Also unsurprising is the fact that this sort of conservative, totalitarian drivel is not uncommon. In fact, one of the most horrific statements of theo-prejudice I've yet had the displeasure of hearing occurred with another colleague of mine who opined about the 'deserving nature' of the 'heathenous' inhabitants of the coastal lands annihilated by the tsunami of 2004.

They Deserved It

In the wake of that horrific disaster was an outpouring of good faith across the globe.

Unfortunately, not all 'faith' was in the victims' best interest. Some decided to use religion as a vehicle for punishment, and intolerance -- much as religion was used as a tool for rationalizing inhumane behavior during the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. This is symbolized more contemporarily by the following conversation (paraphrased to account for imperfect memory):

Background: Just days after the tsunami wiped clean the populations of coastal Southeast Asia, I was chatting with a colleague of mine. He's a staunch religious conservative, but generally open to other points of view. I respected him and his opinions... or at least I did.

(So it began...)

Me: This horrific disaster really puts things into perspective going into the new year. It's so sad.

Conservative: You know, I was talking with the 'fruit stand' guy (the person who runs the fruit stand outside our building) who is from that area and he told me that those areas are....like...the areas where things go on that are...you know...not good.

Me: Huh?

Conservative: You know, like when businessmen go to the region...

Me: American businessmen?

Conservative: Any businessmen. They go there and...you know....they give five bucks and they're 'taken care of'.

Me: So you're saying that because there are some prostitutes...

Conservatives: ...Well...all types of ...sort of...debauchery.

Me: So like Sodom and Gomorra....

Conservative: (begins quoting some verse from the bible that notes God's displeasure resulted in the Earth 'trembling') You know. It was weird that the day after the earthquake the verse that we happen to read just before dinner (a nightly occurrence I presume) said that (paraphrased), "God's displeasure with disbelievers caused God to make the Earth tremble".

Me: So you're saying that God wiped out thousands of miles of coastland and hundreds of thousands of innocent people because of some prostitution... promoted by Western businessmen?

Conservative: No. No. That's what the fruit stand guy said. (He seemed to back off here as he 'sensed' my disgust with his assertion...yet continued under the guise of the 'fruit stand' guy's claim rather than his own.) It just seems strange that an area where no one believes in the Lord was struck by this thing.

(...so it ended)

Ugh! I don't think I've ever lost respect for somebody more abruptly than I did for this guy that day.

Nevertheless, he is the religious right in a bottle -- "What I believe is correct. There is no other possibility. Anyone who believes otherwise will burn in Hell."

That's why such people feel that 'successful' Crusades would have brought about a better world and that a Strom Thurmond electoral victory would have brought about a 'better America' -- it eliminates those who are 'not like us'. That presumably makes everything better.

Cognitive Dissonance?

But back to the first imbecile's assertion that 'Crusade success' would have brought about a better world.

I can only imagine that his logic is based primarily on his belief that his faith is the 'best' there is. Thus, a world centered on it would most likely be the 'best' of all possible worlds. Makes sense (from an 'internal logic' perspective).

But what does not fit in with what I know to be this person's (and I believe most American's) belief system is the near-religious respect and love we hold for 'freedom and democracy' -- two values that directly conflict with his fantasized 'Crusade-derived' world.

Heck, this conservative in particular whines and wails endlessly about how 'Democracy' will be the 'savior' of the Middle East. 'Government by the people' -- what could be better.

What he, and most conservatives don't realize -- or at least fail to admit -- is that Democracy, and particularly America's founding documents are a REBUKE to religious authority.

Though the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776 mentions specifically both "God" and "Creator" at its start... and ends "with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence" -- clearly in line with the founding fathers' Deist beliefs, Thomas Jefferson wrote there that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority.

The Constitution was even more explicit, clearly displaying the founding fathers' distaste for the mixture of church and state.

When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified, "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike.  They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, as England had.  

To be sure, the Constitution mentions religion only in exclusionary terms. And nowhere in that document will you find the words 'Jesus Christ', 'Christianity', 'Bible', or 'God'.

Democracy vs. Divine Authority

In fact, the very move to a democracy as stated in the Declaration of Independence, which was a reappropriation of power from the aristocratic rule of England to the 'huddled masses' of the colonies, was an outright rebuke of the concept of 'divine authority'.

Reconciliation

So how does such a person reconcile these bulging conflicts of ideology (Theocracy vs. Democracy)?

They don't. For them, there is no internal conflict, no cognitive dissonance. Thus, there is no need for reconciliation. Such is the mindset of a conservative ideologue.

Common Good

So the message to my colleague -- if he was capable of experiencing such dissonance:

"If the Crusades were successful as you seem to wish, there is a vast likelihood that 'something else' would eventually come along in the due course of time that would naturally displace the dogma of your Crusade dream world. It's inevitable -- simply because not everybody thinks the way you think, lives the way you live, is privy to the things to which you are privy, hates the way you hate, or loves the way you love. Forsake your prejudice. Abandon your rigidity.

Every era has it's challenges, but the way to overcome them is not to waste your energy with "what ifs..." and wishful eugenic power-plays, the outcomes of which you truly have no insight whatsoever. Rather we must work together, clichéd or not, addressing commonalities in lieu of focusing on our disparate thoughts, values, and beliefs. Only then can we bring peace and prosperity to ourselves and the world.

That is a goal and a belief that we can all embrace.

Is that something you're willing to do?"

 * Cross-Posted at Political Cortex! *