"Three revolutions ended the short period of interplanetary imperialism: Antarctica, U.S., and Venus."
-Robert Heinlein, The Man Who Sold The Moon (London, 1963), p. 7.
We see nothing of Antarctica. We see Venus before its revolution. Regarding the U.S., the reference is to the beginning of the Prophetic dictatorship, not to the later Second American Revolution which overthrows the Prophets.
"Certain aspects of psychodynamics and psychometrics, mass psychology and social control developed by the priest class." (ibid.)
Misused social science as in parts of the Psychotechnic History.
After the overthrow of the prophets:
"Science of social relations, based on the negative basic statements of semantics. Rigor of epistemology. The Covenant." (ibid.)
This reads like part of the explanation of psychodynamics in Anderson's series.
We appreciate Wells and Heinlein both in themselves and in their influences on Anderson.
6 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I thought Heinlein's theocratic Prophetic dictatorship in the US one of his weaker ideas, born as it was from his dislike of evangelical Protestants. Christianity is very stony ground for theocracy and it was evangelical Protestants in particular who were very strong opponents of the US having an Anglican style Established Church.
Ad astra! Sean
"evangelical Protestants in particular who were very strong opponents of the US having an Anglican style Established Church."
At the time they weren't a large enough fraction of the population to think their version of Christianity would dominate. Judging by current noises about "America is a Christian Nation" from Evangelical Protestants, some of them think they have a chance of doing that.
If your 'stony ground' thesis is correct they will fail. But, how much damage will they do in the attempt, both to the US and to Christianity?
Kaor, Jim!
Except you are missing how a nation can be a Christian country with freedom of religion and no state church. IIRC, both John Adams and Thomas Jefferson agreed that would be good for the US. Also, you need to explain exactly what kind of harm you expect from decent, well meaning Baptists and other evangelical Protestants. Anderson thought quite well of them in his essay "Science and Creation."
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Jim!
I need to correct myself: all this talk about "established" churches was not really about "theocracy," properly understood. The former is better described as "Caesaro-Papism," in which the State controls a church and appoints its leaders or bishops. Such as is still technically the case with the Anglicans in the UK. The most extreme example of that in modern European history was probably Tsarist Russia, after Peter the Great abolished the Moscow Patriarchate.
Theocracy or Caesaro-Papism, both are contrary to the will of God and the teaching of the NT. The classic text from the latter being Matthew 22.15-22, where the Lord declared that we should render to God and Caesar what rightfully belongs to both. This has led to endless disputes between Church and State where the popes resisted interference or attempts at control of either the Pope or the local Catholic Church by the State.
Some forms of Protestantism, like Anglicanism and Lutheranism, were easier for states to control. Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth found it very convenient to have a puppet church which would not talk back to them or oppose them.
And the urges of many gov'ts to harass or interfere with the rights of Christians still exists, as the persecution of Christians in Maoist China shows. And I've not forgotten how that bad man, Barack Obama, tried to force Catholic nuns to pay for abortions in their health insurance in the US.
The only major religion which is truly theocratic is Islam. That's because Islam teaches as divine revelation that the ideal socio-politico setup is a merger of Mosque and State under the rule of a caliph governing thru Sharia law.
Ad astra! Sean
I don't want there to be any such thing as a Christian nation or a Muslim nation or an atheist nation...
Except in the very limited sense of a majority of the population happening to be Christian or Muslim or atheist.
A lot of the Christian nation talk seems to go beyond that to making non-Christians 2nd class citizens.
Of course if that was achieved there would be immediate conflict over which variety of Christianity should rule.
Kaor, Jim!
Easier point first: You are not going to get what you want in any Muslim country. All of them, in varying degrees, will be governed by Muslim influenced laws. Some fairly mild, as in Malaysia, others brutally, as in theocratic Iran. And all of them treat non-Muslims as somehow inferior, mildly or harshly.
I disagree, at least in part, with what you said about Christian nations. I see nothing wrong, per se, in their laws being influenced by the faith of a Christian majority, as long as they have freedom of religion.
And I pay no attention to fringe whackos of the kind you mentioned.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment