Jan 21, 2023·edited Jan 22, 2023Liked by Thomas Shull
Outstanding article. As a Christian with a firm belief in the freedom of religion, I find this is a very cogent discussion of what is wrong with the National Conservative and Integralist positions.
I do think there's an aspect that could use more emphasis, though, and I'm going to pick on the Integralists first because that's a clearer example. According to Public Religion Research Institute data, only 22% of Americans identify as Catholic. So the Integralists' desire to create a Franco-ish state that will "publicly recognize the truth of the Catholic religion” and act “as agent for the authority of the Church” is really a (thinly) veiled call for minority rule (by, of course, the same Catholic Integralists who support such a thing).
Not to let the National Conservatives off the hook, they "represent" only about 46% of the population (and that's a very high estimate, since some significant number--maybe (probably?) the majority--of those who identify as Protestant, like me, resoundingly reject the idea of a theocratic or quasi-theocratic state). So again, the National Conservatives are on a crusade (I use the possibly offensive term with malice aforethought) to subject the unwilling majority of the country to their preferences. In the case of the foremost issue where the religious right seeks to flex their minoritarian "muscle," we see this at work in the current flurry of severe abortion restrictions, when according to a Gallup poll, 55% of Americans are "pro-choice," and an even higher percentage think abortions should be legal in at least some cases.
I think it's not too far a reach to identify all of these movements on behalf of a supposed and illusory believing majority--and similar movements on behalf of the volk or the workers--as barely-disguised attempts to establish minority rule, with the proponents in the favored minority. Maybe there have always been, and will always be, those among us whose ability to convince is unequal to their desire to rule, and they will always invoke God, or the volk, or the workers, or some other higher authority as the reason they should be in charge.
Great article. Reading it while watching 100,000+ israelis packing the streets of Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities protesting their new government’s plans to thrashing the judiciary, strengthening religious institutions and weakening their civil and human rights. The article talks about Christian and Muslim threats to liberalism, tolerance and secular life styles but substitute fundamentalist Judaism for Chistianity - or in the case of India, fundamentalist Hinduism - and word by word it could decribe what is happening in Israel right now at a breathtaking speed.
Wonderful piece. But perhaps they should ask not why their own spiritual systems are failing, but why they’re so convinced that they’re failing when in many ways the world is at its healthiest (and the goals of religion have never been closer to being achieved). I say this as a deeply observant Orthodox Jew. Every time brings its challenges but our challenges are so much lighter than anything we ever saw in the past
Nope. You can't have faith-based government, not even liberal faith in human nature. Faith can't change.
Note that basic to Christianity is the concept of sin, which to me is a recognition that we've outrun our evolution by exploding our population, necessitating cities and necessarily powerful governments.
Religion is something we must outgrow. Dead believers may be a good thing.
“Liberalism also holds that no comprehensive worldview can rely on the state as its patron saint. It requires that proponents of these views rely on their own resources—their own ability to inspire and appeal—to win hearts and minds.“
My reading of the Integralist and Nat Con statements, contrary to the author’s, is that they would support the position above. There appears to be nothing akin to a call for a theocratic government like Iran’s or one such as Turkey’s that may appear to be heading in such a direction but will reverse itself shortly. There appears, instead, to be a call to use the existing levers of government to counter secular movements that have threatened a way of life for groups of religious people who make up roughly two-thirds of the US population. Take DEI, I have frequently seen the DEI movement characterized as a secular religion. It is clearly a comprehensive worldview but, of course, not associated with any particular religious orientation. Should it rely on the state as its patron saint?
Liberalism without a shadow of a doubt is a comprehensive ideology. Liberals and liberal institutions promote their total life at the expense of all others; then they make claims like you just did that it is neutral to taunt enemies of liberalism who you know cannot respond. Liberalism claims to be true as well as to influence your entire life. It is no different than any other ideology in human history. Heck liberalism even has its own contradictions and paradoxes. Core liberal beliefs like there exists a common human nature which we all share and that one can determine once and for all what humans need is incompatible with the modern Darwinian synthesis. Check out the work of David Hull or the SEP page on human nature for more info on this. The liberals are as guilty of science denial as anyone else and they never not once get derided on it. Liberal beliefs are in contradiction with each other; scientific rationalism and human equality. This is no less of a problem than the Trinity is for Christians; but the belief in the truth of the Trinity makes Christians irrationalists who are threats while libs get away with believing formal contradictions? This is absurd and people are right to be furious.
