Hi Jeff, I'm finding myself in an unusual position of agreeing strongly with half of what you say and not being so strongly in agreement with the other half -- even disagreeing some -- here and there. I suppose that merits a comment. If we all agreed all the time about everything that would probably not be a good thing.
Lying on my reading stack of books is "In Search of the Sacred" by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the famous Muslim Scholar. Much of his personal and academic history (since his college days) has aligned with the same sentiment that you cite in regards to the notion that it is a big, fear-inducing social experiment to believe that we can order society in a moral way with exclusively secular patterns of thought and behavior.
We're not really sure about this yet, so it's a good conversation starter.
I spent 10 years of my mid-life studying and ministering as a Christian pastor in an ordinary, small town, Presbyterian Church (USA) setting (declining so-called 'mainline' Protestantism), so I have some pretty well-formed opinions on how religion can functions generally in culture based on years of experience lived inside a religious worldview. (In deference to any intersectional emphases that may be in play here, I am male, WASP, hetero/cis, urban/rural, Christian, leftish, able (almost fully), educated, poor/rich (been both), 57-years-old, married, DINK.
Here's my takeaway. I feel that we should consider carefully the waning of religion in the same way that Ruth Bader Ginsburg prohesied the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. She used the now famous analogy that getting rid of the voting strictures on racists counties would be like getting rid of an umbrella in the rain because you're not getting wet. And she was right. Once the coercion of the law was removed, the old, ancient, human instincts for power and control resurfaced, spawning a plethora of immoral anti-democratic voter disenfranchisement programs. Of course, one might reason that the "old human instincts" have been here all along, regardless of fidelity (or even the appearance of fidelity).
In the same manner of explanation of Ginsburg's analogy, the law, either from God or men (and now women), has historically always been deemed necessary to prevent the eruption of bad behavior rooted in response to pain and suffering. As long as there is "the law," and respect for it, this prevents people and societies from descending into chaos and bedlam when things get rough. So there's value there.
Note here that, contrary to some forums, and because I am psychologically and spiritually oriented, I don't place fault in this situation with the radical actors across the left/right spectrum. First, there's no good use at blaming people -- this never works. People are just responding ideologically to their own personal pain and suffering by fomenting against only lightly considered opponents -- with whom they actually share the common experience of becoming radicalized by the experience of realizing no one cares so much about them. Culture is disintegrating and for every profound soul feel the authentic fear and pain of this, there are 2 people yelling and screaming in utter relational disconnect. This is not good.
The law only works when people respect the law. And I don't see a lot of respect for the law these days inside the Republican Party, respect of either a religious or secular nature. Further, and worrisome to me, is that many Republicans identify with a form of Christianity that would be unrecognizable to Jesus, rooted as it is in the same identitarian manner as are the radical left, of whom they complain much.
To be fair, I think the religiosity of the Democrats is in the same identitarian silo -- they're just bonded with a different constituency.
So without playing too much politics here -- though I've obviously made my bias clear -- I'm really quite concerned that there does not appear to me -- based on my experience of pastoring -- to be a critical mass of people practicing religion in anything other than a entry-level -- and sometimes even superficial -- way. I wonder whether the allegiances of moderate Christians on both sides of the political aisle will be enough of a counterbalance against the raging politics of demagoguery currently ongoing.
I'm not really opposed to decline of traditional religion, but I do think that we really need functioning interim models of these traditional religions in conversation with emergent newer strands of culture in order to stabilize society. Chanting "lock him/her up" is not going to solve anything, and we are facing multiple crises. We need something like a renewal of old working paradigms of emergence of something novel and new.
Thanks so much for your considered response, Kip, and apologies for the much delayed response. I'm in agreement with almost all of your observations. I'm not, however, bothered much by the superficial nature of our spiritual observance. Religiosity has always been more rooted in ritual than in true devotion for most people over the centuries, probably because that's precisely where it functions best as a stabilizing moral compass and glue for our families and communities. The replacement of the meaningful rituals provided by organized religion over the millennia with the rituals of our addictions to all things media and all things digital over the past few decades has proven ruinous.
Seems to me also that the lack of respect for the law you attribute to Republicans and conservatives is more suitably attributed to Democrats and the progressive left. Republicans and conservatives generally don't riot in the streets, commit mobs to topple statues or attack liberal institutions. The freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment are not being threatened by Republicans and conservatives, almost none of whom will be found in the faculty of any major liberal arts college or in the human resources department of any large private corporation or government agency. Likewise, you probably won't find very many threats to religious or other liberties from either of the conservatives currently employed in the entertainment and media business (FOX News notwithstanding).
It may be discomforting for some with leftist tendencies to hear and admit, but the real and clear threats to our religious and other liberties in the 21st century is coming from the left, not the right -- very much in keeping with the history of fascist authoritarianism through the past 120 years.
Thanks again, Kip. Much appreciate your kind and keen attention.
I appreciate your response to Kip "on that same level". There is however, another level... which I think you get, but haven't articulated in the manner that I might. That level is the level of the Transcendent.
The "genius" in our founding is that very appeal to the Transcendent as the source of human rights. The fellas who came up with all that stuff - not merely genius, but inspired in my opinion - also wrote in some of their other writings about the nature of us beings whom enjoyed these "rights". Short of calling them outright "undeserved", they noted that we are prone to violate them... to/from ourselves and to/from one another... we being "no angels".
That we are such, necessitates a conclusion... we are largely out of control, hence the need for governments... in their own words.
Therefore, in order to have any semblance of society/culture/civility, humankind will be internally controlled (by the Transcendent) or it will externally controlled by others of humankind with bigger sticks, such that the civility remains.
This simple and simplistic understanding explains our social contract with law enforcement, in which we've given a legal monopoly on the use of force to the government. Pro2A groups have had this simple/simplistic understanding for a long time, but are unfortunately led (typically) by those whom approach the matter rather primitively, in my estimation... and no wonder. There is little meta-cognition about such matters... part of that lack of internal control, I shouldn't wonder... ;0)
As long as humans "need" to be controlled externally, because they are not "naturally" controlled internally, we will move toward tyranny... from which this American experiment rose, and into which it is rather quickly now descending.
Your understanding of the world of ones and zeroes brings you no doubt to the realities of totalitarianism, not just tyranny. Never before in history was the possibility of that a reality as now. From what does all of this stem?
The lack of internal control... read that, relationship with God... internally.
Kip appeals to a Muslim scholar. OK. But that is according to my understanding, the very difference between Deism and Theism. Deism remains external control, regardless of the identity of the deity.
As long as the lack of distinction exists between that which underlies Western Civilization - the Judeo/Christian ethic and it's understanding and advocacy of internal control - and that which underlies other ways of thinking and the necessary governing/controlling of humans in society, the race goes on. (I say "Judeo/Christian ethic by way of understanding a common expression, but what I'm actually talking about is the Judeo/Christian "formulation", that of being in a relationship with a Theos, not a deity... from this only comes genuine "internal" control.)
I will no doubt be dismissed as religious, dogmatic, bigoted, Euro-centric, Christo-centric, evangelistic zealot, etc, etc, etc...
Hmm... I'd like to say, "just read a history book!", but in these days of deconstructionism and historical revisionism, I guess that doesn't apply anymore, does it?
Hi Jeff, I'm finding myself in an unusual position of agreeing strongly with half of what you say and not being so strongly in agreement with the other half -- even disagreeing some -- here and there. I suppose that merits a comment. If we all agreed all the time about everything that would probably not be a good thing.
Lying on my reading stack of books is "In Search of the Sacred" by Seyyed Hossein Nasr, the famous Muslim Scholar. Much of his personal and academic history (since his college days) has aligned with the same sentiment that you cite in regards to the notion that it is a big, fear-inducing social experiment to believe that we can order society in a moral way with exclusively secular patterns of thought and behavior.
http://www.sacredweb.com/online_articles/sw26_nasr_review.pdf
We're not really sure about this yet, so it's a good conversation starter.
I spent 10 years of my mid-life studying and ministering as a Christian pastor in an ordinary, small town, Presbyterian Church (USA) setting (declining so-called 'mainline' Protestantism), so I have some pretty well-formed opinions on how religion can functions generally in culture based on years of experience lived inside a religious worldview. (In deference to any intersectional emphases that may be in play here, I am male, WASP, hetero/cis, urban/rural, Christian, leftish, able (almost fully), educated, poor/rich (been both), 57-years-old, married, DINK.
Here's my takeaway. I feel that we should consider carefully the waning of religion in the same way that Ruth Bader Ginsburg prohesied the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. She used the now famous analogy that getting rid of the voting strictures on racists counties would be like getting rid of an umbrella in the rain because you're not getting wet. And she was right. Once the coercion of the law was removed, the old, ancient, human instincts for power and control resurfaced, spawning a plethora of immoral anti-democratic voter disenfranchisement programs. Of course, one might reason that the "old human instincts" have been here all along, regardless of fidelity (or even the appearance of fidelity).
In the same manner of explanation of Ginsburg's analogy, the law, either from God or men (and now women), has historically always been deemed necessary to prevent the eruption of bad behavior rooted in response to pain and suffering. As long as there is "the law," and respect for it, this prevents people and societies from descending into chaos and bedlam when things get rough. So there's value there.
Note here that, contrary to some forums, and because I am psychologically and spiritually oriented, I don't place fault in this situation with the radical actors across the left/right spectrum. First, there's no good use at blaming people -- this never works. People are just responding ideologically to their own personal pain and suffering by fomenting against only lightly considered opponents -- with whom they actually share the common experience of becoming radicalized by the experience of realizing no one cares so much about them. Culture is disintegrating and for every profound soul feel the authentic fear and pain of this, there are 2 people yelling and screaming in utter relational disconnect. This is not good.
