The Death of the State and the Triumph of Tribalism

Over the last couple months, we all have observed the escalating conflict in Iraq with growing concern as to what it means for both the region and the world at large.  In one sense, this ‘civil war’ in Iraq (if we dare call it such) is nothing more than an internecine conflict between different ethnic factions who hold to competing religious and political goals.  Even the bloody massacres perpetrated by ISIS, as horrific as they are, are not in themselves truly historically significant (I hate to break it to you, but there as always been a small, but militant faction of Islam that has enjoyed killing people.  Not to sound overly trite in our age of the “touchy feely” syndrome, but for that minority of Muslims, such a practice is the European equivalent of going to the pub on Saturday night before mass the next morning.)  But in contemplating the historical context of both the presence of ISIS in Iraq, and its consequence-a growing civil war, I was struck with the following observation:  What is happening in Iraq is an excellent example of an observation I made several months ago on this blog regarding the future of the modern geo-political state as we knew it and defined it in the 20th century.

In my previous post, Why 21st Century Politics is killing Socialism, I wrote the following observation regarding our postmodern world:

My point is that this paradigm shift in the western world, the death of the Modern, and the rise of the Post-modern, is the simple explanation why Socialism and its Centralized State are dying and being replaced with a new geo-economic and political theory. What will be the dominant political and economic theory of the twenty-first century? A modified form of Localism or Libertarianism. But lest those on the political right get overly excited about this observation, this embrace of Localism is not because mankind has suddenly experienced an awakening to the value of individual liberty. No, for the most part, the world is still rushing full speed back to authoritarianism. But for the Post-modern who views reality as splintering apart into a trillion little pieces, entirely disconnected to each other, the only sensible political theory is a form of anarcho-Libertarianism which could be stated more succinctly this way:

Let every man, woman, child or whatever gender you prefer to describe as do what is right in their own eyes.

Now, I can already hear the questions being posed. What does the death of socialism and the centralized state along with the rise of Postmodern thought have to do with a centuries’ old religious conflict among Muslims?  After all, Muslims aren’t exactly know for being champions of the centralized state or Modernism or Post-modern thinking.  Allow me to make two observations regarding why I state that the current conflict in Iraq is a reflection of the death of the Modern State and the rise of the Postmodern tribal mentality.

First, we must remember that the “MODERN STATE” of Iraq was an artificial creation of the Western powers after World War I.  The nation-state we call “Iraq” did not actually come into existence until 1919 with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. Prior to that time, ‘Iraq’ was part of the Ottoman Empire and was ruled by the Turks from the mid-1400’s.  But with the defeat of the Central Powers, the victorious Allies, “afflicted and troubled in conscience” by the “sin of empire,” and eager to make the world “safe for Democracy”, determined that the Ottoman Empire needed broken up along with the German and Austro-Hungarian conglomerates.  But rather than break up the Ottoman Empire according to ethnic or tribal divisions, the Allied powers, ever mindful that making the world ‘safe for democracy’ meant preserving the oil fields of the Middle East for British and French industrial power, arbitrarily drew boundary lines in such a way as to preserve the integrity of the oil fields with no respect for centuries old tribal boundaries or ethnic and religious traditions.  This is how the modern state of Iraq came into existence.

But as the Modern ideals are dying (or in some cases, already dead), the people of the world will naturally revert back to what they knew for generations before the “modern hiccup” spit forth in the 20th century.  I would be so bold as to predict that before the 21st century ends, the ‘modern’ state of Iraq will cease to exist.  But that observation is secondary to my real point which is this: Iraq is dying because it lost it’s one point of national identity in 2003-the toppling of Saddam Hussein by the American invaders. And so it’s people are reverting back to their former loyalties: Shiites, Sunni or Kurd which are the three main ethno-religious groups in Iraq.  Localism killing the state.

But this fact pales in significance when compared to my second observation, the rise and spread of ISIS through the Middle East.  The presence of ISIS is Iraq is even more significant that then the problems in Iraq or Syria because their presence signals the rise of Islamic dominance once again in the Middle East.  I do not think that ISIS itself will last long.  Their goals and aims are far too radical, costly and disconcerting to both the Modern and Postmodern ways of thinking.  ISIS will die quickly, and if I had to make projection, Iraq will continue to plunge into worse chaos in the next several years unless another strong man comes to forefront. The question is, who will that strong man be? The United States? Another Iraqi nationalist like Saddam? Another foreign power from the East? Or a new Islamic leader who is both militant in his beliefs and can build a strong man coalition that can unite Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, and perhaps even other Arabs in a broad Islamic coalition?

That is the real question regarding the future of Iraq as well as our new postmodern world.

Holy War! The Rise and Fall of the American Theocracy, 2039-2079 (Part 1)

by Nathaniel Lane Stewart, M. A.

