Jonquil,
Science is ethically neutral, questions of good and evil, hope and dispair, joy and suffering lie outside the province of science but cannot be considered to lie outside the province of the scientist. So, when I say religion I mean authentic religion, contemplation and the development of ones higher qualities and gaining knowledge of ones inner self. There is nothing more difficult than to become critically aware of the presuppositions of ones thought. A special effort is needed, an effort of self awareness. The search for knowledge and understanding is the the province of authentic religion while power and manipulation is the province of objective, instructional and therefore strictly material science. Objective science is a form of nilism; of nothing butness “They seeing, see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.” Mathew 13-15
Thanks, Felix for your insightful post and Jonquil for support. The concept of individualism that began during the Enlightenment translates today in mistrust of those who claim to be authorities whether religious or political.
What do you think of Bob’s idea that the problem with capitalism is greed and the problem with socialism is envy?
The U.S. has never been a Christian nation in the sense of the Beatitudes or the Sermon on the Mount. Cases in point:
- claiming ownership of a land already occupied
- founding an agicultural economy on the backs of slaves
- genocide of indigenous people by spreading European diseases among them or killing them by believing whatever was done to secure the land was “manifest destiny”.
- founding an industrial society on the backs of wage slaves who had no means of appeal for their rights and on the exploitation of women and children in the factories.
- Seeing ethnicities other than white Anglos as inferior and subject to “second class citizenship”.
And I could go on. Part of the problem of inequality, maybe most of it, was well articulated in “A Course In Miracles”, which exposes the Malthusian myth of dearth. The problem isn’t lack of resouces for feeding and clothing everybody; it’s with the priorities of distribution.
lerellus,
I greatly appreciate your demythologization of America’s history. Sometimes I think that many of us Americans look at our country and our history through rose-colored swirling target glasses. You seem to be channeling Howard Zinn, so wonderful.
I don’t know what to think of socialism’s problem as envy. Wouldn’t that idea be predicated on an already existent problem with capitalism and its tiers of haves and have nots, owners and exploited workers, and so on? Would socialism then be considered the solution to ownership envy on the part of the working and under classes?
What we need then is a society predicated on what it means to be human qua human, innocent of reactiveness and proactive towards health and sustainability. However, sometimes I think we need to make some sort of time or brain shift back to the days before human societies got corrupted through power and greed and class distinctions. But then I wonder if those days ever existed, and it’s a moot thought experiment anyway because we could never forget the way things are now nor dislodge the memes that have been so forcefully and brutally instilled, namely those of mechanism, entitlement, rugged individualism, manifest destiny, and on like that.
If you think you can pull me out of my pessimism, please do so. I would so appreciate it.
j
Most socialistic communes in the US seem to have petered out-- with the exception of the Hog Farm and Steven Gaskin’s commune. I’d thought of visiting and maybe joining Gaskin’s , but I’m not a vegan and I do have problems with living in a society in which I have to see my guitar as belonging to everybody. Selfish, maybe. The problem in social communes is usually how to get people to share work. Ideals are great, but somebody has to do this dishes.
As for pessimism-- I wish I could offer hope instead of criticism of the social order. Current politics and religion make me want to be a hermit. Somewhere out there is the child who can see through this mess and can be the seed of a new and moral social order. I have to believe that; and, maybe I can influence that child to believe in the infinite, human potential for good.
Our dystopian existence sometimes makes the idea of a divine child, a new messiah, so appealing… like the one in Wilbur’s “A Christmas Hymn,” By whose descent among us, / The worlds are reconciled.
Equality of men, women and children of any race in the USA, equality based on their opportunity for having “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, has been advanced here, but slowly and not without imprisonment or death for those who see such rights as “inalienable” or God ordained. Where democracy fails to secure these rights for everyone is when the majority actually believes, and sometimes legislates, that these rights should not be enjoyed by some minority. A slow advance, however, is better than no advance at all.
Americans no longer keep slaves, but continue to believe that certain people are, by nature, inferior to others, a belief that made slavery possible. Some mainline churches have apologized to American Natives for what “Christians” did to them, but the apology is late and is not without the assumption that the first Americans must relinguish their heritage and personal identities in the steamroller wake of conquest. Where were these “Christians” when slavery was the order of business? Where were they when any of the social ills I listed above flourished with impunity?
IMHO the most vocal and political “Christians” today are those who loathe “secular humanism” because it attempts to do what they will not do–“walk the talk”.
Hear hear! I think those “Christians” of today are still struggling with giving inalienable rights to gays, immigrants, and anyone really who can be thought of as a “special interest” like teachers and firefighters even, notwithstanding of course anyone who is not privileged enough to be white or a white wannabe taken on as a token.
Many slave owners were Christians but many of the abolitionists who worked to end slavery were Christians too.
It’s not hard to find Christians on both sides of these issues. Politicians often claim that their political position is the uniquely Christian position. When we identify Christianity with that one political position, we are falling into their trap. One segment of the Christian population, the Protestants, have traditionally recognized the importance of allowing people the freedom to follow their individual consciences in such matters. That practice is incompatible with the notion that there is a singularly correct Christian political position.
