Is America Going to Become a Theocracy?

1. 84

   My Esotericposted 3 weeks ago

   This story caught my attention and thought it deserved exploring.
   
   "Inside one pastor’s crusade for Christian domination in the age of Trump'
   
   That is the head line to a subscription only CNN article, so I'll find another source.
   
   The next source has this headline -
   
   "Hegseth attended service at church of ‘Christian nationalist’ pastor who doesn’t think women should vote and wants US to be theocracy"
   
   And this is the link- https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl … 03969.html
   
   In a nutshell, this Pastor, and apparently Hegseth, wants America and then the world to be dominated by Christians. Ant not any Christian faith, he wants evangelical the Christian cult to dominate.
   
   "Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth reportedly attended a service at Christ Church Washington D.C., a church affiliated with self-identified Christian nationalist Doug Wilson, an influential right-wing leader who seeks to turn the U.S. and other nations into Christian-led theocracies.
   
   “We’re not planting the church so that we can get to meet senators and important people,” Wilson told CNN. “What we’re doing is planting a church so that the important people in D.C. will be reminded that God is the important one. What matters is His favor.”
   
   Wilson, whose international network of churches, religious publishing, and education ventures began in Idaho in the 1970s, wrote in May that Christ Church’s presence in Washington seeks to benefit from the “many strategic opportunities with numerous evangelicals who will be present both in and around the Trump administration.”
   
   Already Trump is getting involved in protect this "movement" to end democracy as we know it.
   
   "The Justice Department intervened in a legal battle between Christ Church and Troy, Idaho, which it accuses of religious discrimination for blocking church plans to operate in a town building over zoning issues."
   
   From the CNN article behind the paywall.
   
   "In dozens of books and years of blog posts, Wilson advocates for the idea that America should adopt a Christian theocracy and adhere to a biblical interpretation of society. The new church in Washington is part of that mission, he says." - THAT would be the evangelical biblical interpretation which is like Shira Law
   
   This is scary stuff given he has the MAGA base to follow him.
   
   Let’s switch gears a little and bring up Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.
   
   The premise is that an evangelical group called the Sons of Jacob gains prominence and influence—much as Wilson is doing now—and revolts against the U.S. government. They assassinate the president and members of Congress who oppose them (remember, Wilson already has Hegseth) and install a rigid theocracy. Atwood describes a range of oppressive social customs and restrictions similar to what the Taliban are enforcing in Afghanistan today.
   
   The frightening part is this: every one of these practices has occurred in real life. Some happened recently, others in centuries past—but none are purely fictional. Atwood’s originality lies in combining these real events and policies into a single, coherent dystopia.
   
   One such practice is the use of women—the “Handmaids”—as forced surrogates for powerful men (“Commanders”) whose wives were infertile. The Commander would attempt to impregnate the Handmaid so that his wife could claim and raise the child. This was never voluntary for the Handmaids, who occupied one of the lowest rungs in Gilead’s hierarchy. Comparable coercive reproductive policies really did occur in modern history—most notably in Romania under Nicolae Ceaușescu’s communist regime, where the state banned abortion and contraception, and exerted extreme control over women’s reproductive lives.
   
   Given what is happening today, Atwood’s novel feels less like speculative fiction and more like a cautionary roadmap—a warning of how quickly hard-won freedoms can be dismantled under the banner of ideology.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      tsmogposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      A little late night wandering and, yes, a pot of coffee. Thanks for the inspiration. Well, here goes . . .
      
      Esoteric, your post is arresting—both in its urgency and its imagery. The title alone evokes a dystopian tremor, and I sense beneath it not just alarm, but something more intimate: fear. Not irrational fear, but the kind born from a lifetime of watching freedoms hard-won and easily lost.
      
      Your experience with I believe the Air Force that you served as well as the civil service provided more for you than most. What that is I don’t know. Anyway, you learned fear through a personal lens. That kind of fear deserves respect. I always bear in mind fear perhaps learned as well as instinctual is both friend and foe.
      
      Still, I wonder if the framing of “theocracy” risks obscuring the deeper issue. Is the threat truly theological—or is it ideological? Frankly, at first I found the framed usage of Evangelical abhorrent.
      
      Why?
      
      Christian nationalism, as you rightly highlight, is not a faith tradition but a political movement that borrows religious language to consolidate power. That is what I term a ‘Sneaky Pete’ from the movie Silverado with Kevin Costner when young.
      
