The secular west has a secular gospel. It is the good news of democracy. When problems assail a nation, all would be assuaged if not solved if it had more democracy. And so it has come to pass with respect to Egypt.
The West is not unique in that it has its own version of gospel. All human cultures, religions, and peoples have a gospel of some kind. The word “gospel” of course means good news. The gospel of any society is the proclamation of what that society believes will make things right. Whatever a culture looks to as the “super problem solver” is its saviour. Proclaiming and touting that “saviour” is its gospel. That gospel reaches the status of being established in a society when its promises and claims are seen as self-evident and beyond question. Whenever a culture fails to achieve a consensus view of what its saviour is, it has no gospel: fracturing is inevitable.
In the West, under the aegis of its established religion of secular humanism, democracy is it. It is easy to understand why democracy has become the West’s established gospel of choice. The West is primarily about the glorification and celebration of man. Democracy is that form of government which does respectful obeisance to man–it is the system of government which seems to accord most closely with the idea that man is his own self-saviour. If man is his own self-saviour, then democracy is the form of government which brings man into a position of institutional supremacy in society. The will of the people is the voice of our god.
So, if any society has problems (and all do), a system of government which institionalises and reifies the will and wisdom of man must be better, if not best. Democracy facilitates man taking control of his own destiny and this will result in the solving and resolution of all problems.
As the West opines and pontificates over Egypt it cannot help but project its gospel upon that country. The future for Egypt would be much more assured and all problems would be mitigated if the government were to become less authoritarian. If free and fair elections were held and the people had a voice all would be well, or at least better. How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of those who come proclaiming the gospel of democracy. What a tingle goes up the spine when our high priests in the West proclaim our secular liturgical chants.
Problem number one. Egypt already has a democratic government. The political party of President Mubarak is called the National Democratic Party. “Don’t be an idiot,” we hear you retort. “The name is nothing. The substance is everything.” If we inquire what the “substance” might be, no doubt our Western gospellers would point to “the people” electing and controlling their government, so that the government reflects them: their hopes, aspirations, beliefs, and desires. If Egypt were to have that kind of government–that is, a truly democratic government–all its problems would be solved or at least mitigated. Democracy is the good news of salvation.
The Washington-based Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life has conducted a survey in Egypt and six other Muslim countries (Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Nigeria) on public attitudes to the Western gospel of democracy. A majority (59 percent) in Egypt think that democracy is the best form of government for Egypt. Clearly, the Western missionaries have been influential in that country. It bodes well for a peaceful transition to modern, western secular democratic government.
But even more people (85 percent) believe that Islam has a positive influence on politics. This implies that a large section of the population in Egypt (around 35 percent) can take or leave the West’s gospel. The real deal gospel in Egypt is Islam. No surprises there. All will be solved by submission to Allah.
But it gets more problematic. Two out of three Egyptians believe that the Islamic fundamentalists are right; moderates are wrong. Twenty percent of Egyptians favour or approve of suicide bombing and other terrorist acts. And there is overwhelming support (84 percent) for anyone who abandons Islam to be put to death. (This view is held, we are told, by “men and women, old and young, educated and uneducated, without distinction.”) It would appear, then, that the will of the people in Egypt portrays a profoundly different view of humanity from that trumpeted and believed upon by the gospellers of the West.
Democracy as gospel is a complete fraud. It is embarrassing that it ever came to be a prevailing Western gospel. How confused and stupid and self-righteously arrogant the West has become. But, then, every culture, every nation has to have a gospel. And the West has a right doozy.
No doubt some would resort to Winston Churchill’s apologia for democracy: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried.” Maybe. Tell that to the Athenians who suffered under the tyranny of the 51 percent. Tell that to condemned-to-be-executed Egyptians if they end up getting a truly representative democracy.
Others would point to the need for “higher laws” superintending democracy, so that the rights and freedoms of minorities are protected. But at this point, democracy as gospel starts to shape up as a pretty thin reed. It turns out that there is democracy and qualified democracy. Which is pretty much what Egypt would end up with, right? It all depends where the qualifiers go in. What the West hopes for is a certain kind of democracy that presupposes its own ideology of western secular humanism. But to stand up and say that to Egypt would be embarrassing. It would be like taking one’s real religion out of the closet.
Still others would retort–at least with democracy people get the government they deserve. Even if it turns out badly, it is their bad, and there is an implicit justice in that. Maybe. But just to say this is evidence that the great gospel of the West is a fraud. Once again the West has backed a loser and its posturing for democracy on the “global stage” resembles an unctuous snake-oiler.
Democracy cannot bear the weight of being touted and believed upon as the great problem solver of mankind. Why? Mankind might have pretensions to deity but whilst his neck might be suitably stiff, his shoulders are neither sufficiently broad, nor his legs sufficiently strong to bear the load. Only the blinded and the foolish pretend otherwise. Western secular democracy is an idol doomed to destruction as is the underlying religion which is its animus.
Cross posted at: Contra Celsum
Tags: Democracy · Egypt Riots · Islam · Political Philosophy81 Comments
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
Replacing the tyranny of the minority with the tyranny of the majority (democracy) is no great improvement.
So John, what are you suggesting as an alternative for the people of Egypt. Calvinofascism doesn’t seem quite the model to use in that part of the world, and I’m pretty sure you’d be leery of Sharia law. Easy to knock the idea of democracy but how about naming a better system, hmm?
