What binds humans to form ideological communities are the ideas and perspectives that differentiate one's community from other communities. "We believe this..." or "We believe that..." has become the basis of religion whether theistic or secular The irony is that as religion begins to narrow, what we tend to focus on is our differences, not our similarities. The fact is we like our sense of difference because it give us a sense of self and individuality in our identification with a specific group, community, or nation. I like this.... I don't like that... makes each of us feel unique and distinct from those who don't like what I like or who like what I don't like. It can make one feel important and superior or can make one feel put down and discriminated against.
I am struck in both theistic and secular (particularly political) religious circles by the amount of subliminal or subconscious angst demonstrated by many who feel threatened when there is talk about ecumenism (as people of different theistic religions seeking common ground), globalism (as viewing the needs of the world as a whole as more important than any one specific nation), and relativism (as the refusal to ascribe an absolute value to anything identified as truth). We are at a stage in human development where we struggle with the concept of a common human identity; that we are made of the same star dust regardless of race, color, gender, and ideological beliefs. Our perceived need for competition, conflict, and enmity knows no bounds. We seemingly cannot enjoy a full sense of peace unless their is a hint of chaos or war looming around the corner. This is the human dilemma.
The religious impulse of needing each other is offset by the differentiating paradigm of religion. One of the most interesting phenomenon we humans experience is that we find a sense of satisfaction in pointing out our differences rather than our similarities. We seemingly thrive in a world of dichotomous bliss over an infinite variety of subjects. For example, I think it safe to say that most believe that world peace is an unobtainable desire; that in order to ensure peace we must be prepared for war; that to ensure human life on this planet we must be willing to take a human life. Yin and Yang are perceived as polar necessities that keep us whole. The reality of our history tends to verify this experience, yet I would maintain that reality is nothing more than a consensus of perceptions. As such, reality can be both idealized and localized. Even the facts of history are subject to our perceptions about them or our beliefs as in whether to believe them or not. The past is hardly ever set in stone. The past is as percetibly malleable as anyother point in time. We largely choose to see what we want to see. I do not say this lightly or glibly.
It is an onerous task to maintain a factual sense of where we are, where we have been, and where we are going because of the immense number of factors and factious perceptions involved in determining a shared, common denominator of who we are. To say that being human is the common denominator we human beings share has not kept us from destroying ourselves and the planet we inhabit. There must be a deeper connection that will sublimate the differentiating paradigm of religion in order to expand the impulse of religion (we need each other) to all life on this planet and, perhaps, beyond our orb.
THE SECULAR RELIGION OF POLITICS
For this post, I want spend some time looking at the the differentiating paradigm of religion in light of the religion of politics. The closest thing to a theistic religion in the realm of secular religion is politics.
What I would draw one's attention to is the older more established democracies, like my country, the United States of America. Politics is the primary secular religion of this country as I suspect it is in other nations as well. There have been and are any number of political denominations in this country throughout its history. It is perhaps one of, if not, the most transparent constitutional democracies in the world.
A degree of polarization appears to be vital to a well running democratic process. A functional democracy works best when the pendulum of government rhythmically swings from left to right to faciltate progress. If allowed to swing too far right or too far left, the rhythm becomes erratic and prone to self correct by going to extremes. If it tends to slow to a stagnant position, political differences are sought to keep it moving. Realities can become warped in the process of seeking grit by which to keep the wheels turning.
Agreeing to disagree is part of the function any civil democratic process, but civility is anything but a given. The differentiating paradigm of religion has been taken to the level of an art form in the religion of politics. The core religious belief in the United States is encapsulated in its Constitution, a prime example of a secular doctrine that purposely managed to avoid the mention of any deity in it, while guaranteeing the right religious freedom. The impulse of religion is captured in the slogan E. Pluribus Unum, out of the many one. It is perhaps the best definition of religious singularity that one can come up with. It is but a dream yet to be fulfilled.
Religion is about power, its appeal, its generation, and its use. As religions narrow (find common ground) they become increasingly fractured and fractal, breaking into increasing subgroups of an original thesis. Left, right, and centrist political views of varying types proliferate the United States two major political parties, for example. As in all religions, events influence perspective. This is more observable in the realm of politics and secular religion as a whole than it is in theistic religion. Events shape how we view and apply the secular ideologies we ascribe to within the secular religious communities we identify with.
As the world slowly inches towards a more inclusive view of itself, as it narrows into commonality, there is pushback and an increasing sense of disorientation by those who live in strict ideologically based environments. It is interesting to note that the hatred of the United States expressed by those who were raised in a rigid,fundamentalist Islamic environment was in some cases generated by those who experienced life in the United States first hand as a young adult or college student, where openness, acceptance of diverse lifestyles was overwhelming and gave them a sense of both attraction and disorientation which led to a reactional, radical adherence to their rigid, indoctrinated upbringing. This of course is not the only factor that has led to the rise of Jihadist terrorism in the Middle East, but it is a factor for targeting the United States and the West in general.