      It’s not Evangelicalism in its historical sense dating back to the 18th century, which emphasized personal transformation, biblical engagement, and social renewal. To conflate the two is to flatten a rich and varied tradition into a caricature. Perhaps an excursion to the National Association of Evangelicals may bear fruit. Listen to:
      
      Ep. 3 | What’s Christian Nationalism Anyway? by National Association of Evangelicals (Oct 17, 2024)
      A missionary to Christian nationalists shares his story.
      https://www.nae.org/ep3-christian-natio … s-podcast/
      
      I find Wilson’s views quite troubling and antithetical to the spirit of humility that faith ought to cultivate. I am reminded of the Seven Mountain Mandate. Rather, I speak as one who leans more toward the silence of the Cloud than the noise of crusade. My spiritual path is less about dominion and more about surrender—less about certainty and more about the mystery that lies beyond knowing. I am giving attention to Pope Leo these days, though I am not catholic.
      
      You invoked The Handmaid’s Tale, and rightly so—it’s a powerful metaphor. It is getting a little worn out, maybe. Perhaps it is time to fall back on the oldies like 1984 authored by George Orwell, which one might say is a traditionalist position for meaning for dystopia. That strikes a chord with me with today’s political climate for both the right and left. They both are looking over my shoulder it seems.
      
      But metaphors, like beliefs, must be held lightly. Atwood’s dystopia is a cautionary tale, not a roadmap. The danger lies not in religion per se, but in any ideology—secular or sacred—that seeks to impose itself without regard for the human soul. Whether it’s Wilson’s vision or Ceaușescu’s regime, the common thread is control masquerading as conviction.
      
      I’ve been reflecting lately on belief itself—not as a static assertion, but as a dynamic relationship. It begins with a proposition, yes, but it deepens through faith, trust, doubt, and lived experience. It’s not unlike mechanical power: force applied over distance, shaped by resistance. Belief moves us, but only when it’s alive.
      
      And that brings me back to your post. What moves you, Esoteric? Beneath the critique, I sense a longing—for justice, for dignity, perhaps even for meaning. You may not name it God, but the yearning is familiar. It’s what binds us, whether we kneel in prayer or stand in protest.
      
      So I offer this not as rebuttal, but as reflection. Theocracy may not be imminent, but ideology—unchecked and unexamined—always is. The antidote, I believe, is not louder argument but deeper listening. To history, yes. But also to the quiet places within us where belief, fear, and hope wrestle for voice.
      
      **********
      
      Liberty. Whose? Yours, mine, or theirs?
      
      In silence we choose,
      Not chains nor decree,
      But the trembling breath of what might be.
      No creed can bind the soul’s unrest—
      Only freedom dared, and doubt confessed.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         First, I will start with thank you, very insightful and I liked the poem.

         replyreport
      2. 84

         My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         Second, as to why, today, I find Handmaidens Tale more of a roadmap than a cautionary tale, although if you read what Atwood has to say about it, it was a cautionary tale when she wrote it in the 1980s.
         
         Why do I say it is closer to a roadmap today? A combination of things; 1) what is happening today is to close to her thesis and 2) it has happened before.
         
         I didn't include this in the original post because it was too long already, but here is the history she based her story on:
         
         * Puritan New England (17th century) – Religious leaders governed with strict moral laws, influencing public and private life much like Gilead’s theocracy. Also probably one of the sources for her ritual hangings for sinful behavior.
         
         Iranian Revolution (1979) – A secular government was replaced by a religious regime enforcing conservative Islamic law, dramatically reducing women’s rights almost overnight.
         
         Taliban in Afghanistan (1996–2001, 2021–present) – Girls and women were barred from education, jobs, and public life, and subjected to severe dress and behavior codes. Also, the firing squad habits portrayed in her book may have originated from the Taliban
         
         I can list at least 6 more if needed. The point, of course, is I fear history repeating itself.
         
         Also, I agree with the 1984 reference, but that was secular in origin I believe and I apply it to the Trump administration. But with the popularism of Wilson, it moved on to the Handmaid's tale for me.

         replyreport
      3. 84

         My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         Third, yes, I gained a lot of experience from my time in the military, including serving in Vietnam, and the civil service - to say the least I say a lot all over the world. (In fact, I am writing a 3rd book about that, sort of an autobiography)
         
         If it tells you anything, I am not one for tattoos, but i have one of Libra on my left arm.
         
         But as to religious philosophy, I have written extensively on it in Hubpages. But in a nutshell, I figured out the hypocrisy of Christianity early on, I peg it at 10 years old (I had already ready the Bible once) when I asked the question (one of many) of why there were so many different versions of Christianity and God. I thought to myself then that if they can answer that, I will give them another look.
         
         If you are interested, here are two samples of what I think about that.
         
         http://hub.me/acf1o
         
         http://hub.me/a8kOj - Not sure why I labeled it '2a" anymore.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            tsmogposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            Thanks for the reply, Esoteric. I wasn’t sure which post to respond to first, so I went with “the first shall be last and the last shall be first”—just playing with the paradoxes we both seem to enjoy.
            