And presumably you’d want to make a few adjustments in the democracy of New Zealand. Somehow I don’t see Wellington ever becoming the Geneva of the South. For a start most of us like to stay up after 8PM, and would be reluctant to burn Unitarians. So what exactly are you suggesting… or is this just empty spleen-venting rhetoric?
Pablo at Kiwipolitico wrote a great related post on economic rights vs political rights. Pablo’s case for economic rights can be extended to other civil rights such as freedom of religion. Western propaganda machines have pretended to be spreading democracy as a universal panacea, but in reality they are projecting their own agendas.
Gavin, I don’t recall John advocating Calvinofacism, or anything like that, what he does do is point out some facts about the kind of democracy that would exist in Egypt if the will of the people were implemented.
Is your position that its OK to kill jewish, and Christian converts and stone them because the alternative is not democratic?
Gavin, I am wondering on what basis you condemn “calvinofacism” ( a made up term) and not condemn a democratic Islamic republic where strict understandings of Shariah law are in play? What would make the latter is better than the former.
And this is what modern Christianity is all about ?
Freedom and democracy is ok provided that you’re still nice to me ?
“Western secular democracy is an idol doomed to destruction as is the underlying religion which is its animus.”
I’m not sure what this has to do with Egypt – I’m pretty sure an Islamic democracy is not the same thing as a secular democracy.
Besides, as Gavin has pointed out, what is the alternative to democracy? When people are not free to elect their own government, they are oppressed – they are being denied the right to choose their government. Hence, under anything other than a democracy, citizens will always know that their lives could necessarily be better. With democracy, they don’t have to live with this shadow of oppression. And there is no reason why democratic governments must necessarily be worse than non-democratic governments.
Actually Clint there are alternatives to the kind of majoritarian democracy that JohnT talks about, other than, calvinofacism ( which is a made up word).
But I think your interesting comment is here
Hence, under anything other than a democracy, citizens will always know that their lives could necessarily be better. With democracy, they don’t have to live with this shadow of oppression. And there is no reason why democratic governments must necessarily be worse than non-democratic governments.
No one is saying non democratic governments must be worse than democratic ones. But what’s interesting is your assumption that democratic governments are always better than non democratic ones. Why assume this?
Is Pakistan worse off under the military dictatorship they have had in recent memory or under n open election where the Taliban are elected in? That’s not obvious to me
And my question still stands suppose the alternative to an Islamic state is calvinofascism, why is the former preferable to the latter. I know of few criticisms of Calvin’s Geneva ( Alistar Mcgrath suggests “calvin’s geneva is something of a myth anyway) which would not apply with greater force to an Islamic state, and yet you are arguing for the latter on the basis that the former is preferable.
“Even if it turns out badly, it is their bad, and there is an implicit justice in that. Maybe. But just to say this is evidence that the great gospel of the West is a fraud.”
That’s not evidence that democracy is a fraud. That just shows that democracy allows for people to make bad decision (as well as good decision). You know you have freedom when you’re allowed to make mistake. And that’s not a bad news, it’s a good news.
I agree with Mr. Tertullian’s claim
The West assumes a nations’ maturity and perfectability comes through a democratic form of government. They ignored the fact that democracy historically has been discriminatory in Athens where only male citizens can vote. Women and slaves were not counted as having a say in the government’s formation. It sounds like a genetic fallacious argument. But given, the secular reflexiveness to condemn autocratic forms of power as corrupt and selfish because of historical examples, wouldn’t it be just as valid to denounce democracy in the same light as well?
If totalitarianism means that a tyrant or dictator can instill order by his moral integrity of selflessness. If he/she caters to the needs of the people and enforce justice through fairness. If the dictator can be held accountable through a representative of a higher power, Why not?
Yes, I know their’s hitler, mao and the medieval kings that come to mind when criticizing this argument. But seriously, these examples are just arguments of abuse. Its better to live serving a righteous king/lord vs. voting for a corrupt president.
It sounds controversial, Matt tell me what you think?
Alvin, Hitler was elected, and cromwell was not, I wonder who the jews would rather have lived under.
That’s not evidence that democracy is a fraud. That just shows that democracy allows for people to make bad decision (as well as good decision). You know you have freedom when you’re allowed to make mistake. And that’s not a bad news, it’s a good news.
Its good news when Jews get executed for converting from Islam, because people are free to make mistakes.
@ Matt:
“Alvin, Hitler was elected, and cromwell was not, I wonder who the jews would rather have lived under.”
Cromwell was elected as an MP and the position of Head of State in England is not democratically selected regardless (even today). Several incumbents have achieved the post by force of arms.
Cromwells policy towards the Jews, reversing Edward I’s expulsion and ban, may have had other motives rather than the religious tolerance of a benevolent dictator.
Some of Cromwells attitudes towards the Irish were arguably not dissimilar to Hitlers attitudes towards the Jews, pre-Wansee.
@ Alvin:
“If totalitarianism means that a tyrant or dictator can instill order by his moral integrity of selflessness. If he/she caters to the needs of the people and enforce justice through fairness. If the dictator can be held accountable through a representative of a higher power, Why not? ”
Ok, so I can be your dictator so long as you think that I’m benvolent and accountable to the Church and God ?
I cannot believe that anyone is seriously advocating that line.
I’d suggest that the only reason that you and others supporting that line do so is because you take the colonial view that democracy doesn’t suit all natives, it’s the heat you know.
@ Matt:
“Its good news when Jews get executed for converting from Islam, because people are free to make mistakes.”
That’s a tad selective there, Matt.