AN UNEASY MARRIAGE
Fundamentalism and nationalism are easily wed. The crossing between theistic and secular religion is more likely to occur in the realm of politics than anywhere else. The lines become blurred. This is currently evident in the Republican party of the United States. With advances in civil rights during the 1960's, the culture of the United States began to narrow, as the differences that existed between blacks and whites slowly saw the barriers that divided race dissolve and our basic culture edged towards becoming more inclusive as the decades progressed.
But in the 60's even with the war in Vietnam escalating and civil strife was a daily occurrence, there existed a sense of bipartisanship between the two parties when it came to tackling what appeared most urgent at the time. This was not a peaceful time. It was a time of unrest and uncertainty. There was civil strife in the South and in major cities. There was an increasing protest against the war in Vietnam and the draft. Although the war provided a political divide, the lines between parties was largely muted.
I think it safe to say the party that noticed a lack of grist at this time was the Republican party. It was damaged during the Watergate scandal in 70's and there started to grow a gnawing resentment between the two parties. The Republican electorate began to dwindle. Disenfranchised Dixiecrats were ripe for the picking as the white South saw its cultural and political dominance begin to slip. Their dissatisfaction with the role of the Democratic Party's stance on civil rights led them to the previously unthinkable, joining the party of Lincoln. The Republicans were more than willing to assist. Social issues began to dominate the political discourse as birth control, abortion, women's rights became increasingly part of the public discourse.
It was social issues that brought about the religious right, a bourgeoning of neo-fundamentalism that sought to slow the progress towards a more inclusive society. Churches of power, Roman Catholics, and mainline protestant churches initially took a hard stance against practices that they saw as undermining their basic doctrinal tenants. There was pushback against women's rights, in particular.
Churches that changed positions on these long-held male-dominant views and began to include women amongst their ordained clergy started to bleed members. Again the disenfranchised dogmatic Christian sought certitude in their long-held beliefs by swelling the number of fundamentalist, evangelical churches. This population also became ripe for the picking by the Republican Party as they were actively sought during the Reagan and George W. Bush presidencies to increase their voting electorate.
The marriage between fiscal/governing conservatives who sought to expand their power base with social conservatives is a rocky one. The ideological fight for dominance within the Republican party is untenable. During the Obama administration, congressional Republicans all but stopped the congressional pendulum from swinging, as they deliberately sought to stop the progress that was being attempted towards social and economic security as its grist to keep the party viable.
This has come at a price to that party and to U.S.'s political process. It's do nothing as doing something attitude has caused a political void that gave birth the Tea Party, a fractal offshoot of the Republican Party. They are also beginning to harvest the fruit of what they have sown, an increasingly radicalized form of nationalism that has shocked the party leadership as their electorate is increasingly is being made up of people who have bought into an alternative reality about their economic and social condition, what I have referred to as the Angry Old White Male (AOWM not Om) which has become the dominant source of their electorate at the moment. Longtime Republicans and the party faithful are finding themselves disoriented and frustrated at the unleashing of the irrational vitriol of its nominal party leader.
FEAR
This is not just an phenomenon of the Republican Party or of U.S. politics. It is a phenomenon felt throughout the West; in Europe. Events in the Middle East have affected the stability of European Union, much more, than it has in the United States. As things narrow religiously, became more inclusive and more accessible, the ability to maintain this loose net of nations is prone to economic and social upheavals that threaten its existence. The financial problems in Greece, Italy, and other nations, along with the humanitarian crisis of Syrian refugees pouring into Europe, has created an urgency that has led many seeking a nationalist solution.
Brexit is but one example of nationalist hard-liners coming out of the woodwork throughout Europe and here in the U.S. Large swaths of people are once again seeking difference as justification to take action against those in greatest need. Instead of seeking world-wide solutions to limit the problems, there is a movement to broaden our sense of difference and seek blame rather than solutions by labeling the other as the problem.
Fear alters perspective. Irrational fear alters reality and the world has both at the moment. There are legitimate, grave, and urgent concerns that call for both calm and wise leadership throughout the world. Democracies can be fickle where fear dominates and irrational fear creates an alternative reality in which seeking difference becomes the paradigm for survival. We shall soon see what will happen in the United States after the presidential election, whether the pendulum will rectify, stagnate, or continue in an erratic pattern.
Until next time, stay faithful.
No comments:
Post a Comment