            I’ll take time to read the articles you shared more thoroughly later. From a brief skim, I noticed some resonances—especially your reflections on physics and metaphysics. I’m still wrestling with the idea of “beyond space and time.” When I try to contemplate it through both scientific and metaphysical lenses, I often arrive at laughter… and the word “absurd.” Camus would probably nod.
            
            As for religious philosophy, I see it as one door among many—though it’s a door that opens into halls of power, both sacred and profane. I appreciate that you’ve found a sense of clarity in your journey. And yes, change is inevitable. Sometimes it’s a slow erosion; sometimes it’s a sudden quake.
            
            Regarding public figures: I find Hegseth’s character troubling, and Wilson’s entanglement with Evangelicalism feels like a distortion of its original spirit. That’s why I referenced the National Association of Evangelicals’ stance on Christian Nationalism—it’s a rare moment of institutional clarity.
            
            Politically, I’m an independent voter. I hold both conservative and liberal views, depending on the issue. For the last two elections, I wrote in Teddy Roosevelt—not out of nostalgia, but as a symbolic gesture toward a kind of rugged idealism. I don’t affiliate with any religious movement, though I do engage with the Bible through a Historical-Metaphorical lens, rather than literalism or inerrancy.
            
            One thought I return to often is:
            “Religion is meant to be a raft, not a fortress. If it helps you cross the river, good. But don’t build walls with it.”
            
            It reminds me that belief can be a tool for crossing into deeper understanding—not a weapon for division.
            
            Off now to finish the laundry and tackle some domestic chores. Then I’ll be writing a few emails to friends in Europe. Life’s little rituals, right?
            
            

            replyreport
   2. 82

      peterstreepposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      I don't think this is a new trend. Religion has played a big role in politics since Reagan. (He understood the value of the Christian voters who before him could be bothered to vote.)
      Lots of religious extrmists escaped Europe and went to the US to start a new life in the beginning of the colonization of the US.
      TV preachers and weird cults are not for nothing in the US.
      Georg W. Bush war aigainst Iraq was also based on religious motives.
      And today, I think it would be still impossible for a President to win if he said that he/she was an atheist. If you said you where gay you would have more chances, but I think for a president of the US to say that he is an atheist is still a taboo.
      
      The handmaids Tale is not such a strange thought. If you combine the strong religious movements with the control by men. And the politics of today's US.
      Women have been pursued and punished for centuries by religions. They have a terrible record when it comes to equal rights for men and women.

      replyreport
      1. 84

         My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         Thanks for joining the conversation.

         replyreport
2. 84

   My Esotericposted 3 weeks ago

   I was doing some research on my 2nd book on Conservatism when I went down this rabbit-hole on religious surges in America. I was asking ChatGPT for some history on the rise and fall of religious surges and it offered to model this ray of hop when our current onslaught might fade into the noise:
   
   When and How the Current Surge Could Decline
   
   Baseline:
   
   In the early 1800s and the late 20th century, religious-political surges peaked for about 15–20 years before losing momentum. The current wave began to take clear political form in the early 2010s, accelerated under Trump (2015–2020), and surged again after Dobbs (2022). That means we may already be approaching the “overreach” phase historically associated with decline.
   
   1. Possible Timeline
   
   2025–2026: Peak Influence
   
   * Current supermajority on the Supreme Court continues to deliver key wins (national abortion restrictions, school religious expression cases).
   
   * Movement maintains strong grip on GOP primaries, especially in red states.
   
   * Tariffs, inflation, and recession risk could shift some focus to economic issues — but not enough to dislodge cultural battles.
   
   2027–2028: Signs of Overreach
   
   * National backlash to restrictive laws, especially abortion bans and anti-LGBTQ+ measures, drives turnout for opposition candidates.
   
   * Suburban and younger voters in swing states begin to rebel against religiously framed policy mandates.
   
   * GOP strategists start debating whether a full embrace of Christian nationalism is costing them elections in purple states.
   
   2029–2032: Decline Phase
   
   * Demographic tipping point: Religious “nones” surpass 35% of electorate; under-35 voters overwhelmingly secular.
   
   * Internal rifts grow between pragmatic conservatives (who want to win elections) and movement purists.
   
   * Court decisions provoke federal and state legislative pushback, diluting policy gains.

   replyreport
3. 84

   My Esotericposted 3 weeks ago

   One of the chapters in my 2nd book on Conservatism will read:
   
   2. The Moral Majority and the Reagan Revolution
   In 1979, Jerry Falwell founded the Moral Majority, a political organization that would spearhead the fusion of evangelical Christianity and Republican politics. Its agenda was clear: combat abortion, oppose feminism, resist LGBTQ+ rights, defend prayer in schools, and restore “traditional family values.”
   
   That was 1979 and very much like, but a little less extreme, than what Wilson, Hegseth, and presumably Trump wants with Christian Nationalism.

   replyreport
4. 72

   tsmogposted 3 weeks ago

   Hmmm . . .
   