Paul,
are you an imperialist then? You’d want all the natives to be supporters of democracy, because its superior to what they have right now. Anyone who doesn’t agree gets marginalized, alienated, treated as obscurantist or if possible outrightly killed.
That’s what Bush did with Iraq by the way. He brought democracy at the barrel of a gun, that’s why many people hated him for that.
so Paul,
If the majority of secularists voted to enact a policy to force churches to peform same-sex ceremonies and/or ban religions from teaching homosexuality as evil and street-preaching. would you support this motion? Even though major axial religions teach their congregations to live a higher ethic, to have respect for authority and pay taxes to the government.
@ Alvin:
“If the majority of secularists voted to enact a policy to force churches to peform same-sex ceremonies and/or ban religions from teaching homosexuality as evil and street-preaching. would you support this motion? Even though major axial religions teach their congregations to live a higher ethic, to have respect for authority and pay taxes to the government.”
No. Nor is it a given that I would if it was the majority of the population. I am not a passive actor in my society. Thanks to democracy I have a voice. I know that by using my vote I can make change happen. Whether or not you, as a non-resident of my country but someone who might still be affected by that democratic decision making process, are actually affected, is irrelevant.
When you exercise your democratic rights do you consider how they might impact on me ?
I doubt it, and I would not expect you to do so.
Do Israeli citizens consider how their voting patterns might be viewed in Syria ?
So why should Egypts possible foreign policy attitude to Israel have any bearing whatsoever on whether or not that country should embrace democracy ?
@ Alvin:
“are you an imperialist then? You’d want all the natives to be supporters of democracy, because its superior to what they have right now. Anyone who doesn’t agree gets marginalized, alienated, treated as obscurantist or if possible outrightly killed.
That’s what Bush did with Iraq by the way. He brought democracy at the barrel of a gun, that’s why many people hated him for that.”
No, I’m not an Imperialist you colonial person you. And tug your forelock when you’re looking at me. 🙂
Can you show that the people of Tunisia or Egypt were being treated as ex-Imperial possessions ? I’d struggle to accept that. What I do see, in both cases, is a population making a decision for a more democratic form of government and some observers viewing the development from the perspective of how it affects Israel, and even articulating the view that a dictatorship is better, for relations with Israel.
Bush invaded Iraq in the most hypocritical fashion – for oil. Regime change was an after thought, an ill-prepared and ill-thought out after thought. Had Bush been able to install a more friendly dictator and avoided the invasion and loss of US lives then I do not doubt that he would have done so. However the option was not available.
Isn’t secularism itself the gospel in a secularist society?
Democracy is just a method of voting, it doesnt even necessarily mean that everyone gets to vote. [ NB Athenian republic, NZ before universal suffrage]
China calls itelf the Peoples Democratic Republic of China and is technically correct in doing so. Infact it is compulsory to vote [for approved candidates only!].
What is being assumed here is a western style democracy with a free multi representative based form of secular government.
Strictly speaking one can have a democratically elected dictator, or a democratically elected intolerant religiously affiliated governent, eg Pakistan, Iran.
The questions JT are raising include
-why is the west so arrogant as to assume everyone else even wants or needs a western style secular repesentative democracy?
-why assume that given democratic elections anything resembling a western style representative democracy would result?
-why assume other societies/cultures want to make the same choices the west has?
Much of what we take for granted, individual rights/freedoms, female equality, religious tolerance, respect for minorities, freedom of speech, these are not things that most of the world necessarily believe in, hold to or even aspire to.
Matt, I never said I assume that democratic governments are better than non-democratic ones. Don’t put words in my mouth. I was very careful not to say this because I know that it isn’t necessarily true.
However, like I said, any system other than democracy definitely is oppressing the citizens, whereas democracy isn’t necessarily oppressing them. It certainly is better to start your government without definitely oppressing your citizens.
Alvin, you said:
“You’d want all the natives to be supporters of democracy, because its superior to what they have right now. Anyone who doesn’t agree gets marginalized, alienated, treated as obscurantist or if possible outrightly killed.”
Well, if the natives don’t vote for it, there’s a chance it won’t happen – unlike in a non-democracy. Your argument doesn’t make any sense. There’s otherwise an equal chance that whatever government that appears by whatever system will not marginalise, alienate, etc.
You also said:
“That’s what Bush did with Iraq by the way. He brought democracy at the barrel of a gun, that’s why many people hated him for that.”
I know you’re talking about Iraq, but many people in the US hated Bush too. And guess what – due to the power of democracy, they got to get rid of him. Without it, he may still be in power.
One of the issues in this discussion is the disingenuous of the West in hectoring Egypt over its alleged duty to instate democracy. This is grounded upon a peculiar (Western) view of man, to the effect that scratch any human being on the planet and underneath you will find a card-carrying secular humanist who, if given half an opportunity, will stand up and do obeisance to the values of universal human rights.
In this milieu, advocating for democracy becomes a gospel. Both left and right in the US (and in the West) believe that if Egypt went democratic it would allow the secular-humanist faith, beating within the heart of every Egyptian, to spring forth. This is simply naive and there are plenty of case studies to prove it: nevertheless it remains the undoubted faith of the West.
The public discourse betrays the hidden agenda. When pushed on the matter, the West begins to introduce qualifiers, such as what it really means is a “Western-style” democracy. What the West wants is for every nation on earth to adopt its ethics, mores, values, and philosophic beliefs. It wants every nation to become a secular humanist society after its own image. Democracy is just a means to that end.