The law only works when people respect the law. And I don't see a lot of respect for the law these days inside the Republican Party, respect of either a religious or secular nature. Further, and worrisome to me, is that many Republicans identify with a form of Christianity that would be unrecognizable to Jesus, rooted as it is in the same identitarian manner as are the radical left, of whom they complain much.
To be fair, I think the religiosity of the Democrats is in the same identitarian silo -- they're just bonded with a different constituency.
So without playing too much politics here -- though I've obviously made my bias clear -- I'm really quite concerned that there does not appear to me -- based on my experience of pastoring -- to be a critical mass of people practicing religion in anything other than a entry-level -- and sometimes even superficial -- way. I wonder whether the allegiances of moderate Christians on both sides of the political aisle will be enough of a counterbalance against the raging politics of demagoguery currently ongoing.
I'm not really opposed to decline of traditional religion, but I do think that we really need functioning interim models of these traditional religions in conversation with emergent newer strands of culture in order to stabilize society. Chanting "lock him/her up" is not going to solve anything, and we are facing multiple crises. We need something like a renewal of old working paradigms of emergence of something novel and new.
Thanks so much for your considered response, Kip, and apologies for the much delayed response. I'm in agreement with almost all of your observations. I'm not, however, bothered much by the superficial nature of our spiritual observance. Religiosity has always been more rooted in ritual than in true devotion for most people over the centuries, probably because that's precisely where it functions best as a stabilizing moral compass and glue for our families and communities. The replacement of the meaningful rituals provided by organized religion over the millennia with the rituals of our addictions to all things media and all things digital over the past few decades has proven ruinous.
Seems to me also that the lack of respect for the law you attribute to Republicans and conservatives is more suitably attributed to Democrats and the progressive left. Republicans and conservatives generally don't riot in the streets, commit mobs to topple statues or attack liberal institutions. The freedoms enumerated in the First Amendment are not being threatened by Republicans and conservatives, almost none of whom will be found in the faculty of any major liberal arts college or in the human resources department of any large private corporation or government agency. Likewise, you probably won't find very many threats to religious or other liberties from either of the conservatives currently employed in the entertainment and media business (FOX News notwithstanding).
It may be discomforting for some with leftist tendencies to hear and admit, but the real and clear threats to our religious and other liberties in the 21st century is coming from the left, not the right -- very much in keeping with the history of fascist authoritarianism through the past 120 years.
Thanks again, Kip. Much appreciate your kind and keen attention.
Hey Jeff:
I appreciate your response to Kip "on that same level". There is however, another level... which I think you get, but haven't articulated in the manner that I might. That level is the level of the Transcendent.
The "genius" in our founding is that very appeal to the Transcendent as the source of human rights. The fellas who came up with all that stuff - not merely genius, but inspired in my opinion - also wrote in some of their other writings about the nature of us beings whom enjoyed these "rights". Short of calling them outright "undeserved", they noted that we are prone to violate them... to/from ourselves and to/from one another... we being "no angels".
That we are such, necessitates a conclusion... we are largely out of control, hence the need for governments... in their own words.
Therefore, in order to have any semblance of society/culture/civility, humankind will be internally controlled (by the Transcendent) or it will externally controlled by others of humankind with bigger sticks, such that the civility remains.
This simple and simplistic understanding explains our social contract with law enforcement, in which we've given a legal monopoly on the use of force to the government. Pro2A groups have had this simple/simplistic understanding for a long time, but are unfortunately led (typically) by those whom approach the matter rather primitively, in my estimation... and no wonder. There is little meta-cognition about such matters... part of that lack of internal control, I shouldn't wonder... ;0)
As long as humans "need" to be controlled externally, because they are not "naturally" controlled internally, we will move toward tyranny... from which this American experiment rose, and into which it is rather quickly now descending.
Your understanding of the world of ones and zeroes brings you no doubt to the realities of totalitarianism, not just tyranny. Never before in history was the possibility of that a reality as now. From what does all of this stem?
The lack of internal control... read that, relationship with God... internally.
Kip appeals to a Muslim scholar. OK. But that is according to my understanding, the very difference between Deism and Theism. Deism remains external control, regardless of the identity of the deity.
As long as the lack of distinction exists between that which underlies Western Civilization - the Judeo/Christian ethic and it's understanding and advocacy of internal control - and that which underlies other ways of thinking and the necessary governing/controlling of humans in society, the race goes on. (I say "Judeo/Christian ethic by way of understanding a common expression, but what I'm actually talking about is the Judeo/Christian "formulation", that of being in a relationship with a Theos, not a deity... from this only comes genuine "internal" control.)
I will no doubt be dismissed as religious, dogmatic, bigoted, Euro-centric, Christo-centric, evangelistic zealot, etc, etc, etc...
Hmm... I'd like to say, "just read a history book!", but in these days of deconstructionism and historical revisionism, I guess that doesn't apply anymore, does it?
Are you familiar with "Appreciative Inquiry"?