That’s interesting that you are singling out a certain Protestant view that is supposedy opposed to what many “Christians” believe and promote politically, namely less freedom and fewer rights for particular targeted groups. I think the problem actually stems from superimposing the OT god onto the NT. It makes people nuts.
I singled out one view as an example that goes against the stereotype, my general point being that people who call themselves Christians are a diverse group. There is a large range of interpretation on the OT vs. NT God issue. What you are calling “nuts” others call “conservative.” There is actually considerable variability Christians who consider themselves to be conservative.
Felix,
I could only wish my indictment of Christians in times of moral, political crisis was stereotypical, hence inaccurate by omission. It was the Quakers who believed slavery was wrong. It was the Quakers who undertook the anglocizing education of American Native children, an education that demanded that these children be something other than their heritage taught them to be. Black power or pride in my time was a feeble attempt of a people to reconnect with their roots. No mainline churches have admitted their right to do so or the native’s right to be a native. The melting pot argument does not wash. The true historical account was forced subjection to what was, and still is, considered a superior culture.
It is posters on the internet who know that Christianity finds them guilty of many things, so they accuse Christianity of those same things!
Quakers are Christians. William Wilberforce was an Anglican evangelist. In 1784, the Methodists voted to expel members who bought and sold slaves but they decided to give slaveholders a year to free their slaves on penalty of expulsion. Virginia Baptists denounced slavery in 1789. Presbyterians in New York and Philadelphia as early as 1787 called for members to gradually end slavery. A lot of Abolitionists were Unitarian Christians. John Brown was an evanglical Congregationalist. A lot of guys who fought and died to end slavery on the Union side were Christians. As a matter of fact, most people on either side of the issue were Christian in America in those days.
Most people including Christians are politically biconceptual. In other words, they are conservative on some isssues and liberal or progressive on others. Christians have a variety of political beliefs. Which churches do you consider “mainline”? Do people have to be in a mainline church to be Christian? Last time I checked mainstream churches were more liberal than the fundamentalist ones. But that’s just a broad generalization. I’m not sure what you mean be “the melting pot argument” so I can’t realy respond to that without clarification.
Concerning the native and black American issues I observe that there are cases where Christian jusitifcation was given for ethnocentrism and there are cases where Christian principles were the motive force behind rejecting ethnocentrism. Probably there are more of the former, but I attribute that to the fact that it is usually easier to go along with the status quo than to change it.
As a generalization, I concede religion tends to serve a stabilizing conservative function in society most of the time and Christianity in America fits that description. But that’s not always a bad thing. And it’s not always the case. Christian reform movements have been a force for change in America. There were many Christians in the civil rights movement. Still are. Anyway, if we want to do more than discuss anecdotes, generalities and stereotypes, we’ll have to look at what demographic evidence there is on the subject.
Well, of course. Jesus was well known for his toleration of all sorts of beliefs.
And I’d always thought he was a politician.
That’s what so good about the 'net. You learn something new every day.
Felix,
Loved your post. You clarified several issues. Allow me to make a distinction between the social considerations of the mainline churches and those of the radical preacher or priest. Two examples:
MLK’s “Letter From the Birmingham Jail” exemplifies this distinction. The clergy, somewhat embarrassed by the minister’s defiance of the status quo, accused him of stirring up trouble and of raising an untimely issue. They did not buy “If not now, when?” The time is never right for social justice.
From recorded documents of my family history-- My great, great grandfather, a Methodist minister at the time of the Civil War, fled Alabama where he was supposed to be hanged for preaching Union. Later, he went against his own brother by asserting that the slaves should be freed. Did the Methodist Church support this man? No. It would have seen him hanged in Alabama as a natural consequence of the war.
For the clergy then, and sometimes now, the religious mandate was to prepare souls for the afterlife, not to meddle in their lot in this life. I say “sometimes now” because I’m well aware of mainline churches feeding, clothing and housing the poor and disabled in our city. While this charity is immensely commendable, it nether examines the root causes of poverty nor objects to the social inequities that perpetuate it.
Political intervention on behalf of the general welfare of the less fortunate among us would be unnecessary if there existed here a “grass roots”, “bottom up” concern for equality of deserts among the population.
Well commented. I admire your gggfather, and it’s clear that the fourth generation twig didn’t fall far from the tree.
I hate those time is righters. The only time we have is now. So if not now, when, is the exact right question.
I had wished to further this conversation by examining how fear and ego play into modern Christians’ belief that charity is good to do, but social activism is not. I can only guess that most agree with what I have noted here or that those who disagree have opted simply to respect a different point of view by not challenging it.
I think that “Christian” notion of charity as preferable to social activism stems from the meme of rugged individualism and the Calvinist notion of elitism, which then feeds into the idea that some people are more “worthy” of help than others. We can’t then have the state helping those we consider unworthy.
Yes on both influences. Will try to collect my thoughts on this later; but thanks for yours. On religious issues like-minded people are hard to attract. Sometimes good opposition is also.