Islam, of course, understands this which is why it reacts so stridently. It abhors the unbelief of secular humanism. It sees the debate not so much as a clash of civilizations, but of religions–and at that point sees far more profoundly or honestly than does the West.
Some commentators have asked what my “solution” to the Egyptian problem would be. My answer is that I don’t have one–apart from pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ as the only Name under heaven by which we must all be saved–including both Egyptians and Western secular humanists.
To those who would find this an abhorrent imposition of religion upon the Egyptian people, my rejoinder would be that both of us are talking about religious solutions, albeit different religions. Because I am a Christian my devotion and loyalties lie with Christ. You would expect that, right? The devotion and loyalties of the critics lie elsewhere. I expect that, as well. But those who advocate the “Western” solution need to be honest about its religious nature and motivation. Salvation through bowing at the altar of Man and universal human rights is a profoundly religious position.
If the West were less disingenuous at this point a more meaningful discussion would at least begin to be possible.
JT
What is also surprising me here is the tone of the article above. If the majority of the citizens of Egypt believe in fundamentalist Islam, then for them to democratically elect a fundamentalist Islamic government is, in their opinion, a really good thing. Of course, this doesn’t mean that I agree with it, or that the non-Islamics in Egypt will be happy either. However, in this case, democracy will have been a good thing, as far as the majority of the Egyptian population is concerned. There is no governmental failure. The only failure is the belief of the people. It is ridiculous to blame democracy for fundamentalist Islam’s failings.
Remember JT, it was the people of Egypt who forced the change of government there, not the west.
Clint, any society you find will have some injustice, non democratic societies have an unjust government. An Islamic fundamentalist democracy will have different injustices.
The difference is that I think executing significant numbers of people because they are converts to Judaism or Christianity, or whipping women for being raped and so on, is a significantly great injustice, and I think the injustice of not being able to cast a vote is less an injustice by comparison.
I find the priorities of some commenters in here interesting
Just because John T’s article references a survey that states that a majority of Egyptians support the death penalty for people that abandon Islam, this does not mean that a democratically elected party would bring in such a death penalty; and it also doesn’t mean that a non-democratically elected party wouldn’t. Again, it’s an Islam issue, not a governmental system issue.
Clint, that response highlights the issue, its not whether the people elect there government, its what type of government they elect that is crucial to determining whether the government is unjust
Right Matt, so this is an admission that it is not the fault of democracy itself, which was what the article by John seemed to be saying.
Clint, I think you have got close to one of the salient issues in this discussion. To me, the form of government is a relatively minor issue–which I why I have criticised the secular humanist West for its wont to make democracy the cause celebre.
Rutherford was right: the law is king. The fundamental issue for any society is the foundation of law itself. Democracy functions well within a deeper and broader context of law which stands over the will of the people and limits and controls it, assuming the fundamental laws are infinitely just.
As does monarchy. As does aristocratic feudalism. As does republicanism.
Islamic democracy will be “democracy, but not at the West knows it.” In the end, if Egypt goes democratic, the West will be pleading to be “beamed up and out.” Therefore, join with me in rejecting the inanity or duplicity of the US (probably it is both) and the West in general for excoriating Egypt because they are not sufficiently democratic. This is a duplicity and a subterfuge. It is propaganda. It cannot be taken seriously. The West is telling only half the story–and that is being generous.
I repeat, Islamic critics deserve greater respect at this point: they see the issues. It is not surprising they treat the West’s hectoring with contempt. The West comes out of these kind of exchanges looking like a shyster. The fundamentals issue is this: the West proposes the sovereignty of secular, rational Man; Egypt proposes the sovereignty of Allah; Christians propose the sovereignty of Jesus Christ, our Lord. All democracy does in any nation is reflect one of these three sovereignties.
Time for the West to get real, get honest, and tell the truth about itself and its agenda. This is not rocket science.
JT
@ John Tertullian
Sorry but your whole line of argument fails because you’re aiming it specifically at Egypt. I see no mention of Tunisia. The only reason that I can see for this hand-wringing hypocrisy is because of the Christian sympathy for Israel and the potential impact of democracy on Egypts relations with that neighbour.
I do not remember any similar hand-wringing over Argentina’s move to dmeocracy, or Chile’s, which is odd given the history of both countries.
Clint I did not read J T as saying it was democracies fault, he was suggesting its not the savior its cut out to be.
Matt, I’m not sure why you let it post here. I’be only just started reading your blog but it seems that whenever the mysterious it posts, the quality of the debate takes a nosedive. The arguments are emotive and not well reasoned.
he is saying democracy has failed but does not say why. He sets up democracy as a religion ( which it is not) . He then argues against Egyptians having democracy from an anti Islam angle but then suggests an alternate theocracy? I read it a few times but still don’t know what his main point is.
Sorry ‘it’ should read ‘JT’ (predictive text)
Secularism only cares about democracy as a means to an end (a 100% secularised society where religious expression is confined to the bedroom and the church building). If secularists can’t achieve that using democracy then they’ll try something else — whatever it takes.
@ Questioner:
“Secularism only cares about democracy as a means to an end (a 100% secularised society where religious expression is confined to the bedroom and the church building). If secularists can’t achieve that using democracy then they’ll try something else — whatever it takes.”
w
What on earth do you base that on ? There is every likelihood that a democratic Egypt will still be Islamic in nature.
@ Matt:
“I find the priorities of some commenters in here interesting”
in what way ?