Introduction: The Unique Phenomenon of the American Theocratic Republic

On January 20, A. D. 2081, General Josiah Grantham, who was elected the preceding November, was sworn in as President of the United States on a cold winter day.  Unlike inaugural ceremonies in past decades, this one was relatively simple.  Standing inside the dome of the old Capital building (which still contained large holes from massive bombings in the previous decade), the new president-elect took the oath of office with only a handful of observers-a few government officials, several military officers representing three different nations, and about hundred local citizens who had gathered for the occasion.  Despite its simplicity, this event was pivotal for many reasons, including several important firsts for its time.

One, President-elect Grantham was the first president to be formally sworn into office in 16 years-the last official inaugural ceremony occurred in January, 2065.

Two, he was the first president to hold office following the defeat of the American military in 2079 during the final days of the conflict that later historians would call World War III (2019-2079).

Three, his election and ceremony were also remarkable considering that during the years leading up to both events, much of the North American continent was under the joint military occupation of allied forces from the Republic of China, the Russian Imperial Federation, the Free Republic of Mexico, and the League of Islamic Republics, these powers having effectively defeated the United States and its few allies by June, 2079.  Further, despite these forces still occupying significant portions of American territory in 2079 and 2080, his election was welcomed by most of the officers of this joint military force.

Four, and perhaps most significant of all, he was the first president since George Washington in 1788 to be elected without facing an opponent.

Standing in the center of the domed rotunda with his left hand raised and his right placed upon a Bible held by his wife, the new president, dressed in plain civilian garb, repeated the oath of office to a local magistrate, who was the only official judge that could be summoned for the occasion.  After reciting the words, “So Help Me God”, the magistrate shook the new President’s hand and offered his congregations.  There was no 21 gun salute and no band playing “Hail to the Chief”.  The omission of both from the ceremony was the new president’s expressed wish.  After a quiet applause from the onlookers, President Grantham took his place at the dais and began to speak.  He offered words of thanks to the judge and to the various officials who had assembled.  He also thanked the citizens who attended, and then expressed his gratitude to all those who had participated in the electoral process despite the many hardships most Americans were facing in the post-war world.  After these and other rather generic remarks regarding the American traditions of democracy, he addressed the matter that was on the minds of most who were present:

“For almost three decades now, Americans have suffered under a brutal tyranny imposed by a minority of religious militants who upon high-jacking our system of democratic government promoted a vicious and evil form of religious radicalism of which this nation has never seen in its three centuries of existence.  We who have survived this national nightmare have witnessed the horrific consequences that religious authoritarian dogmatism can create. We have seen the death, carnage, and destruction that a religiously motivated political ideology will bring upon a people who have lost their spiritual identity, their love for truth and righteousness, and most of all, have lost sight of that second of the two greatest commandments: to love one’s neighbor as oneself. 

While our desire may be to erase utterly from our national memory those thirty years of horror, the responsible course of any nation must be to never forget the evil perpetrated by those few who sought to impose their misguided attempts to create heaven upon earth.  And by refusing to forget this tragedy of horrors, may we then avoid the mistakes of our parents in permitting such an evil to exist among us in our own time.  Today, let us pledge that while we wish never to see such grotesque evils visit our land again, we will never forget the bondage that human religion when mixed with civil government can and will bring upon any people.  We, as Americans, are a spiritual people.  We have always been a spiritual people.  We believe in spiritual truths that exist beyond this world.  As our Declaration of Independence affirms, “We hold these truths to be self-evident.”  What truths? Spiritual truths-principles of morality-right versus wrong, good versus evil, and the moral versus the immoral.  But while spirituality is expressed in our National Creed, let us also remember the words in our chief national instrument of law-our Constitution: “Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion.”  These two statements are American Values and American Fundamentals.  And though we welcome spirituality in our public arena, let us vow that we shall forever uphold the fundamental truth that the government shall never stand above the conscience of the citizen in regards to matters of religion!” *

This final statement received a standing ovation as the audience expressed its solemn concurrence to this firm declaration of principle.  And while the crowd gave its approval, President Grantham paused to face his audience.  Despite their apparent consent to his words, their eyes revealed a weariness of soul the depths of which could hardly be noted in those few moments.  Few present were military veterans, but all gave the expression of a people long oppressed with severe trouble and sorrow.  Having served in the U. S. Army since 2046, the President had seen first hand the sorrow his nation had experienced.

As observers of history, we must pause as we examine this scene and ask this simple query:  Why should a nation, conceived on the idea that the individual conscience, particularly in regards to religion, was free from coercion by the state now find that its chief magistrate must assert with clarity to the world that its government will never permit religion to govern its civic life, its laws, and its national identity to the degree of eliminating the freedom of the individual conscience? If the scene before us draws us to ask this question, then we have found a fitting point at which we can begin our study of one of the darkest chapters of the history of the Post-modern era: The American Theocratic Republic.  Though this regime ruled the North American continent (as well as parts of the Central America) for a mere 14 years (2065-2079), its influence in the American national life was felt as early as the mid-2040’s while its origins can be traced back to the middle of the 20th century.  And though we are over seventy years removed from its events, nonetheless, the shadow of the American theocratic movement still deeply influences life in the Americas in our own time.

