On the progressive value of community
Let us forget, for a moment, that we live in what many call a "Christian Nation." Let us forget that many reading this article right now consider themselves followers of any number of particular faiths. I am not going to try discussing the "end" of Christianity or of Religion in general--at least not outright; at least not yet.
I'm discussing "religion" as a social phenomenon. One that, as far as we can tell, transcends all cultures, and intersects all languages. This evaluation of religion, my friends, is one that certainly reflects change over the centuries, not stability, and allows for revolutions--in thought and attitude, if not in practice--beyond tradition.
Considering this, it's clear to me that religion in the New Millenium is quite a different thing than it has been in centuries past--including Christianity, including (or perhaps especially) in America--but how, and is it permanent?
Follow me as we wonder...
Cross posted at
Deny My Freedom
As the Right complains of returning to a neverland of truth and morals in the face of society's self-destruction, we Liberals see the developments of human rights, universal compassion, and social welfare over the last Century as a good thing--
And my friends, I'm here to tell you that these "good things" are symptoms of a transition into a new religious attitude, in which organizational denomination is secondary to a broader attitude and belief--shared by theists and atheists alike--and that it is clearly a step forward,
In the days of corporate dominance, when the hand of the free market guides us, and individual choice is king--if the self is god, the lawyer is the priest. The confession remains, as do the sins. The atonement vanishes, however, and is replaced by denial and scheming.
Former religious tradition required sinners to forget about their sins, and move on. Confession was had (or unecessary for protestants), and the sin vanishes. The path to salvation and eternal tranquility remained in tact; the sinner waiting for a world which would not so thoroughly require sin from him.
It is this archaic, conservative ideal--remnant of an agrarian economy and a society based upon familial self-sufficiency--which The Right wants so badly to return to.
But ours is a new time, which brings new sin--and additional burdens with it, and additional reactions to it.
With the infallible security of a tangible god now cast in doubt by science and advanced reason, modern sin remains, more than ever, within the mind of the sinner--it is not wiped away by the almighty judger. Often, the sinner will be utterly overcome with mental anguish from his actions, no longer feeling relief from a divinity he considers unquestionable--how many stories are told of Telltale Hearts, and how many millions suppressed by casual anti-depressant abuse? How many emotional pains are forcefully eased by physical painkillers (The Limbaugh Example)? How many psychiatrists hear our modern confessions--another Neo-Priest, for the more private sinner.
The undercurrent causing many of these unfortunate things is actually a positive step toward Reason and Liberalism--even if it does not immediately present itself as such. The cause being: the sinner now recognizes the danger of judgement by society.
The moral sin, so often tied to legal crimes, are no longer against individuals, and the moral deviation merely an affront to a reportedly benevolent god, but to society as a whole. An evil man commits evil against not only another person(s), but the very fabric of his community; the trust of interrelationship is broken--the expectation of respect suspended, the hope for compassion and understanding muted, and the vain emotion of security (a superficial manifestation of these other hopes combined) is shattered.
This is a step forward.
The identification of a person as guilty no longer ends with satisfaction at their punishment (as it did in the not-so-ancient days of corporal punishment in the public eye), and punishment is no longer an objective spectacle; punitive actions are no longer an equilizing force--a society's return to "normalcy"--and, most importantly, 'God' no longer claims total accountability for the criminal.
This line of thinking, this reaction, is a testament to the idea of inescapable community, and its advancement in our society.
The Punishment reminds us of our insecurity as much as the original crime. The invocation of The Media, Psychology, Sociology, and other elements of communal care represent an extreme level of society's involvement in the anaylsis and inevitable punishment of the criminal. But as the offender's childhood, upbringing, experiences within school the school system, and previous record of infraction/rehabilitation are examined, the punishment takes on a very serious and important air of self-analysis within society as a whole. This is a step forward.
Like the sin in the sinner's mind, the crime represents a breach of trust--now considered a necessity within a community, and it remains very much a part of our collective reality. The community, even as its fabric is strained and tested by the fear and violence inherent in free will, now begins to acknowledge itself as an eternal body--not unlike the mythical, all-knowing, all-seeing god of the past--with duties and obligations to itself, even if initially those duties are trapped within selfishly limited and uncomfortable parameters: the parameters of "security," achieved via the analyzation and/or removal of divergent society members via punishment.
But there is an obstacle. An obstacle in the form of a transient socio/religious attitude: the attitude of Individualism.
We have slowly been moving toward Individualism ever since the Protestant Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, when Martin Luther and the protestants designed The Five Solas, rejecting the church's power and influence over their personal lives as much as possible. Among the Solas, there was the "Sola Fide" (by faith alone), which is summed up by a Wikipedia author as:
The doctrine of Sola Fide or Faith Alone asserts that it is on the basis of God's grace through the believer's faith alone that believers are forgiven their transgressions of the Law of God, rather than on the basis of any good works.
...although all people have disobeyed God's commands, God declares those people obedient who place their confidence, their faith, in what God has done through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus.
The resulting Individualism escapes the idea of "good deeds" toward a community in an effort to forge a more personal relationship with god. Without making any judgements, from the viewpoint of those who believe there is no god, this relationship individualism indeed.
It should be noted at this point, however, that the communities built and supported by the Protestant community are vast and crucial to society indeed. I am not arguing that Protestants are moving us away from communal values. On the contrary, I'm arguing that these ancient beliefs of Martin Luther lend themselves to individualism and the rejection of community, and that the Protestant churches disregard this easy answer is merely another point supporting this new socio/religious attitude.
That said, the blind faith in the power of the individual is the new danger as much as blind faith in the power of 'God' (or 'Gods') endangered (and no doubt demolished) the societies of old. The necessity of forgetting sin is now replaced by the necessity of denial, not just of the crime to the criminal, but denial of the criminal to society, and with him all the actions which created him.
Modern denial is nothing more than an acknowledgement of shameful impotance--of sensing a lack of power on a personal level, and supporting the ease of inaction which follows. The disgust a rich man feels for the homeless may be very real (The Reagan Example), but he cannot understand it if he considers himself a god. His self-confidence is an illusion, and also his only defense--faith in the self means lip-service faith in others, including the homeless, to acheive what one has achieved. This way, instead of disgust for the failure of his community, it is disgust for the failure of the self. The community is denied. It is denial by convenience, and it follows from disgust by necessity.
It is no coincidence that those who see themselves as most independent from a community--those who are rich and powerful--have the least sense of accountability to the rest of us, to the point where it drives them to become criminals themselves. If this is the end of a religious epoch, Individualism will be the new doctrine of choice--and it will be a dark time; we see it already today (The Enron Example).
In the Apocolypse of the old religious attitudes, Individualism is the Pale Horseman, and Self-Importance is the Hell that follows with him.
But this transient religious epoch, the worship of the Self, will be much more abbreviated than the most recent or next. The denial of community cannot withstand the tests of reason for nearly as long as did faith in a "plan of god," which mustn't be tampered with. Where the latter was acknowledging of its density and lack of proof, the former cannot be denied entirely. Even the most aloof Individualist of us all recognizes membership in a community at some level, and our reliance upon the community to judge, maintain, and protect itself is fact.
Individualism is not something that's going to go away. And it shouldn't--but right now, as our society reacts to oppress the ideas of community that came along with the unfortunate examples of the otherwise noble doctrines of Socialism and Communism, we see the dangers of obsession with Individual power.
How soon we are able to acknowledge the community that binds us, and subsequently rise up out of the realm of the tyrants of Individuality, is the single most important issue facing us today.
It is the idea of Liberalism vs. Totalitarianism, and it will be the battle between real-life Heavan and Hell for years to come.