I would propose that Christianity is a secularist religion and as such, allows Man the choice to rebel against the Christian God. Punishments are left to God either in this life or (as with the rich man in the parable) in the next but no-one is forced to follow gods laws. God did not advise the Israelites to get themselves a King and the tribal system before that must have resembled a form of tribal democracy with occasional guidance from a prophet.
It often seems the case that democracy has served religion well in places such as the states where to gain the vote; it’s preferable to be sympathetic to or outright Christian. Democracy has enabled Christian thought to thrive.
For Egypt, I have doubts that Islamic ideology is a good fit to democracy in the sense that Christianity is. But I think you underestimate the Egyptian public which is aspiring to a secularist state and will attempt to keep it as such. They are the ones driving this. The US got on board the bus when it was already moving.
I question the origin of the idea that the west is trying to force democracy on the Middle East. If we take US as an example, they have been happy to support the current regime until it looked like they would loose face. In Iraq, they were happy to support Saddam until he threatened oil supplies, and in Afghanistan they were quite happy not to meddle and let tyranny reign until terrorists trained there reached America. In my opinion, the ‘west’ will support whatever system of government serves their means and has no specific interest in a humanist middle east. They don’t even want a humanist president.
@ John:
“The US got on board the bus when it was already moving.”
How true !
Paul,
stop accusing me of being colonial, it’s very ironic coming from an englishman such as yourself. I never claimed to impose a democracy that includes religious privitization, a separation clause between religion and state, which some of your ilk are clamoring to see in the Middle East. You should call them colonial for their Victorian views of high n mighty us teaching poor ignorant lowly them.
If the egyptians want a government where state islam reigns supreme, all the more power to them. Provided they tolerate reasonable dissent and minority religious rights just like back in the ottoman empire. It shouldn’t be surprising that the liberty to peacably express and worship different gods went as far back to regimes considered autocratic and backward.
John, re your response to my post: Yes I agree with the first half of your response. The Egyption democracy will not be as the West knows it, and it’s true that (at least in the short term) in may not be in the country’s best interests.
However, what then is your view of the US, given that they espouse themselves as being a Christian nation, but you claim that they are pushing a secular democracy? Honestly, in my point of view, I see the US as a predominantly Christian nation; I don’t see why the democracy the US seems to be pushing is particularly secular. Is it because you think that if the US was Christian, it wouldn’t be pushing democracy in Egypt if it thought it would give strength to Islam, which appears to be what is thought will happen?
I also agree with what Paul Baird has said, it seems to me that there is no reason for democracy to be irreligious, it takes on the religion of the majority of its voters. Does anyone have a reason why this may not be so?
Hey, Clint
In response, it is not my view that the US is a Christian nation, any more than NZ is. There is lots of material on this by creditable historians, if you wish to pursue the issue. Two of the best are:
George Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture, and
Richard Gamble, The War for Righteousness: Progressive Christianity, the Great War and the Rise of the Messianic Nation. There is plenty of other material as well.
It is true that some earnest Christians in the US have at the same time espoused the Christian faith and the ideology of America as the Messianic Nation, and argued that the two are the same, but clearly such folk are mixing baalism with the Christian faith. There is only one Name by which we must be saved, and it ain’t the US.
I agree that democracy tends to function so that a democratic government reflects the consensus religion of citizens. But, then, all forms of government in all periods of history have tended to reflect the consensus religion of the day. Which returns me to the point that the US, being a secular nation, reflects its faith system in and through its democratic institutions. When it becomes imperialistic about exporting its version of democracy I continue to hold that it is democracy based upon an ideology of the universal rights of man that it wants to see spread through the earth.
Support for this contention would be evident, I suggest, if Egypt were to become democratic and elect the Muslim Brotherhood to power and sharia were to be instated in Egypt. The West will suddenly turn to declare that is not the kind of democracy they meant at all. One only has to recall how they reacted to the lawfully elected Hamas government in Gaza.
I would respect Obama much more if he were to take the position that it is an Egyptian problem and its up to Egypt to solve it the best way it can. But if he were to take that position he would be pilloried by both left and right–which illustrates just how deeply the secular messianic religion is held and how widely it is followed in the US.
@ Alvin:
“I never claimed to impose a democracy that includes religious privitization, a separation clause between religion and state, which some of your ilk are clamoring to see in the Middle East. ”
My ‘ilk’ ? I have an ilk ?
All that I am arguing for is that the Egyptian people be allowed to sort it out for themselves and if that means a democracy that changes it’s foreign policy stance towards Israel then we should not judge the former by the possible implications of the latter.
My view is really that simple.
@ John Tertullian:
The US is not a Christian nation ? Viewed from where precisely ? The US is an overtly Christian nation, red in tooth and claw, when viewed from this side of the pond.
Hi, Paul
How about this: if you can find one current governing document (Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. at either Federal level or state level), one Supreme Court Decision, one federally funded entity, one public school, one federally funded college or university, one officially sanctioned public prayer, one act of Congress, or one democratic vote on anything anywhere that publicly acknowledges and honours Jesus Christ as Lord of these United States, or college, or state legislature–or whatever, then you may have a point–at least for that one particular public institution that performed an isolated act of obeisance to the King of kings.
But to speak of the US as a Christian nation whilst almost all institutions of public governance are forbidden by law to mention, let alone honour or invoke the Christ, would seem at first glance bizarre. What do you mean by “Christian”?
What do you mean by “overtly” Christian.
If you were to observe that there are plenty of Christians in the US and that makes the US an overtly Christian nation, I would observe that there are millions upon millions of Christians in China, but that does not make China an overtly Christian nation in any sense whatsoever.