(To Be Continued. . . )

*Taken from the Collected Writings of Josiah Grantham: The Presidential Years: 2080-2089, published in A. D. 2129, edited by Elizabeth A. Gratham and Maggie G. Stewart.

What if Christianity ruled the USA?

So did the title catch your attention?  Are you wondering what odd and crazy ideas this next post contains?

Let me restate the question in another manner: What if Christianity ruled the United States in the same way that Islam rules Saudi Arabia or Iran in today’s world?

Such an idea may sound absurd to us in the twenty-first century.  After all, what about the First Amendment to the Constitution and the “disestablishment clause”?  Wouldn’t such provisions make it impossible for any type of religion to gain control of the Federal government?  And given the context of our Post-modern world, with secularism, relativism, the paradox and subjective morality being the key beliefs of our age, why would I even pose the question of religion dominating civil and political affairs in the United States?

To us who live in 2014, such questions are legitimate.  But as I observe the trends in both theology and philosophy as well as the shifting global attitude towards religion in general, I would be so bold as to say that in fifty years, such questions could more than theoretical ideas, but very possibly realities in the world of the twenty-first century.

Without crafting a long answer, allow me to explain why I think it is likely religion will come to dominate the American government in the twenty-first century.  As I stated in previous posts, the Modern world is dead.  I agree that most people are still thinking in modern terms, but the ideas of the Modern have died.  One of the main consequences of the death of the Modern is the decline of a secular society rooted in a purely materialistic epistemology.  While the Modern had little use for religion (other than a quaint practice from days of yore), the post-modern has a definite use for religion in its worldview of paradox and contextualization.  Why do I claim this?

For the Modern, religion was just one of many lesser spheres that had little significance upon the course of events in the world whereas concerns of politics, economics, technology and science were considered the true drivers of history and development.  Therefore, the secular was the King of all spheres and ruled all things according to a scientific and ‘rational’ (really, it was irrational, but that is another topic for later) method.

Contrary to the worldview of the modern, the post-modern views religion as a viable and equal partner with the secular realm in terms of knowledge, interpretation of data, philosophy and ethics.  It is not that the post-modern has suddenly decided the secular and sacred should merge into one or that the sacred should govern the secular (like the Medieval worldview).  No, the post-modern still sees a distinction between the secular and sacred realms.  But given the post-modern’s emphasis on the paradox and contextualization of all knowledge, a distinction between the secular and the sacred is far less important to the post-modern than to the Modern Secular Materialist, the Enlightened Rationalist or even the Evangelical Protestant.  Ergo, the Post-modern welcomes the presence of religion in the world of the twenty-first century.

With this particular fact in mind, and the related fact that in the last ten years, we have witnessed the rise of religion around the world, and it’s growing impact on global affairs, I return to my original question: Given the slow blurring of the distinction between the secular and sacred realms in our Postmodern world, how will Americans’ attitudes towards the relationship of religion to the civil and political realms change in say 50 to 75 years?

Naturally, no one  in 2014 can know for sure what the future holds.  And don’t ask me; after all, I am an historian, not a prophet.  But I have thought about this question quite a bit, and have a few thoughts that I would like to share in the coming posts.  However, rather than try to share my thoughts in the form of some essays, occasionally such themes are better explained in the form of a story.  So I am going to invite you, my readers, to take a journey of historical speculation and imagination.  Let us travel into the future to the middle of the 22nd century-the decade of the 2150’s to be precise.  And rather than having me offering my own prognostications, I will let a historian of greater skill recount to you one of the greatest (and to us, ‘potential’) events of the 21st century.  So as I bring this particular post to a close, allow me to set the stage for you in regards to the world of this historian as he narrates to us the events that could await us in the future.

The name of this renowned historian is Nathaniel Lane Stewart.  He is a respected Professor of English and History at one of the few prestigious universities remaining in North America (most of them having been destroyed by the tragic events he will narrate to us), the University of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia.  The University is a member of the Catholic Academic League, a worldwide organization under the jurisdiction of the Vatican.  Nation-states, as we know them, do not exist with two exceptions: the Republic of China, and the Neo-Islamic Empire.  The world is governed by a document known as the Covenant of Religious Detente  which was formally ratified in 2131 and for the last twenty years, has slowly been implemented by the Jesuits and other members of the Roman Catholic Church in cooperation with the New Islamic Empire and the Council of the Jewish Nation.

Professor Stewart has long standing family ties in North America and is regarded as reputable scholar throughout the eastern part of the continent.  He has written a number of significant works, including A Short History of the Twenty-first Century (2153), The Death of the State: How the German Epistemological Matrix Destroyed the Protestant Commonwealth (2145), and a controversial little work entitled, Who Doth Protest? How the Church reversed 6 Centuries of Schism (2157).  But his most important work, and the one we shall get a few samples from is this one: Holy War! The Rise and Fall of the American Theocracy, 2039-2079 (published posthumously from his lecture notes in A. D. 2195).  I trust you will find this little excursion interesting and instructive.

Next time: We open the pages of the history of the American Theocracy.