NP - What's So Bad About Theocracy, Anyway?

Sat Jun 23 11:27:47 CDT 2012

Yes, that's correct, Paul. Except, that is, for the part about me
anachronizing christianity. As I stated above, Paul's enclaves (criminal
though they were) were really political entities, "churches" by name,
operating within the boundaries but outside the governance of the empire.
That is why the Romans treated them in the same way they treated other
criminals in the state. Theocracy does not imply political supremacy, it
denotes, rather, a political system in which the gods or god (theos) reign
as the nominal head of the system. The Byzantine Empire was theocratic, and
thoroughly pauline. It took Rome several centuries to re-emerge as a power
in the theocratic papal state, also quite pauline. Constantine's
descendant, Julian, in his attempt to establish neoplatonic paganism as the
foundation of the state, had only time enough to impose a nominally pagan
military dictatorship that died with him on the battlefield in his quest to
reassert "Roman" power in the east. The wealthy christian Bishops hated
him, and would very probably eventually have succeeded in assassinating him
anyway.

The current efforts to resurrect the christian (pauline) empire, with their
deformed Jesus as the nominal head of state, have had some ear since the
early 19th c. in America, and find their pauline descendants in the enclave
churches like the Mormons, Mennonites, and Shakers, etc.(that's not to
mention the more recent, radical cults) who set themselves outside the
dominant rule of the state to follow the rule of their nominal godhead. It
worked to fill in the vacancy left as Rome eroded, so if the enclaves
continue, they might fill some holes as the cartel states eventually
decompose. I find them most disturbing in that they might conceivably form
an armed, violent body able to instigate the sort of civil war that could,
in fact, put a dictator in Washington, religious or not.

Kazantzakis handled the diversion of christianity under Paul quite well in
The Last Temptation of Christ.

On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Paul Mackin <mackin.paul at verizon.net>wrote:

>  On 6/22/2012 10:38 PM, Ian Livingston wrote:
>
> I don't see the disagreement there, David. Enlighten me.
>
>
> My quibble is different from David's.  You're anachronizing Christianity.
> Theocracy implies political power. Paul was a pariah  in the Roman Empire,
> a criminal if fact. Christianity wasn't even legal until AD 313 (Edict of
> Milan), two and a half centuries after Paul's death. Even in Constantine's
> time Christians were a fairly small minority  in the Empire. The emperor
> had to keep his subjects happy and had to appease the Sun God as well as
> the Christian one.  Paganism remained a force well into late antiquity.
>
>
> P
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 6:35 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> A not slight quibble:  Jesus (as Biblical character) didn't separate
>> church from state making church's authority superior.  His separation was
>> anti-confrontational.  If State was inferior, it wasn't so in this world's
>> authority.
>>
>>  David Morris
>>
>>
>> On Friday, June 22, 2012, Ian Livingston wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with you almost completely, Joseph, except for this one point:
>>> Jesus is never anti-authoritarian. Instead, he separates church from state.
>>> Render unto Caesar and all that. The state is the state, it is not
>>> compatible with religion. That is one of the chief points of
>>> differentiation between Christianity and Islam. Mohammed's state is
>>> theocratic. "St" Paul comes across as quite theocratic, also. He engineered
>>> the true schism in Christianity. All other sectarian divisions are minor
>>> after Paul's diversion from Jesus' teachings, the almost inevitable
>>> subsequent union of Caesar and Christ, and the advent of militant
>>> christianity in Rome. Now, I'm no christian, but I think this Voris guy is
>>> as ridiculous as Paul and Constantine, so he scares me a little.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Joseph Tracy <brook7 at sover.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Christian is a loaded word whose ownership should not be conceded to
>>>> theocratic killers. What we live in is a classic agonistic state religion
>>>> of imperial dominance with roots in an upperclass ant-colonial revolution,
>>>> now shading into a weird blend of plutocracy and militarism which uses
>>>> personal greed and Old Testament homophobia and glorifications of ethnic
>>>> cleansing as  pressure valves and scape goats when popular revolution
>>>> looms.  Even the edited Jesus of the fucked over New Testament  was
>>>>  peaceful and anti-authoritarian.  It would be impossible to construct the
>>>> Cristian Right from a popular consensus about what Jesus taught in the New
>>>> Testament. Where would they fit the Sermon on the Mount or the constant
>>>> sharing of food?
>>>> Unfortunately fascism has become a loaded word, but the combination of
>>>> militarism, corporate power and colonial power structures along with the
>>>> changing face of the big enemy( Communism, Islam, Terror, Brownness,
>>>> Blackness, Yellowness, Redness,  ), the claim to absolute imperial power of
>>>> life and death all point to that word as being as accurate a description of
>>>> the US as any I can think of.
>>>>  On Jun 15, 2012, at 11:05 AM, Madeleine Maudlin wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Don't we already live in a Christian theocracy?
>>>> >
>>>> > "Ugh!"
>>>> > "Boo!"
>>>> > "Yawn!"
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:59 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> http://www.dangerousminds.net/comments/not_parody_alert_whats_so_bad_about_theocracy_anyway
>>>> >
>>>> > You may recall Michael Voris from this video, “What’s So Bad About
>>>> > Theocracy, Anyway?” that explains why the United States needs a
>>>> > Christian dictator.
>>>> >
>>>> > It’s simple: pro-gay, pro-abortion “parasitic” liberals get to vote.
>>>> >
>>>> > Voris is the controversial star of the formerly named “Real Catholic
>>>> > TV” web series. Yesterday, the conservative crusader announced that
>>>> > his show will henceforth be known as “Church Militant TV” and that he
>>>> > will be relaunching his brand (The Archdiocese of Detroit have
>>>> > sensibly asserted that Voris was not authorized to speak for the real
>>>> > Catholic Church and so now he’s using this more appropriate name).
>>>> >
>>>> > You probably think this is an Onion parody, don’t you?
>>>> >
>>>> > It’s not.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
>>> "Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all
>>> creeds the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the trust
>>> in reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments of darkness
>>> groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates than the simplest
>>> urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
>>>
>>
>
>
>  --
> "Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all creeds
> the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the trust in
> reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments of darkness
> groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates than the simplest
> urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
>
>
>
>

-- 
"Less than any man have I  excuse for prejudice; and I feel for all creeds
the warm sympathy of one who has come to learn that even the trust in
reason is a precarious faith, and that we are all fragments of darkness
groping for the sun. I know no more about the ultimates than the simplest
urchin in the streets." -- Will Durant
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20120623/7d3b8432/attachment.html>