JT
@ John:
“one officially sanctioned public prayer”
“-STATUTE-
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag: “I pledge allegiance to the
Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which
it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.”, should be rendered by standing at attention
facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. When not in
uniform men should remove any non-religious headdress with their
right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over
the heart. Persons in uniform should remain silent, face the flag,
and render the military salute.”
We don’t have anything like that in Europe. If you can show that the ‘God’ referred to is not the Christian God then I’d like to see the evidence to support that.
And your children say that pledge of allegiance everyday in
school.
Our children do not.
Now, if you really want me to dig further then let me know. I’m very confident that I can absolutely prove that the USA is an overtly Christian nation, particularly when compared to the UK, which is also a Christian nation.
@Paul
I think you just proved JT’s point. The pledge of allegiance is specifically non-specific with regard to God.
@ Jeremy:
“I think you just proved JT’s point. The pledge of allegiance is specifically non-specific with regard to God.”
Sorry but that did make me laugh.
The history of the pledge of allegiance was that prior to 1954 it did not contain the words “under God”.
If you can show me evidence of a single non-Christian who lobbied for the inclusion of those words then I’ll happily recant.
Every single group or individual who lobbied for the change was Christian. There was no need to specify that it was the Christian God because noone was even thinking about any other possible definition of a God.
So why no mention of Jesus Christ then?
Thats the trouble with non-christian assumption, you are forgetting , Jews, Mormons, Unitarians, Christadelphians, JW’s, etc, all of whom may look like Christians to you but all of whom have different understandings of God compared to orthodox Christianity.
I would still claim “under God” is specifically non-specific so that many disparate groups can participate in the pledge of allegiance
@ Jeremy:
“Thats the trouble with non-christian assumption, you are forgetting , Jews, Mormons, Unitarians, Christadelphians, JW’s, etc, all of whom may look like Christians to you but all of whom have different understandings of God compared to orthodox Christianity.”
Err, what is ‘orthodox Christianity’ ?
I didn’t realise that there was a definition that was ‘orthodox’ and ones that were not ‘orthodox’.
Do the members of the Church of Jesus Christ and the Latter days Saints know that they are not ‘orthodox’ ?
Ok, just to add a little more.
Does the President of the United States swear his oath of office on the Bible, the Koran, The Talmud or on a copy of the US Constitution ? Does he have a choice ?
Paul re, your challenge:
“Does the President of the United States swear his oath of office on the Bible, the Koran, The Talmud or on a copy of the US Constitution ? Does he have a choice ?”
The answer is, It would seem so. In 2007, the 110th Congress swore in its first Muslim member, Keith Ellison. He took his oath of office with his hand on the Koran. This action was widely celebrated as a manifestation of the US as a secular state.
It would seem that you have a very low test as to whether a nation can meaningfully be described as a Christian nation. We Christians have a high test. There are two criteria. The first is necessary, but not sufficient. In the spheres of civil government and the public square, Christ alone must be professed and honoured as the Head, the King of kings, Lord of lords, etc. The second criterion is that the public profession of obeisance to our Lord must reflect the belief and profession of the vast majority of the citizens (about seventy-five percent should do it).
On the basis of this high test, I assert that there is no nation that is a Christian nation currently on the globe.
You appear to have a very low test of whether a nation is a Christian nation. I am not sure precisely what your defining, bright line test would be–and it would be helpful if you could tell us. It would seem so far from your discourse that if a canary perched on a Bible you would gravely inform us that it was indeed a Christian bird.
JT
@Paul
google the Nicene creed and/or the Apostles creed,these provide simple statements of orthodox non-denominational Christianity.
Compare and contrast these to the groups i mentioned, all should become clear.
Yes the Mormons should be well aware they are not orthodox Christians [at the risk of starting a firefight it is debateable whether they are Christian at all since their belief system is so completely different, certainly their understanding of who God is and who Jesus Christ is bears no relationship to the Judeo-Christion tradition].
I guess the president was swearing on the bible long before 1954.
Here in NZ census figure suggest that just less than 49% may be Christian, but less than 2% are even active church goers. There is a big difference between nominalism and practice.
@Paul
even the USA a nominally Christian country has the same dichotomy, a lot more people call themselves Christian than actually practice. And as you have pointed out the actions of the US government rarely seem to be informed by Christian belief, ie their actions so often contradict NT teaching on treating and relating to other people. Wars for oil, supporting dictators, contracting out wet work, etc these are not the actions Christians should be engaged in.
@ Jeremy:
Apparently the US House of Congress begins every day with Christian prayers (with occasional exceptions for other faiths) and has done since 1789.
If nothing else I’m learning a fair bit again about US internal politics and practices. I haven’t looked at this area since Reagans first term.
Anyway, it’s strange that this is insufficient to make a country overtly Christian.
US children swear an pledge of allegiance to a God which, contrary to popular belief, could be any God. I wonder what the uproar would be if someone called Glenn Beck and said “Did you know the Pledge of Allegiance could also refer to Allah ?”
The President swears his oath of office on a Bible and the House of Congress starts almost everyday with Christian prayers.
And now John states that after more than 235 years the US Congress swears in it’s first Muslim member. In the UK we have more than one Muslim in both Houses and they are not recent additions, but that does not change the fact that the UK is a predominantly Christian and not secular country and the USA is far more Christian than the UK.
What John seems to arguing is that only only a Christian Theocracy would count.
I think that what John is reflecting is the current Christian vogue for self portrayal as a persecuted minority in a hateful secular world.
The truth is rather different.
