Skip to main content

View Diary: The encroachment of religion on our secular government (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  A very asymmetric view of breaking the wall (7+ / 0-)

    Frothy's view is that the church should be protected from state interference, but the state should not be protected from church interference.  This assumes that the church, given power over the state, would not be profaned in the process.  Of course that's ridiculous:  Once the barrier is breached, ideas and influences float both ways.

    The obvious example of this is in the "Islamic" states, the ones where the religious authorities hold civil power.  This was not the norm for most of Islamic history!  The Ottoman empire kept the two separate, in part because religion was purer than government, but they knew that government needed to happen.  So while the Ottomans did not have the post-Ottoman strict secularism, they still knew the difference.  Saudi Arabia, in contrast, was created by British and American interests, out of the oil-bearing deserts that had been under Ottoman control.  They put the most religious mountain tribe in charge, establishing a strict theocracy, as a way to keep the commoners in line while their oil was being shipped off for the benefit of foreign oil companies.  It did not arise from popular choice.

    Later (post-1975) Islamic states arose in response to foreign intervention, where the mosque was the only permitted alternative to the government -- other parties weren't permitted, so opposition naturally congregated there.  Iran's democracy was overthrown by the US in the early 1950s (Mossadegh).  Afghanistan's semi-stable monarchy was overthrown from within, but since it was the Soviets who stabilized the place (it was right on their own doorstep, after all, with overlapping ethnicities such as the Turkmen and Uzbeks), Americans foolishly panicked and fed Islamic extremists including bin Laden as a cold war move. We're still experiencing blowback from that idiotic move.

    •  The heart of a most dangerous position... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass, JanL, OldDragon, cany

      dangerous for all but his select few...

      the (C)hurch should be protected from state interference, but the state should not be protected from (C)hurch interference.

      "In other words, if we bust our butts, there's an even chance things will get better; and if we sit on our butts, there's a major chance things will go completely to hell". --- G2geek

      by Lorinda Pike on Sun Feb 26, 2012 at 10:09:48 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site