutes a matter of core belief, basic principle, or, most importantly, personal identity.

It is the slow, messy, and uncertain nature of persuasion in the Public Square which leads groups to seek a quicker, more certain, and more complete solution through litigation. While never predictable in outcome, litigation does have more rules and less ambiguity than the Public Square. It is easier to convince a single judge or a majority of the justices than it is to win an outright victory free of any taint of compromise in the Public Square.

The problem comes with the nature of the final decision. It is imposed from on high, from a remote and unaccountable authority backed by the full weight of the state. Thus the outcome of litigation can (and sometimes does) run counter to the views held by the majority of the public.

In and of itself this is not a fatal difficulty. The courts exist in large measure simply to protect the minority against the power of the majority. Without this factor in play the vox populi could easily become the voice of tyranny.

Over the centuries communities of faith have both initiated litigation or, in the role of defendant, been the cause of major changes in law and social or political attitudes. Resorting to (or even welcoming) litigation is a valid approach for any community of faith including Christianists.

Coercion is the third option. It is a valid approach simply because it works. After all how long could the state exist without the mechanisms of coercion at its disposal? Communities of faith have a long and distinguished record of employing non-violent means of coercion to achieve their goals. The American civil rights movement of the Sixties is an outstanding example of the potency of non-violent yet coercive means to achieve a goal against very significant opposition.

There is no reason that Christianists (or Islamists for that matter) cannot or should not use the methods of non-violent coercion which have been employed often and well by other communities of faith. Used in conjunction with persuasion coercion of this sort has been proven highly effective in altering deeply rooted behaviors in a majority population.

Violent coercion can be justified only on the basis of the pragmatic consideration. It works. The anti-choice movement in the US which is in large measure manned by Christianists has shown the effectiveness of sub-lethal coercion, sub-lethal terror, particularly when punctuated by high profile episodes of lethal coercion, genuine terrorism by anyone's understanding. Violent protests, facility destruction, and the occasional homicide have proven far more effective in preventing women from exercising this particular aspect of reproductive choice than have either litigation or access to the Public Square.

With the possible exception of the use of sub-lethal but still violent coercion there is nothing in the use of methods which distinguishes the Christianist from all other communities of faith or any pressure or special interest group of a purely secular nature for that matter.

So, how come there is any utility to the use of the term, "Christianist" in describing a particular sub-set of Christianity generally? It isn't as if they resemble the Islamists let alone the jihadi.

Well, bucko, the distinction gains its utility from the issue of goals far more than it does methods even if methods employed finally does play a part, even a major one in distinguishing the Christianist from others of the Christian faith.

Whether a single issue entity such as Operation Rescue, a more-or-less moderate group such as the Discovery Institute, or a totalistic (and so far very fringe) bunch such as the Christian Dominionists, all Christianists seek the end to all perceived contemporary problems, turbulence and injustices by turning back the calender to a presumed historical Utopia.

Of the assorted Christianist organizations, Operation Rescue and others of similar nature have the most limited retrogressive goal. They will be satisfied, at least in major part, by going back in time to the years before various court decisions including but not limited to Roe v. Wade provided women with a wider selection of legal mechanisms to control their reproductive destinies.

As the "Wedge Document" as well as various writings make abundantly clear the Discovery Institute as well as other entities in the Creationist camp want to roll the calender back to the centuries preceding the Enlightenment in both its Scottish and French forms. In the estimate of leaders within this segment of the Christianist movement the sins attendant upon the Enlightenment far outweigh its benefits. The campaign against Darwin (to use the incorrectly and grossly oversimplified icon of the totality of evolutionary biology) is intended simply to be the nose of the camel in the post-Enlightenment tent.

The Creationists have used the Public Square in a sort of stealth jihad to gain control of school systems on both the local and state level in order to ban the teaching of evolution unless accompanied with a Creationist or Intelligent Design slant on the comings and development of life on Earth. The expansion beyond Darwin is explicit in such intellectual castrations as eliminating the Big Bang and continental drift from curricula. Even when ultimately rejected by voters or the courts, the effort is to deny the Enlightenment and bring back the supposed halcyon days of stability, harmony, and justice presumed to have existed during the static days of the Great Chain of Being.

The extremists of the Christian Dominion have the most expansive goal. Their intent is to establish a theocracy in the US. In this vision a Godly, harmonious and just society would be brought into existence by the application of the plethora of laws in the Old Testament and complete obedience to the laws of the deity as interpreted and applied by the clergy. (Sound familiar? Thought so, just insert Koran and Shariah in the appropriate spots.)

While there is no realistic probability that the most extreme goals such as those of Christian Dominionism will come to pass, this is no reason to ignore the potency of the Christianists. Nor is it any reason to overlook the similarities in motive and method between the Christianists and the Islamists.

Most importantly the existence of Christianists just like the obvious presence of Islamists in the world today provides the most robust justification for fully understanding not only religious doctrine and belief systems per se, but for appreciating the close, even intimate relationship between religion and politics.

And, this, mom, is why the Geek put your well meant advice aside.