@ John:
“It would seem so far from your discourse that if a canary perched on a Bible you would gravely inform us that it was indeed a Christian bird.”
No, but that must win the prize for the most novel strawman that I’ve read for quite some time.
What JT is arguing is very simple, you can call yourself what you like, but it is your actions that show your true colours. Minor traditions that have no real effect on your actions [such as swearing on the bible, prayers at the start of parlimentary sessions etc] unless you genuinely believe, do make make you or your country Christian.
Are you a Christian Paul? I understand not. Is Britian actually a Christian country [how does a country have faith]? Most of the worlds Muslims would regard you as Christian just because you come from Britian , how would you explain to them that inspite of coming from Britian, taking Christian holidays , swearing on the Bible in court and being part of all those British ideas and practices that they regard as Christian, that you are not actually a Christian?
When you have thought that through, apply the same thinking to the way i view the USA and you might gain some understanding of the difference between nominal and practicing, betwen appearance and actual.
True , no human can ever really no another humans heart, but their character and actions provide good pointers.
@ Jeremy:
I think it’s a bit more than appearances.
It’s not simply a case of what the Americans do, but what they do because of what they believe.
Yes, I imagine that with a bit more spadework that I could find plenty of examples to refute John’s contention that the practices of USA figures of authority and societal practices of the country are not indeed overtly Christian.
Do those practices not reflect the underlying beliefs of the American people ?
Looking at how surveys gauge US views towards atheists and Muslims I’d suggest that those practices do reflect the underlying beliefs of the American people.
@ Jeremy:
“Most of the worlds Muslims would regard you as Christian just because you come from Britian , how would you explain to them that inspite of coming from Britian, taking Christian holidays , swearing on the Bible in court and being part of all those British ideas and practices that they regard as Christian, that you are not actually a Christian?”
I think that they would have a point. The behaviour of my countrys Government, particularly towards Iraq and Afghanistan, was that of a Christian country towards a non-Christian country.
I would hope that I would have time to explain myself, or that I would not put myself in a position where explanation was necessary.
Paul,
the challenge is still out there. Give us your bright-line test for what denotates (rather than connotates) a “Christian nation”–since that is the fulcrum of our discussion. .
If I have raised a straw man, then the obligation is upon you to put your argument/cards on the table. What do you believe constitutes a Christian nation? Where is the demarcation? Where lies the bright line of Christian/non-Christian nation in your world-view? I notice that you casually deflect or ignore such direct questions. Why, I cannot tell.
And as for straw men, my dear chap, your casual tossing in of “theocracy” must stand right up there. “Christocracy”, maybe. But “theocracy”. Since “god” can cover a multitude of conceptions from Deism through to Hinduism, the word is a wax nose. Define your terms, please. If you are not prepared to denotate your terms, I must draw inevitable inferences. Those inferences will run roughly along the lines of confusion and conflation.
Over to you.
JT
No Paul
the actions of the UK towards Afghanistan and Iraq have not been chareacterised by Christian belief and practice at all, that has been my whole point. Neither have the actions of the USA been even remotely Christian in motivation or practice.
Making these kind of comments just provides further evidence of your inability to distinguish between nominalism and commitment, it also suggests you have no real understanding of what following Christ actually means [ anymore than a lot of purely nominal christians have].
For the way Christians are supposed to treat others [according to Christ ] read the parable of the Good Samaritan and the preceding discussion which lead to Jesus telling the parable.
@ Jeremy:
“No Paul
the actions of the UK towards Afghanistan and Iraq have not been chareacterised by Christian belief and practice at all, that has been my whole point. Neither have the actions of the USA been even remotely Christian in motivation or practice.”
Really ? I’m dumbfounded to find someone actually defending that position.
Establishing a position is some detail is going to take a while, but I’ll post one on my blog over the coming days.
History shows that democracy results in morally bankrupt demagogues gaining power, e.g. Adolf Hitler and Helen Clark.
Personal freedom has suffered greatly since the decline of monarchy and rise of democracy around WW1.
We know a tree by its fruit.
Many people think that democracy gives them power and a “say in what’s happening’. That’s called blind faith: 88% of New Zealanders who voted in a referendum were opposed to the criminalisation of smacking and and the current demagogue-in-chief ignored them* (>50% of the eligible population voted, so under a democratic paradigm the “people” have been ignored). Also, a body of constitutional lawyers believe that the NZ government stole absolute sovereignty via the 1988 Constitution Act.
http://mandenomusings.wordpress.com/2011/01/26/democracy-explained-in-one-picture/
Hoppe argues that would be better off under a monarchy:
http://mises.org/daily/4068
The subject is treated in more detail at http://mises.org/daily/2214
* Key also weaseled out of his promises by saying that good parents aren’t being criminalised. This statement was based on the Latta report, which looked at allegations made against parents by state agents and ignored the conclusions made by courts after the examination of evidence. Of course there will be no good-parents-falsely-criminalised when you look at allegations, for those allegations will always claim that there is criminality. IMHO this is an example of a morally bankrupt demagogue in action. Considering allegations made by state agents to be proof of criminality is totalitarian and not far away from summary, extra judicial imprisonment and execution.
@Paul
“Really ? I’m dumbfounded to find someone actually defending that position.”
Are you sure, did you read what i said?
I will repeat myself, neither the UK nor the USA have displayed motivation nor action consistant with Christ’s teachings in their dealings with Afghanistan and Iraq.
