Theocons: The Newest Con of the Radical Wrong

Although still in rare use, a term for the hellion of theocratic conservatives dovetailing (isn't that immoral illegal?) with the neocon and conservative radical right has been minted in the heat of the rankling left: theo-cons and now Theocons. For me it suits perfectly the many faces of radicalism that are melding into one snarling, moralistic menace from Tom Delay through Alan Keyes (gag) and all the ugly tones of believers (government officials or not) in between. I wonder if at night Karl Rove dreams of himself, bloody sword in hand, leading this band of jackals (hysterical with glee and power) hacking their way through throngs of flower-holding, tie-dye wearing peaceniks. If so, Theocon is the word that must be emblazoned on his stanchion (and the 't' so handily lends itself to rendering as a cross....); such a dream is the closest to heaven Rove will ever get.

Personally, what infuriates me about Theocons (beside the most vile of their rank's appropriation of the pious religious as their political pawns) is the pride and arrogance defenders (of both the political appropriator's and the pious) have about being ignorant to the point of committing crimes against humanity; it is one subsect of their group--the Rapturist's--who are currently reveling--counting the days--to the climate melt-down that will cost millions of human lives and catastrophe world-wide on a still unmeasureable scale of incomprehensible devastation, (unless you live in an area that is already on the leading edge of the trend within which, sadly, none of our theocon assholes reside).

This week Alternet has brought us a piece that I think nicely describes an unvarnished framing of the realm in which, at it's worst, religion functions. It is the reality-challenged nature of that world that so readily lends itself to theocon manipulation (a few snippets follow--color highlighting is mine):

"For Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, until 2003 the deputy head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican's most powerful office, seeing The DaVinci Code in a Vatican bookstore was the last straw. In early March he lashed out at Catholic bookstores for carrying the book, and directed Catholics not to read it. Why? 'There is a very real risk that many people who read it will believe that the fables it contains are true.'

Fables?

Dan Brown's phenomenal bestseller suggests that Jesus was an immensely popular and prophetic leader who married one of his closest associates and had a family. Archbishop Bertone and the Church maintain that Jesus was at the same time a man, the son of God, and God himself, that a virgin woman gave birth to him and remained a virgin, that a few days after he was killed he came back to life and shortly thereafter was taken up to heaven to spend an eternity directing the destinies of billions of people.

In a rational world the burden of proof as to which is fable would fall on the Church. But there's the rub. For when it comes to organized religion, no burden of proof is required. On the contrary, by definition, religion requires faith and faith renounces evidence. Taking a proposition 'on faith' means to consciously and willfully refuse to examine the facts.

Take Terri Schiavo's case for example. Throngs of theocons and their religious supporters were motivated to threaten violence, political revenge, spritual retribution and even death to save the vegetative 'life' of a woman none had personally known or cared about before they were motivated by political expediancy or direct command. The religious are the same who would save the 'life' of an as-yet unimplanted egg in the uterus of a woman who has made the decision that she is unwilling to carry a fetus to term. No problem for the conscience of such a personal-rights invader-- the abortion that woman will likely be forced to have is not his or her problem--until it is time to 'intervene' on the behalf of said fetus (just as was their Godly commendation to interven for Terri Schiavo, an equally unconscious entity). So how will that work? A religious fanatic can decide to legally withold (equally legal) prescription birth control, then (their hope is) legally deny abortion? Gee, doesn't that mean someone outside her family could force her to have a baby? Isn't that what slave owners did? How many decades must we slide in reverse before voters put us out of this misery? The only religious group more ghoulishly invasive than theocon supporters are Mormons (by definition Mormons are not Christians, by the way) who sift through death certificates baptizing the completely and permanently unconscious (deceased) into their particular and seperate heaven!

The Alternet article goes on:

There is a word for this type of thinking: Superstition. Many dictionaries define superstition as 'belief which is not based on human reason or scientific knowledge.' The American Heritage Dictionary defines superstition as 'a belief, practice or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature' and 'a fearful or abject state resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.'

Of course, we all have our superstitions. I may refrain from walking under a ladder, or throw salt over my shoulder after a salt spill to avoid bad things from happening to me. But organized religion elevates superstition to an entirely new level. It demands that we govern our lives with superstition, promises us eternal salvation and bliss if we do, and threatens us with eternal damnation and pain if we do not."

Before theoconservatives harangued their way into power (which I personally think began with the 1994 104th Congress of Newt Gingrich) reason ruled politics because radical right politicians had not yet fully dared hitch a ride on the back of the religion snake, a mindless thing that during the 70's and 80's undulated and twisted its way through the cultural holes in which the ignorant, culturally impoverished and angry were just waiting for someone--anyone--to legitimize their projected bigotry and self-hate onto those whose lives were being bettered by the liberal agenda (namely people of color, women, the disabled and the poor, i.e. everyone other than white Archie Bunker males). Politicians were not yet so hungry and desperate for control to make a pact with a mob mentality that (for the same reason it could be molded to direct its venom on their political enemies) could twist back on itself--without the governor of reason--and strike a death blow as well, to them.

If we are lucky, the self-destructive codependence of the radical religious will soon make short work of theocon careers; Theocons, to maintain their rabid base, must feed them the red meat of the 'right-to-choice' daily but in so doing risk alienating voters who find their meddling into state's rights and home affairs too distasteful to bear. The dangers here for liberals are theocon passage of laws that will allow them to turn on a dime and crush the religion snake as it readies to strike or packing the courts with radical theocon judges. Is Karl Rove that politically good? If you believe in the Antichrist he is...