Theocrat/neocon hybrids - is there such an animal?

[Perd Hapley]

The following comment from ManedWolf on the comedy show thread made me curious. 

Jowly, bumptious theocrat/neocon hybrids don't have a sense of humor, no.

MW,

I'm curious why you lump the "theocrats" in with the "neo-cons."  I thought those were two groups that didn't always get along.  If by theocrats you mean conservative Christian Republican types like myself, that seems odd.  I thought we were pretty conservative, politically, tending to favor gun rights and lower taxes, etc., while neo-cons are more moderate and tend to favor a larger govt. role for domestic issues along with an interventionist foreign policy.  I would also not think of neo-cons as being very dependable to support the "theocrat" position on abortion or homosexual marriage.  Not that they wouldn't do whatever gets them elected.  But neo-con usually seems to mean whatever people want it to.

Yes I know there are plenty of religiously conservative Christians who aren't so libertarian on the gun or tax issues.  I think that may be a class divide, between working-class folk like myself and more bourgeois middle-classers. 

[MechAg94]

I always figured terms like theocrat or social conservative or others were just representing those who didn't believe in smaller government, but wanted Govt mandates on everything.  The "there ought to be a law" types in the Republican party.  However, I suspect "theocrats" is just a stupid term made up by some leftist to attach or marginalize those against gay marriage.

[Perd Hapley]

Theocrat is definitely a pejorative outside of the Middle East, not the same at all as "social conservative."  Really, one could be a social conservative without favoring any "restrictive" legislation.  I'm a social conservative, but I don't want to outlaw sodomy and I'd even consider legalizing prostitution and drugs. 

[MechAg94]

"Social Conservative" to me were just those who didn't believe in lower taxes, free markets, and smaller govt, but still wanted to call themselves conservatives (at least during and after the Reagan years). 

All the labeling is pointless.  Throw out a few issues and your position.  That is what people want to know.  The more I read, the more I see that everyone looks at the labels differently anyway.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, you mean social as opposed to economic.  I get you now.  You've got to be careful, though, because sometimes people are just indicating that that person is anti-abortion and believes in abstinence before marriage, etc. 

Conservative, liberal and progressive are highly abused terms anyway.  I'm a conservative in terms of religion and morals, but my small govt. point of view is both progressive and liberal.  I'm trying to use the word leftist when referring to the "liberals" and "progressives."  Of course, we don't use those terms correctly, anyway. 

[Manedwolf]

To me, a theocrat is anyone who tries to use legislative powers to enact as law the tenets of their particular belief system, thus restricting the rights of others who don't believe as they do.

Most obvious example: School board members, now thrown out, who tried to shove the "intelligent design" bit down everyone's throats in SCIENCE classrooms. It belongs in Religious Studies, NOT Science. Scientific theories are based on conclusions drawn from empirical evidence, with all effort dedicated to proving, DISproving, or expanding on them to make them into scientific fact.

Other examples would be trying to legislate the morality of others based upon one's own belief system. This, however, usually ends in irony, as it's the loudest bible-thumping screaming politicans who tend to get caught with their pants literally down with a transvestite prostitute...or involved in something else that'd horrify the most liberal, but SANE sorts out there in regards to "That's just GROSS" sexual proclivities.

Some people use religion as a way to try to understand themselves. Others use it as a bludgeon to beat others with to cover for the fact that they despise themselves.

The candidate who tried to run on the Constitution party was a theocrat, and a frightening one, defining that Americans must believe in his flavor of Christian scripture, that "this is what an American believes". Uh...no.

And a theocrat/neocon hybrid is the most dangerous sort, as they tend to use their belief system as an excuse for world-spanning political decisions. They're the modern incarnation of the Spanish missionaries, who thought they had a duty to go out and conquer lands, get the gold and convert the natives...by force. The least dangerous is one that just thinks this is all a black and white "second Crusades". The REALLY scary ones are the ones who could care less what happens in the long run, as they truly believe that these are the "end times" and think this is all to do with some sort of final battle, and they'll get hoovered out of their hot tubs in the rapture anyway. 

[richyoung]

Most obvious example: School board members, now thrown out, who tried to shove the "intelligent design" bit down everyone's throats in SCIENCE classrooms. It belongs in Religious Studies, NOT Science. Scientific theories are based on conclusions drawn from empirical evidence, with all effort dedicated to proving, DISproving, or expanding on them to make them into scientific fact.

You apparently have little to no knowledge of what "Intelligent design" theory actually is.

[Manedwolf]

Most obvious example: School board members, now thrown out, who tried to shove the "intelligent design" bit down everyone's throats in SCIENCE classrooms. It belongs in Religious Studies, NOT Science. Scientific theories are based on conclusions drawn from empirical evidence, with all effort dedicated to proving, DISproving, or expanding on them to make them into scientific fact.

You apparently have little to no knowledge of what "Intelligent design" theory actually is.

Generally, when someone says something like that, they provide an explanation.

And yes, I do. It's an unprovable tenet of FAITH relabled as science. It is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method, therefore it is not science.

It's Creationism with a new bottle and some new flavors added to bring it from the Scopes trial into the 21st century.

As I said, it belongs in the Religious Studies classroom. We don't need science being derailed by religion, or the rest of the world, focused on science, will pull happily ahead in all aspects of industry and innovation.

[Perd Hapley]

Can we please not get distracted by the Intelligent Design controversy?  I also think you have been fed a line of bull on ID, Mandedwolf, but maybe we can take it to another thread.

