Religion and the Republican Party

Here's a theory I've been kicking around for a long time. Bear with me, if you will, and let me know what you think.

I've long had a theory that the introduction of monotheism to society was based on the idea that polytheism was simply too difficult to control people with once society became job based (as opposed to everyone doing everything for themselves, such as farming, construction, blacksmith, etc). In a polytheistic culture, people turn to different gods to govern over their lives, and though one might follow the preaching, demands, and values of their agricultural god, another might be following the preaching, demands, and values of their wine god. Simply put, this divided the society's morals and values in a way that government found it difficult to control, and many different high priests wielded power over small groups of people. Thus, monotheism became the solution. If everyone bowed down to the same god, with the same set of values, it was then possible for power to be concentrated within one person or group. And so it came to be that Judaism was formed by a small group of men who sought to wield a chunk of power for themselves, as they wanted to do things their own way. This power grew and the followers continued to multiply, until a new group of people without power desired to control a crowd of their own. This lead to the advent of Christianity. You can keep going throughout the history of religion and see the pattern form repeatedly... once Christianity became widespread throughout Europe, a group of Europeans decided to break in the Great Schism and formed their own sects of Christianity such that they could wield power over their own set of followers. In the Middle East, there was the faction of Mohammad, resulting in Islam, which was a direct result of the lack of a monotheistic religion in the Middle East with which to draw in the many tribes and political divisions among them (and also a religion of their own values and not those of the Europeans). Fast forward to the formation of the New England colonies in the New World. One of the driving reasons behind the formation of the Massachusetts colonies was dissatisfaction with the King's form Christianity, but this was also set against a backdrop of political and economic oppression. Once again, a group of people, lacking a voice and power of their own, broke away from their former Church. Once in the New World, it happened yet again, with people like William Penn, Roger Williams, and others leading their own religious followers and forming communities of their own, however, the motivation in each case was not solely religious, but also political and economic. Each group was an unheard minority within their greater sect. This factionalization continued on to the point where there became literally hundreds of different sects of religion, each with its own bevy of steadfast followers with which to exert power over.

However, with the advent of more and more sects also came the fractionalizing of power over the individual. As each sect broke off, each of these religious leaders wielded less and less power and influence. Still, there did still exist an entity by which power remained concentrated. Two of the largest and most powerful groups of people in this country were not religions, they were political parties. Political parties helped people while at the same time put a few people into positions of power over large numbers of people, not much different from the role that religion used to fill.

If you compare the values of Christianity, the dominant religion in our society, with that of the Democratic Party, you can see that the two entities were meant to exist side by side. Loving your neighbor, lending a helping hand, shunning violence in favor of diplomacy... these are the principal vales of both Christians and Democrats, and so it was that the two co-existed. The other group, which found itself in the minority more often than not historically, was what we know today as the Republican Party. That's not to say Republicans didn't also espouse Christian beliefs - they merely felt that it was not the responsibility of the government to take on such a role. They believed in limited and decentralized government, with the corruption of the English monarchs still fresh in their minds. However, this did not resonate with majority of America, evidenced by dissolution of the Confederate States of America (not the Civil War South, what we were under the Articles of Confederation) and the steady rise in power of our federal government over that of the states. It was an idealistic dream that a unified country could succeed without strong central government, much like the idea that Communism as the Russians knew it could succeed without having to stifle the flow of information and the human tendency toward greed and power in certain individuals.

Getting back on topic, Christians and Democrats were hand-in-hand, until one day, a Catholic, a frowned upon sect of Christianity in our country, became President of the United States. Anti-Catholic sentiment lead many devout Protestants within our party to feel as though they no longer held power as they once did. This is where religion and politics truly merged. The Republican Party, sick of being in the minority, lured many disillusioned Protestants over to their side with the idea that they could once more wield the power they held. They continued to build up enough people with the concept that the Democratic Party had abandoned religion, or at least THEIR sect and idea of religion.

This, in my belief, accounts for the current battle for the soul of the Republican Party. On one hand, you have the true conservatives. These are people that still believe in the old principals of the Republican Party - minimal central government with strong state and local governments. And then there are those that have joined after the election of John F. Kennedy, the neo-conservatives, whom are little more than those who use religion as a means of seizing power for themselves.

That's my take on how things have gotten where they are. I'd appreciate any feedback you can give or any holes you would point out in my theory. Thanks for reading.

IMO, your problem is that you started out with the flawed premise that "the introduction of monotheism to society was based on the idea that polytheism was simply too difficult to control people with once society became job based"

I suggest reading some Joseph Campbell, such as The Masks of God series. He does a great job of explaining the differences between polytheism and monotheism

organized Religion was necessary for the agricultural revolution to succeed.

