Far be it from me (an Anabaptist) to gainsay your critique of the politically powerful of any stripe whatsoever.
Furthermore - your reminder here reminds me of what Lewis is also quoted as saying … that of all bad men, it is religious bad men who are the worst. Because the oppressed can hope that the irreligious might at least tire of what they do. But the evil tyrant who believes he is on a mission from God has a [relatively] tireless convictional fuel for his cruelties. Lewis’ thoughts here (along with your own) probably make up a more than adequate response to Barron’s conjecture in this regard.
Added: [And yet this too, cuts both ways; as the irreligious man can still also find that same “tireless convictional fuel” in his pursuit of his own ideology - be it Marxism or Capitalism or “Anti-Marxism” or “Anti-capitalism”, “Anti-terrorism” - where all your political enemies conveniently are labeled ‘terrorists’ - and the fear is guaranteed to be perpetual … any of these “isms” are also good tyrant fuel. Except perhaps pacifism.]
3 Likes
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
22
I see I’ll have to argue against meself here like Kierkegaard (ooh, I can’t mention him can I?). Religious belief declines with privilege, including age, in the main, but the institutions and rituals remain and are wanted even by those who don’t believe. Religion certainly suits Putin and Erdogan and Modi, but power and Machiavellian pragmatism fit them like a glove. Stalin was a disillusioned Christian as a teenager, like Dawkins, Hitler had fond memories of church; societies and their leaders become less religious with economic development. Theoretically they become more plural, more sophisticated, more tolerant. But they don’t. They certainly didn’t in the first half-two thirds of the C20th. I think the opportunities for abuse become more subtle, complicit. Even for Holocausts. Burma. China. Perpetrated by fascists. Fascism - and I used to shy away from that term - seems to be the default human condition, but I use it deliberately now. Regardless of economic development. Russia, Brazil, Turkey - all fascist, deliberately unenlightened. All homophobic as an indicator. I’m sure their folk religion plays a huge part in all that, but that’s genetic too. Johnson rode the wave of spiteful nationalism, cut the nose of Britain off Europe’s face, here. Religion isn’t the problem, hard wired human nature is, which includes religious and conservative impulses, ‘fallen’ by shared intentionality. We have to get totally open, cognitive about that and play for enlightened self interest, as the major economic powers are doing on global warming [it’s THAT serious even China is engaging].
Only 23 countries are full democracies. 13 are European, 3 more are former British colonies; 16, 2/3rds of all full democracies. 1/16th of the world’s population. None of them is America. And all are fortresses. This cannot improve. It’s our institutions, our culture regardless of religion or not, and more not beyond form, that facilitate evil as much as good. All human systems synergistically do. It wouldn’t… won’t take much for the privileged to let a billion or ten or a hundred - billion - people die with no malice at all until climate equilibrium is established in 300 years. After all, what could they [ - we - ] do? The first world can’t save India from its suddenly [Covid] exposed catastrophic lack of infrastructure after all. Religion or lack of it can make no difference to that either way. Even true religion.
Which leads me to ask … In your view, is it religion’s “job” to be saving civilization (and if so … from what?) Or is it religion’s job usher us well between those two dates on the tombstone?
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
24
In general religion is just the most powerful binding force on culture, for good and ill. With a slight net positive effect as we’re still here and thriving. Hopefully civilization will save religion, transform it.