The Creation of a Fascist Theocracy
What humanity needs to do is focus more on peace and morality.
If you are of my age, gender, category and confused morality, you will undoubtedly know of Frank Zappa, 1940 - 1993. Backed by his band, The Mothers of Invention, Zappa is an eccentric rock musician. Incorporating his own philosophical ideals and freedom of expression into his music, Zappa uniquely contributed to the avant-garde, anti-establishment music scene of the 1960's. Some of his quirky recordings were The Mud Shark, Stink Foot and Don’t Eat Yellow Snow.
Zappa was also known for his outspoken and unconventional takes on politics. He publicly opposed President Reagan's policies, and he campaigned against censorship. He argued that any type of blending government power with religious morality was extremely dangerous and un-American.
“The biggest threat to America is a government that is based on religion. It’s moving America toward a fascist theocracy.” Zappa once said, which became one of his famous quotes.
Fascism, a right-wing political ideology characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized power, an extreme militaristic nationalism, suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy and a strong oppression of society. A people's community, where individual interests are insignificant to the nation.
Theocracy is a Greek word that means, ''government by God.” It is a form of government that derives its authority directly from a religion, usually invoking the authority of a religious idol. Their laws are based on religious texts where religious leaders or institutions are holding the power.
The mixture of the two, which is the creation of a fascist theocracy, means that a fascist regime uses religious ideology and authority to justify and enforce its policies. In short, they are falsely giving themselves the permission to do what they do from a higher power.
What humanity needs to do is leave any resemblance to fascism, theocracy or fascist theocracy behind, and focus more on peace and morality.
We all know, or think we know, that peace is defined as a state of calm, tranquility, and the freedom from conflict or disturbance. Peace encompasses both individual and social aspects, including the absence of war, violence and disharmony. It is also seen as a process of building and fostering cooperation, which leads to a more just society.
Immanuel Kant, 1724 – 1804, was a German philosopher highly influential in modern Western philosophy. His viewpoint is based on the concept of freedom. He insists that one’s actions possess moral worth only when one does one’s duty for its own sake. What matters, according to Kant, is what we ought to do, which reason alone can establish.
Kant believed morality is grounded in reason and governed by the pleasure and pain delivered by our own senses. He also believed that by being rational individuals, we are capable of freedom. We must be proficient in acting to laws other than the laws of behavior. He argues that we must be capable of acting according to the moral law we give ourselves, and this law is determined by reason.
“If our actions were governed solely by the laws of physics, then we would be no different from objects or animals,” Kent wrote.
Perhaps the question could be, what are the grounds of morality? Some believe morality is grounded in reason. This suggests we are not only emotional beings, governed by the pleasure and pain delivered by our senses, but we are also rational beings. We must be capable of acting according to laws and not just our emotions.
Reason must also be at the heart of any moral action, despite any natural desires to the contrary. Justifying the requirements of practical reason, every moral theory claims that its method for determining right and wrong is correct.
Moral belief, which holds the criteria of judgement, complicates the issue by denying any universal moral values. With the use of denial, it claims that different cultures and subcultures often have contradictory values and these can change depending on opinion and social context.
I think we each have our own moral principles based on our individual upbringing and social context. I would also debate that the majority of people in most cultures would agree on some basic moral values. Simple values like being nice, treating others how you wish to be treated and not to hurt or kill. I don’t believe anyone would argue that murder or child abuse is not universally wrong.
On the utilitarian approach it is a matter of a moral requirement to have one’s welfare-related interests, which includes the intensity and duration of one’s pleasure or pain. These factors determine which action brings about the greatest value and is then morally best for all.
On the non-utilitarian approach, to have moral status is for there to be reasons for the sake of the individual and what the calculations are of the overall best consequences would dictate.
The non-utilitarian approach is also coupled with further ideas. When acting unjustifiably against such reasons or failing to give these reasons their proper weight in deliberation is not only wrong but wrongs the greatest number of individuals.
Non-utilitarian philosophers allow for the possibility that moral status comes in degrees and introduce the highest degree of moral status. After reviewing which objects have a higher moral status as opposed to a lesser degree of moral status, they focus on the justification for treating these as grounds of moral status.
Jeremy Bentham, 1748 – 1832, was an English philosopher and was regarded as the founder of modern utilitarianism. His rationalization was that the action of morality was based on the principle of ‘maximizing the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people.’
My personal belief of morality is the principle that every individual has an equal right to live a full life and be free of harm. There are many aspects of moral beliefs that are valid. I feel that moral principles of some kind are clearly needed for society not to descend into anarchy. With believing this, there is also the knowledge that there are many shades of grey between right and wrong.
With this train of thought it may categorize me in the philosophical stance of a humanism. This is having an
emphasis on human dignity, a reason and a foundation for understanding the world and living a moral and ethical life.
I believe in the inherent worth and value of each individual. I want to recognize each person’s capacity and responsibility to morally shape their own lives, which will then contribute to the betterment of society.
If all this philosophical rhetoric becomes twisted and distorted, I simply step back, listen to Frank Zappa and revert to the line John Wayne spoke in the 1976 Movie, the Shootist. “I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid-a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.” - dbA
You can find more of the unfiltered insight and the Art of Dan Abernathy at www.contributechaos.com.