I guess I'm wondering who these hybrids are.  You seem to think that they dominate the party, so there should be plenty of examples.  Can you point out some efforts to enact religious beliefs into law?  Something other than ID? 

[Tallpine]

And yes, I do. It's an unprovable tenet of FAITH relabled as science. It is not provable or disprovable by the scientific method, therefore it is not science.

It's Creationism with a new bottle and some new flavors added to bring it from the Scopes trial into the 21st century.

The bolded portion above pretty much defines "evolution theory" as well.     

What bugs me is that they never seem to teach about the significant problems with evolution theory.  It all seems to boil down to: "well, we are here now so we must have evolved"   If you disagree with that logic, then you are some kind of stupid, pig-headed, fanatical religious type.

Me - I'm pretty much a skeptic in all matters of religion and science.

I'm a conservative in terms of religion and morals

That's fine unless you want to impose your religion/morals on others.

[Perd Hapley]

[Whiny voice]Tallpine! [/]

Ix-nay on the ID-ay.  I'll start another thread, OK?

That's fine unless you want to impose your religion/morals on others.

Ah, but the question is, "what do you mean by that?"

[Tallpine]

Ah, but the question is, "what do you mean by that?"

Basically, if it's not hurting you or some other third party, it's none of your business.

[Bogie]

Well, if it hadn't been for the defection of the fundamentalists from Democrat to Republican back around 1978, a lot of you guys would have Hillary for President stickers on your cars...
 
You know, the Republicans used to be the party of the educated...

[Manedwolf]

Ah, but the question is, "what do you mean by that?"

Basically, if it's not hurting you or some other third party, it's none of your business.

But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson

You know, the Republicans used to be the party of the educated...

And yes, the Enlightenment, when statesmen actually SPOKE. When they actually wrote eloquent letters with turns of phrase both sublime and vicious. When philosophers such as Locke and Hume and the essential rights of human beings were argued over a silver pot of coffee by what would be, essentially, traditional Republicans.

Oh well.

[Perd Hapley]

Thanks, Bogie.  We can always count on you to froth at the mouth and hurl insults when us "fundamonkeys" are discussed. 

[Perd Hapley]

Ah, but the question is, "what do you mean by that?"

Basically, if it's not hurting you or some other third party, it's none of your business.

By imposition, do you mean "force of law"?  Or can I "impose" my morality/religion just by expressing my point of view?  Be more specific, please. 

[Manedwolf]

By imposition, do you mean "force of law"?  Or can I "impose" my morality/religion just by expressing my point of view?  Be more specific, please. 

My input on that is that you're perfectly within your rights to say "I believe X, therefore I should..." It's when someone switches to "I believe X, therefore YOU should..." that it starts violating rights.

[Perd Hapley]

Maned Wolf, that last remark was pretty anachronistic.  Doesn't clarify things at all.

Can you give me some specifics about theocrat/neocon hybrids?  Name names.  Tell me what they're doing and why you disagree with it. 

[Perd Hapley]

My input on that is that you're perfectly within your rights to say "I believe X, therefore I should..." It's when someone switches to "I believe X, therefore YOU should..." that it starts violating rights.

Such as, "I believe imposing one's beliefs on others is wrong, therefore YOU should not impose your beliefs on others?"     That's what you're saying, but I don't feel my rights are being violated. 

How about if we say, "I believe that you have a right to live as you wish, so long as you do not infringe on others' lives"?  That seems like a moral belief we should impose on everyone, so as to preserve freedom.  After all, what are laws against murder, theft, slavery and rape, if not impositions of morality?

[charby]

The early Catholic Church is an example of a Theocrat/neocon.  They wanted to conquer/own the world and make every one Catholic.

-C

[Tallpine]

Or can I "impose" my morality/religion just by expressing my point of view?

No ... or "yes" ... or whatever 

You can always express your point of view, and it is my problem if I am offended.

OTOH, if you express your point of view to your congressperson/senator with the intent of infringing my rights to live as I choose then you are imposing your morality/religion on me.

Actually, fistful - we probably have pretty similar views on morality, but I just don't want either your or my moral views imposed on others.  I see lots of people that make bad lifestyle choices and suffer for it (and unfortunately the children too), but any attempt to legislate who you marry and who you sleep with engenders more problems than solutions.

Just always remember that the anti-gun people are trying to impose their "moral" views on the rest of us.   

[Matthew Carberry]

The early Catholic Church is an example of a Theocrat/neocon.  They wanted to conquer/own the world and make every one Catholic.

That's not precise enough.  The "Church" wasn't out to conquer/own the world itself.  They wanted the Princes of the world to all be Catholic, to ensure all their subjects were Catholic, and to seek to conquer non-Catholic lands and bring those people into the church when possible.

The key was they wanted those Princes to acknowledge both the spiritual and temporal leadership of the Pope.  To pay fealty to the Popes as the ultimate arbiters of all questions religious and secular.

It is a fine distinction, but a real one. Power behind the throne versus power on the throne.  Control versus direct ownership.

[richyoung]

<moved to another thread>

[glockfan.45]

Theocrat is definitely a pejorative outside of the Middle East, not the same at all as "social conservative."  Really, one could be a social conservative without favoring any "restrictive" legislation.  I'm a social conservative, but I don't want to outlaw sodomy and I'd even consider legalizing prostitution and drugs.

That POV doesnt match up well with your sig line.

[CAnnoneer]

Theocrats and neocons have a large intersection set but are not identical. POTUS is both. McKodos and Cheney I suspect are just neocons that throw in a religious reference out of political savvy. Pat Robertson is a theocrat but probably not a neocon.