I'm not sure about that. I've done plenty of research on the matter, and though I have not read Joseph Campbell, I think there is plenty of evidence to suggest my theory is relevant, perhaps not on an outright level, but at least on a subconcious level. Then again, if you consider yourself a more religious person, the concept that religion is a form of control is something you'd automatically reject, so it's not surprising you stopped your analysis there.

the first phase of modern cultural evolution

Meany studies have shown agnostics be more moral, so organized religion mayn't be needed anymore

has had an advanced civilization for centuries, as well as large numbers of polytheists. Monotheism did not become a powerful force until sometime after the death of Christ. By that time, there were agricultural and market economies that had already been in existence for centuries. In some areas, monotheism has never been the religious belief of the rulers.

And Greece was a highly developed society ruled by an aristocracy that was polytheistic.

Firstly, I'm referring to Western religions and society, as Eastern Religion and society has had no influece over the Republican Party and has no relevance to this debate. Many Eastern cultures still operate polytheistically, however, they've also run a very different path politically than the West has, but they also hold tend to hold far different family and moral structures than we do, making the necessity for a powerful monotheistic religion irrelevant. However, if you're making the comparison, those are also areas that have been either rife with Civil War or have been under the rule of an extremely powerful monarch/emperor/dictator type of figure.

Further, the theory is not mutually exclusive. It simply suggests that monotheistic religion made it easier to unify and control the people than did polytheism, however, that was not to say that it was impossible to have a polytheistic integrated society.

but since your theory is about the idea that religion has an intimate causal connection with the development of civilization (ie specifically job-based (ie market0 economies) I don't understand why you limit yourself to Western civilizations, nor do I understand how the differing family and moral structures eliminates their need for monotheism.

Further, the theory is not mutually exclusive. It simply suggests that monotheistic religion made it easier to unify and control the people than did polytheism, however, that was not to say that it was impossible to have a polytheistic integrated society.

That sounds more plausible, but I still don't see the connections. Could you say more about how monotheism makes it easier to unify and control people? I just don't see it. It seems to me that if you can get people to believe in the authority of higher power of ANY type, and convince them that you speak for that authority, you have the beginnings of control

probably has as many schism's in practice as the republican party. Catholism as a doctrine is actually closer to communism and that contributed to the 'catholic scare'. That 'scare' was also promoted by political opponents and so and so forth.

Rather than viewing religion of any kind in a society as being linear, its affects and its influences tend to overlap other areas. Singular views of any of a society's various value laden institutions tends to confuse rather than illuminate causes and outcomes.

I think that in the republican party the religious heads have as much or as little power as the power elite want them to have--for the most part. Occasionally the religious right takes over the reins but only as long as the wealthy choose to allow them too. That doesn't decrease the threats or even some gains that these sects make in society. Rather, it highlights how engaged and influential that have made themselves to each other.

There is both suspicion and jealousy among the religious right on the part of the protestants against the RCC. Recall that the RCC exists as a sovereign state. Something all the prod's, moonies and what not drool over. The issue of abortion was first seriously taken up not ny the RCC, but by the various denominations that comprise the religious right. The RCC was largely mute on the issue but they generally rear their heads loudly in any election period.

Anyway, happy hunting

or so it seems to me. Even in polytheistic cultures, individuals seem to favor one divinity. Brahmanas in ancient India might favor a Vaishnavite or Saivite worldview without discounting the existence of others, but perhaps ignoring them on a daily basis. The currently vast nature of Hindu polytheism, to keep with my example, stems from individuals favoring a local divinity or at the very least a localized form. Gods are considered merely aspects of a singular godhead (not the same as monotheism, mind you, since Siva and Vishnu are both sources of MANY Hindu god-aspects.

You say:

>However, with the advent of more and more sects also came the >fractionalizing of power over the individual. As each sect broke >off, each of these religious leaders wielded less and less power >and influence.

And I think here your theory falters. Religion has always been fractional as local religious leaders have attempted to exert more overt power over the flock. In any analysis, my god is not your god, though we may agree on certain fundamentals. I was was christian-presbyterian, but my catholic wife's family is asked to believe that I will spend eternity in hell because as a protestant I have not worshipped the same fundamentals. Their church will not allow me eucharist, confession, etc. (as if I'd ever asked) becuase I am not in the faith, ergo I'm going to hell.

And this is supposed to be the same god, but Catholics, Episcopalians, CoE, Methodists, etc. all disagree on the fundamentals.

In this sense it seems that nations are polytheistic: its citizens tend towards practical monotheism.

>However, with the advent of more and more sects also came the >fractionalizing of power over the individual. As each sect broke >off, each of these religious leaders wielded less and less power >and influence.

And I think here your theory falters. Religion has always been fractional as local religious leaders have attempted to exert more overt power over the flock.

The point is, if there exist an increasingly greater number of religions and/or sects, there are less people following each priest. If there are only two major sects, then the power would only be split two ways. However, if you have 50 sects, that's splitting the power 50 ways. Relatively speaking, even the largest of these groups can't possibly wield the same relative power that it used to. Yes, it has always been fractionalized, however, even if local priests were wielding local power, they had to answer to the head of the church. They were being controlled by a central figure, or small committee of figures.