Outstanding article. As a Christian with a firm belief in the freedom of religion, I find this is a very cogent discussion of what is wrong with the National Conservative and Integralist positions.
I do think there's an aspect that could use more emphasis, though, and I'm going to pick on the Integralists first because that's a clearer example. According to Public Religion Research Institute data, only 22% of Americans identify as Catholic. So the Integralists' desire to create a Franco-ish state that will "publicly recognize the truth of the Catholic religion” and act “as agent for the authority of the Church” is really a (thinly) veiled call for minority rule (by, of course, the same Catholic Integralists who support such a thing).
Not to let the National Conservatives off the hook, they "represent" only about 46% of the population (and that's a very high estimate, since some significant number--maybe (probably?) the majority--of those who identify as Protestant, like me, resoundingly reject the idea of a theocratic or quasi-theocratic state). So again, the National Conservatives are on a crusade (I use the possibly offensive term with malice aforethought) to subject the unwilling majority of the country to their preferences. In the case of the foremost issue where the religious right seeks to flex their minoritarian "muscle," we see this at work in the current flurry of severe abortion restrictions, when according to a Gallup poll, 55% of Americans are "pro-choice," and an even higher percentage think abortions should be legal in at least some cases.
I think it's not too far a reach to identify all of these movements on behalf of a supposed and illusory believing majority--and similar movements on behalf of the volk or the workers--as barely-disguised attempts to establish minority rule, with the proponents in the favored minority. Maybe there have always been, and will always be, those among us whose ability to convince is unequal to their desire to rule, and they will always invoke God, or the volk, or the workers, or some other higher authority as the reason they should be in charge.
Great article. Reading it while watching 100,000+ israelis packing the streets of Tel Aviv and other Israeli cities protesting their new government’s plans to thrashing the judiciary, strengthening religious institutions and weakening their civil and human rights. The article talks about Christian and Muslim threats to liberalism, tolerance and secular life styles but substitute fundamentalist Judaism for Chistianity - or in the case of India, fundamentalist Hinduism - and word by word it could decribe what is happening in Israel right now at a breathtaking speed.
Wonderful piece. But perhaps they should ask not why their own spiritual systems are failing, but why they’re so convinced that they’re failing when in many ways the world is at its healthiest (and the goals of religion have never been closer to being achieved). I say this as a deeply observant Orthodox Jew. Every time brings its challenges but our challenges are so much lighter than anything we ever saw in the past
Nope. You can't have faith-based government, not even liberal faith in human nature. Faith can't change.
Note that basic to Christianity is the concept of sin, which to me is a recognition that we've outrun our evolution by exploding our population, necessitating cities and necessarily powerful governments.
Religion is something we must outgrow. Dead believers may be a good thing.
“Liberalism also holds that no comprehensive worldview can rely on the state as its patron saint. It requires that proponents of these views rely on their own resources—their own ability to inspire and appeal—to win hearts and minds.“
My reading of the Integralist and Nat Con statements, contrary to the author’s, is that they would support the position above. There appears to be nothing akin to a call for a theocratic government like Iran’s or one such as Turkey’s that may appear to be heading in such a direction but will reverse itself shortly. There appears, instead, to be a call to use the existing levers of government to counter secular movements that have threatened a way of life for groups of religious people who make up roughly two-thirds of the US population. Take DEI, I have frequently seen the DEI movement characterized as a secular religion. It is clearly a comprehensive worldview but, of course, not associated with any particular religious orientation. Should it rely on the state as its patron saint?
Christianism is just another form of right-wing collectivism
Liberalism without a shadow of a doubt is a comprehensive ideology. Liberals and liberal institutions promote their total life at the expense of all others; then they make claims like you just did that it is neutral to taunt enemies of liberalism who you know cannot respond. Liberalism claims to be true as well as to influence your entire life. It is no different than any other ideology in human history. Heck liberalism even has its own contradictions and paradoxes. Core liberal beliefs like there exists a common human nature which we all share and that one can determine once and for all what humans need is incompatible with the modern Darwinian synthesis. Check out the work of David Hull or the SEP page on human nature for more info on this. The liberals are as guilty of science denial as anyone else and they never not once get derided on it. Liberal beliefs are in contradiction with each other; scientific rationalism and human equality. This is no less of a problem than the Trinity is for Christians; but the belief in the truth of the Trinity makes Christians irrationalists who are threats while libs get away with believing formal contradictions? This is absurd and people are right to be furious.