Common, there is no such thing as a Christian nation and never will be. Christianity can’t be enacted it’s a personal matter of faith. I may be wrong but I interpret the point paul is making to mean that in us politics being a Christian will get you a lot further than it would in the uk or NZ.
@John, I agree although i guess this is something a non-christian can never understand. That said a nation can certainly be well salted by Christianity if enough of its citizens lead by example, vote wisely and hold up appropriate standards.
@Paul
Read some of the weird and wonderful accusations levelled against a simple statement of faith and then tell me whether the UK is a “Christian nation”. Despite having a few ceremonial remnants of its historical faith the general attitude of the UK public seems thoroughly anti Christian.
Also the Founding Fathers of the USA were not Christian (despite the mythical retelling by some churches) they were the inheritors of the French enlightenment (nb. Statue of Liberty) and mostly Deists. That is why they went for a separation clause and a secular state.
Public “Christianity” in America is a weird blend of consumerism, militaristic flag-waving, with a few Amens for good measure. The nationalistic religious fervour fomented by Fox News is rather scary to an outside observer. I’m sure there are millions of wonderful Christian folk over there living good lives but the simple message of Christ is lost in the hype and fearmongering.
Now that protests have spread to Iran I wonder if we’ll hear the same arguments advanced as to why that country should not become a democracy.
Oh, wait, any change there would probably benefit Israel so maybe that makes things different.
@ Ropata
“Read some of the weird and wonderful accusations levelled against a simple statement of faith and then tell me whether the UK is a “Christian nation”. Despite having a few ceremonial remnants of its historical faith the general attitude of the UK public seems thoroughly anti Christian. ”
Well, given how flexibly the definition of whether a country is Christian or not is being interpreted you may well have a case.
However the census results for 2001 show about 70% of the UK population describing themselves as Christian.
Of course they could all be lying.
@ Ropata
“Public “Christianity” in America is a weird blend of consumerism, militaristic flag-waving, with a few Amens for good measure. ”
Yes, that’s exactly how it looks from over here.
@ Jeremy:
“I will repeat myself, neither the UK nor the USA have displayed motivation nor action consistant with Christ’s teachings in their dealings with Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Based on what criteria ?
Paul :
To most believers in Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount contains the central tenets of Christian discipleship, and is considered as such by many religious and moral thinkers—such as Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer—, and it has been one of the main sources of Christian pacifism.
@Paul how I wish that statistic actually meant something. If you look at all the other indicators such as church attendance, church membership, size of the clergy, or even brief contact for rites of passage such as infant blessings, marriage, or funeral services, things look rather bleak for UK Christianity apart from a bit of window dressing.
Steve Bruce writes in “Christianity in Britain, R.I.P.“,
Taken in isolation, none of the data presented above would be compelling. Any one index is unreliable. Definitions of membership or attendance or belief change. In a multi-national state with a wide variety of churches, the base lines inevitably shift. Proportions are inevitably dubious because some sources use the entire population while others use only adults as the denominator (and the cut- off point for defining adulthood shifts). But what makes the data presented above compelling is their cumulative effect. All of them point the same way–towards increasing secularization–and they have consistently pointed that way for between 50 and 100 years, depending on the index in question.
When Stark first articulated his revisionist depiction of religion in Britain [c.1980], church attendance stood at 12 percent. Twenty years later it has fallen below 8 percent. Well-informed commentators, sympathetic to the plight of the churches, such as Brierley (2000: 28), write seriously of the prospect of organized Christianity falling below the critical mass required to reproduce itself. When the Methodists, the exemplars of nineteenth-century dissent, finally fold around 2030, when the Church of England is reduced to a trivial voluntary association with a large portfolio of heritage property, and when church attendance falls below 1 percent, will the supply-siders finally stop insisting that secularization is a myth?
@ Ropata:
“To most believers in Jesus, the Sermon on the Mount contains the central tenets of Christian discipleship, and is considered as such by many religious and moral thinkers—such as Tolstoy, Gandhi, and Dietrich Bonhoeffer—, and it has been one of the main sources of Christian pacifism.”
So when Saddam Hussein was faced with Desert Storm 2 then all he really needed to do was to quote that text ?
If only he’d known.
@ Ropata:
“@Paul how I wish that statistic actually meant something. If you look at all the other indicators such as church attendance, church membership, size of the clergy, or even brief contact for rites of passage such as infant blessings, marriage, or funeral services, things look rather bleak for UK Christianity apart from a bit of window dressing.”
I think that you’re hitting upon an interesting theme, which is the difference between how we perceive ourselves and how others perceive us.
I perceive the US as an overtly Christian country, red in tooth and claw, whereas John pereceives it as a Godless secular nation, but we’re both talking about the same country.
I would argue that while you may have a point with regards to the indicators for the UK, if you ask a Muslim or a Jew or a Hindu whether or not the UK was a Christian country I think his/her response would reflect mine.
Well I won’t deny that Christianity has an image problem. I hope that Christ himself is better regarded that some of the wolves in sheep’s clothing who profess his name.
Congratulations to the people of Libya, Yemen, Bahrain and Morocco for protesting for democracy.
Such a pity that it’s not been noticed on this forum, but then your foreign policy towards Israel will be unaffected.
@ Paul
“I will repeat myself, neither the UK nor the USA have displayed motivation nor action consistant with Christ’s teachings in their dealings with Afghanistan and Iraq.”
“Based on what criteria ?”
The same criteria as i mentioned last time.
“37Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’b 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’c 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” ” Matt 22:37-40
and of course
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” Matt 7:12
So my criteria are the teachings of Jesus Christ