   Esoteric, I appreciate your recent posts. Though they weren’t direct replies, I sensed a quiet resonance with our earlier exchange—like ripples meeting midstream. That kind of indirect dialogue, to me, signals a shared openness to exploration rather than confrontation. It’s refreshing.
   
   I’ve been part of this forum since around 2013, shortly after retiring. It became a morning ritual—coffee in hand, reading posts across the political and philosophical spectrum. I’ve learned a great deal from the regular contributors, including yourself. Your historical grounding and prolific writing have added depth to the discourse. I’ve read many of your Hub articles, and I’m currently working through Conservatism in Practice in America. Time management is my current nemesis, so I read more than I write these days—but I remain engaged.
   
   Your recent reflections on religious surges and the trajectory of Christian nationalism were compelling. The historical modeling you shared—especially the idea of “overreach” leading to decline—offers a lens for understanding the cyclical nature of ideological movements. It reminded me of Jefferson’s approach to faith: the Jefferson Bible, stripped of miracles, yet rich in moral clarity. Many of our founders were theists, not orthodox Christians. That distinction matters, especially when considering the philosophical underpinnings of our secular government.
   
   I both learned and am inspired, yet time is my nemesis as shared. I discover treasures as a constant with the Political and Social Problems forum through the dialogue shared by members. I enjoy reading the recommended articles as well as the posts.
   
   I wonder if your upcoming chapters will also explore liberalism and progressivism—not just as counterpoints, but as movements with their own philosophical and historical arcs. What are their aspirations? Their pitfalls? Their contributions to the American experiment? I ask not to challenge, but to invite balance. As you know, politics is both a science and a philosophy. It’s not only about what we resist, but also what we envision.
   
   Personally, I lean toward liberty as a guiding principle—tempered by the reality principle, as Freud might say. We dream, we strive, but we must also reckon with what is. That’s where existentialism speaks to me: the tension between absurdity and meaning, autonomy and interconnectedness. Each individual, I believe, must chart their own course, informed by history, religion, philosophy, and the lived experience of ‘Life’ itself.
   
   At one time, I studied polytheism—particularly Greek and Norse mythologies. Their pantheons offered symbolic frameworks for understanding human nature, fate, and the cosmos. Today, I see echoes of that mythic devotion in our culture’s idolatry: the religion of sport, celebrity, and spectacle. The NFL, NBA, and now WNBA—these arenas have become temples, their players modern deities, their fans devoted congregants. Religion, it seems, has grown far beyond the divine. I get a kick at watching TMZ Live each morning on weekdays. Have you heard of it?
   
   So I leave you with this:
   
   We build our altars out of neon light, 
   Chant stats like psalms beneath stadium skies. 
   Yet still, the old gods whisper in the wind— 
   Reminding us that myth was never far.

   replyreport
   1. 84

      My Esotericposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      I just love your words and the thoughtfulness behind them. (I think there is a name for such dialog, it might have the word "society" in it.)
      
      Anyway, you gave me an idea for a 4th book, one on liberalism and progressivism and the benefits to society (still labeled with the "the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly" add-on.
      
      The point of this book, assuming anyone ever reads it, is to try to make a clear and convincing case that conservatism, as practiced, should be rejected in America and around the world. Why? Like with too much "liberalism" it always leads to bad outcomes (think communism).
      
      With the help of ChatGPT, I can greatly speed up putting my ideas down on paper. For example, and you might notice the difference, the first five or six chapters I wrote a while back with some editing by ChatGPT. The remaining chapters, which are much shorter, are more or less creations by ChatGPT - but based upon what the AI program has learned about the way I think.
      
      I will finish off the chapters in this fashion and then go back a reread everything. That will generate more questions in my mind to pursue to make my points clearer an provide research and references to back them up.
      
      I use ChatGPT as a research took as well - realizing its answers always need to be questioned for I have found some pretty gross mistakes. I have a limited number of "deep research" opportunities per month which greatly cut down on the mistakes so I end up giving it the third degree when something doesn't make sense.
      
      Also, I put some articles as standalones rather than replies because I think they add new ideas into the discussion.
      BTW, what did you do before retiring?

      replyreport
      1. 72

         tsmogposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         Go for it, Eso!! I admire you with respect pursuing a writing venue both exploring you values and sharing with the world. Frankly, I am a smoker and I smoke too much when I write, thus do little these days. I more than likely will fade from the forums again.
         
         I was in the automotive field starting as a pump jockey at '72. It was interesting working during the rationing period of '73 & '79. Anyway, the last 14 years of my career I worked for an Auto repair and tire store chain in San Diego and Riverside county plus 4 stores in Mexico. I did data mining in the corporate office along with performance reports, auditing daily receipts, and special projects for the owner.

         replyreport